Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
SLE imposes a significant morbidity and mortality as well as a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The model aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab implementation against belimumab as an add-on-therapy to the standard of care (SoC) over a lifetime horizon for Emirati patients. A microsimulation model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab against belimumab (IV/SC) as an add-on therapy to SoC in a hypothetical cohort of adult Emirati patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over a lifetime horizon. The clinical data was captured from published clinical trials as; TULIP-1, TULIP-2, BLISS-52, BLISS-76 and BLISS-SC. Health utility scores were constructed according to a linear regression model from the pooled data of the two TULIP Phase III trials of anifrolumab. Our model captures direct SLE-related medical costs from the Dubai Health Authority. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Using BICLA as a response criterion in the Johns Hopkins cohort, anifrolumab was found to be more effective than belimumab (IV/SC; the incremental discounted QALY of anifrolumab against belimumab was 0. 42). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 466, 371 (209, 135) and AED 252, 612 (113, 279), respectively, these ICERs are below the cost-effectiveness threshold in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (three times gross domestic product capita; AED 592, 278). In the Toronto lupus cohort, the ICER of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 491, 403 (220, 360) and AED 276, 642 (124, 055), respectively (anifrolumab was a cost-effective option vs. belimumab IV and belimumab SC). The addition of anifrolumab to SoC is a cost-effective option versus belimumab for the treatment of adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE, despite being allocated to SoC. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated by a reduction in complications and organ damage, which reflected costs and outcomes.
Elsisi et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: