Abstract

Background: Combination therapy with infliximab (IFX) and azathioprine (AZA) is significantly more effective for treatment of active Crohn's disease (CD) than IFX monotherapy. However, AZA is associated with an increased risk of lymphoma in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA for drug-refractory CD.

Methods: A decision analysis model is constructed to compare, over a time horizon of 1 year, the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA and that of IFX monotherapy for CD patients refractory to conventional non-anti-TNF-α therapy. The treatment efficacy, adverse effects, quality-of-life scores, and treatment costs are derived from published data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are performed to estimate the uncertainty in the results.

Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA is 24,917 GBP/QALY when compared with IFX monotherapy. The sensitivity analyses reveal that the utility score of nonresponding active disease has the strongest influence on the cost-effectiveness, with ICERs ranging from 17,147 to 45,564 GBP/QALY. Assuming that policy makers are willing to pay 30,000 GBP/QALY, the probability that combination therapy with IFX plus AZA is cost-effective is 0.750.

Conclusions: Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA appears to be a cost-effective treatment for drug-refractory CD when compared with IFX monotherapy. Furthermore, the additional lymphoma risk of combination therapy has little significance on its cost-effectiveness.

Introduction

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the gastrointestinal tract of unknown etiology. CD is characterized by relapsing and remitting episodes that progress to stricture, fistula, and/or abscess, and disease onset is typically between 15 and 30 years of age.1 There is no established curative therapy for CD as yet, and therefore not only achieving but also maintaining symptom-free remission is an important goal in CD treatment.

Over the last decade, the advent of biologic therapy has significantly improved the clinical management of CD. Infliximab (IFX) has been shown to induce and maintain clinical remission in patients unresponsive to conventional drug therapies such as corticosteroids or immunomodulators. The ACCENT 1 trial revealed that regular maintenance therapy with IFX was significantly more effective than placebo in maintaining clinical remission in patients responsive to an initial infusion.2 Recently, combination therapy with IFX plus azathioprine (AZA) was shown to be more effective than IFX alone in the treatment of immunomodulator-naïve patients with moderate to severely active CD who were refractory to conventional drug therapy. A randomized clinical trial conducted by Colombel et al. involving 508 adult patients with moderate to severe CD who had not previously undergone immunosuppressive or biologic therapy demonstrated that the combination of IFX and AZA was superior to either IFX or AZA alone. At week 26 (the primary end point), 56.8% of patients receiving IFX plus AZA were in steroid-free remission, compared with 44.4% of patients receiving IFX monotherapy.3

However, immunomodulators such as AZA and 6-mercaptopurine (6-MP) have been implicated in the development of lymphoma among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). A recent prospective nationwide study in France by the Cesame Study Group that involved almost 20,000 IBD patients found a significant increase in the risk of lymphoma development in patients receiving immunomodulators.4 Moreover, in a meta-analysis reported by Kandiel et al., an approximate 4-fold increase in the risk of lymphoma was suggested in IBD patients treated with AZA or 6-MP.5

Several studies have attempted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of IFX in CD6–10; however, the cost-effectiveness of IFX in combination with AZA is not currently known. This study aimed, therefore, to assess the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA for refractory CD among nonresponders to conventional drug therapy.

Methods

Model

A decision tree was constructed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA in the treatment of CD compared with that of IFX monotherapy (Fig. 1).

The root of the decision tree consisted of a hypothetical cohort of 25-year-old men, weighing 60 kg, who were biologic-naïve CD patients refractory to conventional non-anti-TNF-α therapy and who had a score of 220 to 450 points on the Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI). An age of 25 years was chosen as the entry age since CD onset typically occurs in the late teens to age 30.1 The time horizon for the model was 1 year. Both therapies are given in only the year of study.

Assumptions

We assumed that patients in the IFX monotherapy branch of the tree received intravenous infusion of IFX 5 mg/kg at weeks 0, 2, 6, and every 8 weeks thereafter. In contrast, patients in the combination therapy with IFX plus AZA branch were assumed to have received oral AZA capsules at a dose of 2.5 mg/kg daily in addition to equivalent IFX therapy.3

Clinical response was defined as a reduction from the baseline CDAI score of at least 70 points or 25% (whichever was the greater), and clinical remission was defined as a CDAI score of less than 150 points. Furthermore, we made the following assumptions: if any serious adverse effects related to IFX occurred, then this occurrence was at initial infusion (i.e., at week 0); patients who did not achieve clinical response at 12 weeks would not be offered retreatment with IFX; and nonresponders would have the same prognosis as those receiving nonbiologic therapy. Nonbiologic therapy included treatment with 5-aminosalicylic acid, antibiotics, immunomodulators, corticosteroids, or surgery. In the combination therapy, we assumed that AZA discontinuation could occur for patients who received IFX maintenance therapy.

Model parameters

The probability of clinical efficacy, the probability of therapy discontinuation owing to adverse events or lymphoma risk, the quality of life scores, and the treatment costs were derived from published data (Tables 1 and 2).

The response rate at 12 weeks for each therapy was based on a Hungarian nationwide multicenter report by Miheller et al.,11 and the maintenance remission rate at 1 year for each therapy was calculated from the weighted means of randomized controlled trials.2,3,12 However, since response rates were not reported by Lemann et al. and Colombel et al.,3,12 the response rate at 1 year for each therapy was assumed to be 1.35-fold of the remission rate reported by the ACCENT 1 trial.2

The probability of developing each adverse effect of IFX or AZA was determined according to meta-analyses and the most recent single-center safety profile data.1315 Likewise, the value used for the annual risk of lymphoma in the general population was based on the most recently available surveillance epidemiology and end results data.16 In accordance with a recent meta-analysis conducted by Kandiel et al., we assumed no increase in the baseline risk of lymphoma for a patient with CD and a 4.18-fold increase in lymphoma risk when a patient was treated with AZA.5

Treatment response estimates in the nonbiologic therapy branch of the decision tree were derived from a previous analysis using a cohort Markov model of European CD patients who did not receive biological therapy.18 Age-specific death rates for the general population were estimated from data for England and Wales between 2001 and 2007.19

The drug costs of IFX and AZA were also extracted from UK sources.20 Annual care costs were obtained from Sprakes et al., who assessed the care costs of CD patients for the 12 months before and after IFX therapy by looking at NHS reference costs.21 These annual costs included inpatient admissions, day case admissions for IFX infusions, outpatient visits, surgical procedures, endoscopic procedures, radiological investigations, blood tests, and the cost of all prescribed medications. However, no evidence was found for the cost associated with lymphoma complicated by CD. Therefore, an annual cost of 4,908.43 GBP was assumed in this work based on a study of illness costs in Germany.22 All costs were converted into GBP using 2008 exchange rates reported by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.23 Owing to the perspective chosen for this study, productivity costs were omitted accordingly.

The primary measure of effectiveness in the present analysis was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Values for health-related quality of life, which vary from 0 (death) to 1 (perfect health), were taken from Gregor et al., who used a standard gamble approach to define utility scores with CDAI.24 However, since utility scores were not given by Gregor et al. for nonresponding active disease or lymphoma complicated by CD, we assigned a utility of 0.4 to the nonresponding active state based on a consultation with a panel of UK gastroenterologists reported by Lindsay et al., and assumed that the lymphoma state decreased utility scores by 0.15 following Lewis et al.8,17

Cost-effectiveness analysis

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER): the ratio between cost increments and QALY increments. Here, ICER represents the additional cost necessary to achieve one extra QALY when comparing combination therapy with IFA plus AZA and IFX monotherapy. In accordance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, an ICER of less than 30,000 GBP/QALY was defined as being cost-effective.8–10

First, we performed a base-case analysis that incorporated the baseline parameters shown in Tables 1 and 2. Second, to assess the variability of the results, multiple one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted by adjusting parameters such as treatment efficacy, adverse effect rate, lymphoma risk, annual care cost, and quality of life utility scores. Lastly, probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using Monte Carlo simulations involving 10,000 samples were performed to consider the uncertainty in the base-case results of the estimated costs and QALYs. For each run of the simulation, input values for parameters were drawn at random from appropriate distributions. In PSA, the transition probabilities and quality of life utility scores were explored by assuming a beta distribution, whereas annual care costs were varied according to a normal distribution. Here, means and standard deviations derived from values given in the data sources were used to estimate the distribution parameters. Triangular distributions were introduced for the percentage of maintenance responders at 1 year and for the lymphoma risk by using the lower and upper ranges of these two variables. Additionally, a two-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the influence of parameters on the relative risk of lymphoma and on the maintenance remission rate of the combination therapy.

All analyses were performed using the TreeAge Pro 2009 software program (TreeAge Software, Williamstown, MA).

Results

Base-case analysis

In the base-case, combination therapy with IFX plus AZA yielded an additional 0.064 QALYs at an additional cost of 1593.35 GBP compared with IFX monotherapy. Thus, the resulting ICER of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA was estimated at 24,917 GBP/QALY. Since this value is lower than the 30,000 GBP/QALY limit, the combination therapy can be considered to be cost-effective in comparison with IFX monotherapy (Table 3).

Sensitivity analysis

The one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that ICERs remain in the 17,147–45,564 GBP/QALY range (Table 4), and that quality of life utilities for nonresponding active disease had the highest impact on ICER (45,564 GBP/QALY over IFX monotherapy). The impact of changes in lymphoma risk was less significant, with ICERs for the lower and upper risk rates being 24,849 and 25,026 GBP/QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curve resulting from PSA for combination therapy with IFX plus AZA are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. If a cost of 30,000 GBP/QALY is deemed acceptable, then the probability of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA being less than or equal to this value is 0.750 (Fig. 3). By simultaneously considering the lymphoma risk and maintenance remission rate, Fig. 4 shows the boundary at which the combination therapy has an ICER below 30,000 GBP/QALY, and thus when it becomes the dominant strategy.

Discussion

The choice between anti-TNF-α monotherapy and combination anti-TNF-α therapy with an immunomodulator is a difficult one for both the provider and patient. Although randomized controlled trial data shows improved treatment from combination therapy, concern still exists that this benefit is not worth the increased risk of using two immunosuppressant medications. The current analysis shows that over a period of 1 year, combination therapy with IFX plus AZA was cost-effective for drug-refractory CD in comparison with IFX monotherapy.

We chose a 1-year time horizon for this analysis because reliable follow-up data are not available beyond this time frame. Long-term clinical efficacy of combination therapy after 1 year is not yet known, and the risks of lymphoma are possibly increased when using AZA and IFX in combination; however, we are unable to make such predictions from the existing data.

We did not explore whether these results can be generalized to other anti-TNF-α agents used for the treatment of CD. Generalization is dependent upon whether adalimumab (ADA) and certlizumab pegol also show increased effectiveness when used in combination with immunomodulators, and whether the profiles of these medications are different from IFX.

To determine how the key parameters in the mono and combined therapies affected cost-effectiveness, these parameters were varied by one-way sensitivity analyses. The analyses showed that the quality of life utility associated with nonresponding active disease was the most influential parameter on the cost-effectiveness of the therapies. At the highest utility score for nonresponding active disease, the analyses suggested that the cost of combination therapy was too high for CD treatment.

Model uncertainty was estimated by bootstrapping techniques and graphically represented on a cost-effectiveness plane. PSA demonstrated that the model results were consistent across multiple stochastic runs. Furthermore, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was presented to indicate the probability of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA being cost-effective for a given ICER investment ceiling that policymakers are willing to invest. At an investment of 30,000 GBP/QALY, 75.0% of the simulations showed that combination therapy was cost-effective. The results also illustrated that any uncertainty around the input parameters does not significantly influence the above conclusions.

In our study, the base-case consisted of a hypothetical cohort of CD patients refractory to conventional non-anti-TNF-α therapy because biologic therapy with IFX must be applied to moderate or severe cases of CD or when a patient is refractory to other treatment. However, there are limited data available regarding the use of combination therapy. The SONIC trial did not address the question of whether combination therapy is superior to IFX monotherapy after failure of AZA.3 The benefits of combination therapy found in that trial may not extend to patients who are already known to be nonresponders to AZA.

Exceptions may also exist regarding the benefits of combination therapy, since certain patient groups may be at a higher risk for adverse events. For example, young patients appear to be at high risk for hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma,25 and older patients taking concomitant corticosteroids are more likely to develop serious infections.26 Moreover, risk data for combination therapy with IFX plus AZA are limited, and whether the risk of lymphoma is increased in patients receiving this combination therapy is not yet known. Although the rate of lymphoma in the 1st year is likely to be low, patients can perceive this risk as being higher. Therefore, as shown in Fig. 4, we conducted a two-way sensitivity analysis that compared the risk of lymphoma and the maintenance remission rate. At a relative risk of lymphoma of greater than 129.0, the combination therapy dominated the IFX monotherapy when the maintenance remission rate at 1 year was 44.6%. The lymphoma risk reported in the literature is 1/30 of the relative risk threshold found here.5 Hence, larger clinical trials with longer follow-up times are needed to further assess the efficacy and safety profile of this combination therapy.

In our study, we did not include a number of IFX-related adverse effects that are only rarely reported, such as immune phenomena, hematologic abnormalities, liver failure, tuberculosis, demyelinating disease, and vasculitis. Because the rates of these events are especially low, we believed it unlikely that their inclusion would have an impact on model outcomes. Rates of AZA-related adverse effects such as specially pancreatitis and nausea in the combination therapy were of a similar level to other adverse effects. However, we did not include a number of AZA-related effects since they did not significantly influence the switch in treatment strategy.

Several studies have attempted to estimate the cost-effectiveness of IFX for patients with CD.610 Lindsay et al. performed a cost-effectiveness analysis by using a Markov model of a group of hypothetical adult CD patients weighing 60-kg and treated with IFX (5 mg/kg every 8 weeks), based on the regimen in the ACCENT 1 trial. They found that IFX maintenance therapy was cost-effective for both active luminal and fistulizing CD in comparison with standard care if a threshold of 30,000 GBP/QALY was used.8 Bodger et al. estimated a more favorable cost-effectiveness for both IFX and ADA. Specifically, the authors estimated that the cost per QALY of ADA and IFX were 21,300 GBP and 10,301 GBP, respectively, when compared with standard care.9 In contrast, a French lifetime cost-utility analysis of IFX using costs estimated by expert opinion reported that IFX therapy is cost-effective only in cases of episodic treatment. However, the ICER calculated in that study exceeded the threshold value predetermined according to their criteria for maintenance therapy.6 In addition, a model has been recently presented that uses IFX and ADA for CD.27 We therefore conclude from this systematic review of four previous economic evaluations that, in all cases, the studies found higher ICERs for IFX compared to standard care. As regards combination therapy, recently Siegel et al. suggested that combination therapy yielded higher expected QALYs than IFX monotherapy over a period of 1 year. However, they did not evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combination therapy in their study.28

In Japan, IFX is one of the anti-TNF-α agents available for clinical application. IFX has been approved for remission induction therapy in patients with active CD since 2002 and for maintenance therapy after induction of remission since 2007, in accordance with guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. In 13 university hospitals in 2009, 27.2% of Japanese CD patients were treated with IFX therapy.

In conclusion, for patients with drug-refractory CD, combination therapy with IFX plus AZA is cost-effective in comparison with IFX monotherapy. The results of our study can help guide the informed consent process, aid both decision makers and physicians in determining therapy alternatives for CD, and hopefully stimulate further research addressing cost-effectiveness and risk/benefit tradeoffs for medical therapy of IBD. Future economic evaluations of CD are needed to focus further on the lymphoma risk identified and on other adverse events associated with biologics and immunomodulators.

Conflict of interest

None.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by a grant from CISA (the Platform for Clinical Information Statistical Analysis; NTT DATA Co., Tokyo, Japan). The CISA database was used as a part of the supplementary materials for our study.

References

1
Cosnes
J.
Gower-Rousseau
C.
Seksik
P.
et al
Epidemiology and natural history of inflammatory bowel diseases
Gastroenterology
 
140
6
2011
1785
1794
2
Hanauer
S.B.
Feagan
B.G.
Lichternstein
G.R.
et al
Maintenance infliximab for Crohn's disease. The ACCENT 1 randomised trial
Lancet
 
359
2002
1541
1549
3
Colombel
J.F.
Rutgeerts
P.
Renisch
W.
et al
SONIC study group. Infliximab, azathioprine, or combination therapy for Crohn's disease
N Engl J Med
 
362
2010
1383
1395
4
Beaugerie
L.
Brousse
N.
Bouvier
A.M.
et al
Lymphoproliferative disorders in patients receiving thiopurines for inflammatory bowel disease: a prospective observational cohort study
Lancet
 
374
2009
1617
1625
5
Kandiel
A.
Fraser
A.G.
Korelitz
B.I.
et al
Increased risk of lymphoma among inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine
Gut
 
54
2005
1121
1125
6
Jaisson-Hot
I.
Flourie
B.
Descos
L.
Colin
C.
Management for severe Crohn's disease: a lifetime cost-utility analysis
Int J Technol Assess Health Care
 
20
2004
274
279
7
Kaplan
G.G.
Hur
C.
Korzenik
J.
Sands
B.E.
Infliximab dose escalation vs. initiation of adalimumab for loss of response in Crohn's disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
 
26
2007
1509
1520
8
Lindsay
J.
Punekar
Y.S.
Morris
J.
et al
Health-economic analysis: cost-effectiveness of scheduled maintenance treatment with infliximab for Crohn's disease—modeling outcomes in active luminal and fistulizing disease in adults
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
 
28
2008
76
87
9
Bodger
K.
Kikuchi
T.
Hughes
D.
Cost-effectiveness of biological therapy for Crohn's disease: Markov cohort analyses incorporating United Kingdom patient-level cost data
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
 
30
2009
265
274
10
Punekar
Y.S.
Sunderland
T.
Hawkins
N.
Lindsay
J.
Cost-effectiveness of scheduled maintenance treatment with infliximab for pediatric Crohn's disease
Value Health
 
13
2
2010
188
195
11
Miheller
P.
Lakatos
P.L.
Horváth
G.
et al
Efficacy and safety of infliximab induction therapy in Crohn's Disease in Central Europe—a Hungarian nationwide observational study
BMC Gastroenterol
 
9
2009
66
.
12
Lemann
M.
Mary
J.Y.
Duclos
B.
et al
Infliximab plus azathioprine for steroiddependent Crohn's disease patients: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial
Gastroenterology
 
130
2006
1054
1061
13
Hamzaoglu
H.
Cooper
J.
Alsahli
M.
et al
Safety of infliximab in Crohn's disease: a large single-center experience
Inflamm Bowel Dis
 
16
12
2010
2109
2116
14
Siegel
C.A.
Hur
C.
Korzenik
J.R.
et al
Risk and benefits of infliximab for the treatment of Crohn's disease
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
 
4
2006
1017
1024
15
Pearson
D.C.
May
G.R.
Fick
G.H.
et al
Azathioprine and 6-mercaptopurine in Crohn's disease. A meta-analysis
Ann Intern Med
 
123
2
1995
132
142
16
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Database
 
Available at:
http://seer.cancer.gov/
accessed on 4 August 2011
17
Lewis
J.D.
Schwartz
J.S.
Lichtenstein
G.R.
Azathioprine for maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease: benefits outweigh the risk of lymphoma
Gastroenterology
 
118
2000
1018
1024
18
Odes
S.
Vardi
H.
Friger
M.
et al
Clinical and economic outcomes in a population-based European cohort of 948 ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease patient by Markov analysis
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
 
31
2010
735
744
19
The East of England Public Health Observatory Database
 
Available at:
http://www.erpho.org.uk/
accessed on 4 August 2011
20
Buchanan
J.
Wordsworth
S.
Ahmad
T.
et al
Managing the long term care of inflammatory bowel disease patients: the cost to European health care providers
J Crohns Colitis
 
5
4
2011
301
316
21
Sprakes
M.B.
Ford
A.C.
Suares
N.C.
et al
Costs of care for Crohn's disease following the introduction of infliximab: a single-centre UK experience
Aliment Pharmacol Ther
 
32
2010
1357
1363
22
Reis
A.
Ihle
P.
Paulus
U.
et al
Cost of illness of malignant lymphoma in Germany
Eur J Cancer Care
 
15
4
2006
379
385
23
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD Economic Outlook No. 87 Annex Tables—Table of Contents
 
2008
24
Gregor
J.C.
McDonald
J.W.D.
Klar
N.
et al
An evaluation of utility measurements in Crohn's disease
Inflamm Bowel Dis
 
3
1997
265
276
25
Ochenrider
M.G.
Patterson
D.J.
Aboulafia
D.M.
Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma in a young man with Crohn's disease: case report and literature review
Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk
 
10
2
2010
144
148
26
Lichtenstein
G.R.
Feagan
B.G.
Cohen
R.D.
et al
Serious infections and mortality in association with therapies for Crohn's disease: TREAT registry
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
 
4
5
2006
621
630
27
Dretzke
J.
Edlin
R.
Round
J.
et al
A systematic review and economic evaluation of the use of tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) inhibitors, adalimumab and infliximab, for Crohn's disease
Health Technol Assess
 
5
6
2011
1
244
28
Siegel
C.A.
Finlayson
S.R.
Sands
B.E.
et al
Adverse events do not outweigh benefits of combination therapy for Crohn's disease in a decision analytic model
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
 
10
1
2012
46
51
Fig. 1

Structure of the Crohn's Disease (CD) decision tree for cost-effectiveness analysis (IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine).

Fig. 1

Structure of the Crohn's Disease (CD) decision tree for cost-effectiveness analysis (IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine).

Fig. 2

Cost-effectiveness plane resulting from probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Fig. 2

Cost-effectiveness plane resulting from probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Fig. 3

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA.

Fig. 3

Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve of combination therapy with IFX plus AZA.

Fig. 4

Two-way sensitivity analysis evaluating thresholds for simultaneous change in lymphoma risk and maintenance remission rate.

Fig. 4

Two-way sensitivity analysis evaluating thresholds for simultaneous change in lymphoma risk and maintenance remission rate.

Table 1

Estimates of model inputs.

Parameter Base Range Reference 
Treatment efficacy    
Clinical response rate at week 12    
IFX monotherapy 0.735 0.609–0.861 11 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA 0.882 0.846–0.918 11 
Maintenance remission rate    
IFX monotherapy    
Sustained remission at 1 year 0.309 0.234–0.384 2,3 
Sustained response at 1 yeara 0.487   
Loss of response 0.513   
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Sustained remission at 1 year 0.446 0.358–0.535 3,12 
Sustained response at 1 yeara 0.705   
Loss of response 0.295   
Adverse effect associated with IFX    
Discontinue IFX because of serious adverse effect 0.111 0.075–0.147 13 
Death due to serious adverse effect 0.004 0.000–0.010 14 
Adverse effect associated with AZA    
Discontinue AZA because of adverse effect 0.089 0.060–0.127 15 
Lymphoma risk    
Annual incidence of lymphoma per 100,000 in general population case 27.1 10.0–100.0 16 
CD patients RR = 1.00  5,14 
CD patients treated with AZA RR = 4.18 2.07–7.51 5 
Death from lymphoma within 1st year 0.297  17 
Nonbiologic therapy    
Remission 0.068  18 
Post-surgery remission 0.015  18 
Improvement to mild level of disease 0.201  18 
Remain drug refractory 0.711  18 
Death related to CD 0.005  18 
Age-specific death rates per 100,000 (25-year-old man) 71.8  19 
Parameter Base Range Reference 
Treatment efficacy    
Clinical response rate at week 12    
IFX monotherapy 0.735 0.609–0.861 11 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA 0.882 0.846–0.918 11 
Maintenance remission rate    
IFX monotherapy    
Sustained remission at 1 year 0.309 0.234–0.384 2,3 
Sustained response at 1 yeara 0.487   
Loss of response 0.513   
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Sustained remission at 1 year 0.446 0.358–0.535 3,12 
Sustained response at 1 yeara 0.705   
Loss of response 0.295   
Adverse effect associated with IFX    
Discontinue IFX because of serious adverse effect 0.111 0.075–0.147 13 
Death due to serious adverse effect 0.004 0.000–0.010 14 
Adverse effect associated with AZA    
Discontinue AZA because of adverse effect 0.089 0.060–0.127 15 
Lymphoma risk    
Annual incidence of lymphoma per 100,000 in general population case 27.1 10.0–100.0 16 
CD patients RR = 1.00  5,14 
CD patients treated with AZA RR = 4.18 2.07–7.51 5 
Death from lymphoma within 1st year 0.297  17 
Nonbiologic therapy    
Remission 0.068  18 
Post-surgery remission 0.015  18 
Improvement to mild level of disease 0.201  18 
Remain drug refractory 0.711  18 
Death related to CD 0.005  18 
Age-specific death rates per 100,000 (25-year-old man) 71.8  19 

IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine; RR: relative risk; CD: Crohn's disease.

a Responders include both patients in remission and patients who had a clinical response; response rate was assumed to be 1.35-fold (range = ± 0.15) of the remission rate.

Table 2

Annual care cost and utility scores.

Annual care cost (GBP) Base Range Reference 
IFX monotherapy    
Drug cost of IFXa 10,742.24  20 
Other costs except IFX    
Remissionb 1660.78  21 
Mild disease 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29 21 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Drug cost of IFXa 10,742.24  20 
Drug cost of AZAc 428.76  20 
Other costs except IFX and AZA 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29  
Remissionb 1,660.78  21 
Mild disease 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29 21 
Nonbiologic therapy    
Overall cost 4965.20  21 
Lymphoma treatment    
Cost related to CD 4965.20  21 
Cost related to lymphomad 4908.43  22 
    
Quality of life utilities Base Range Reference 
Remissione 0.89 0.80–0.98 14,24 
Post-surgery remissione 0.86 0.77–0.95 14,24 
Mild diseasee 0.77 0.69–0.85 14,24 
Nonresponding active diseasef 0.40 0.18–0.62 8,14 
Lymphomag 0.25 0.03–0.47 8,14,17 
Death   
Annual care cost (GBP) Base Range Reference 
IFX monotherapy    
Drug cost of IFXa 10,742.24  20 
Other costs except IFX    
Remissionb 1660.78  21 
Mild disease 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29 21 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Drug cost of IFXa 10,742.24  20 
Drug cost of AZAc 428.76  20 
Other costs except IFX and AZA 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29  
Remissionb 1,660.78  21 
Mild disease 2214.37 1304.27–3108.29 21 
Nonbiologic therapy    
Overall cost 4965.20  21 
Lymphoma treatment    
Cost related to CD 4965.20  21 
Cost related to lymphomad 4908.43  22 
    
Quality of life utilities Base Range Reference 
Remissione 0.89 0.80–0.98 14,24 
Post-surgery remissione 0.86 0.77–0.95 14,24 
Mild diseasee 0.77 0.69–0.85 14,24 
Nonresponding active diseasef 0.40 0.18–0.62 8,14 
Lymphomag 0.25 0.03–0.47 8,14,17 
Death   

IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine; CD: Crohn's disease.

a IFX single infusion cost (5 mg/kg) = 1,342.78 GBP.

b Other costs for a patient in remission were assumed be 0.75-fold (range = ± 0.25) of the mild disease.

c AZA 1 month of maintenance treatment cost (2.5 mg/kg daily) = 35.73 GBP.

d Germany data (range = ± 50%).

e Range was assumed to be ± 10%.

f Expert opinion data (range = ± 0.22).

g Decrement of 0.15 was assigned.

Table 3

Results of base-case analysis.

 IFX monotherapy Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA 
Cost (GBP) 6979.68 8573.04 
Difference  1593.35 
QALYs 0.064 0.668 
Difference  0.064 
ICER  24,917 GBP/QALY 
 IFX monotherapy Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA 
Cost (GBP) 6979.68 8573.04 
Difference  1593.35 
QALYs 0.064 0.668 
Difference  0.064 
ICER  24,917 GBP/QALY 

IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine.

QALYs: quality-adjusted life years.

ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Table 4

Influence of variables through one-way sensitivity analysis.

Parameter Base-case estimate Sensitivity estimate ICERa (GBP/QALY) 
IFX monotherapy    
Initial response rate 0.735 0.609 24,326 
  0.861 25,907 
Maintenance remission rate 0.309 0.234 24,203 
  0.384 26,300 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Initial response rate 0.882 0.846 25,113 
  0.918 24,757 
Maintenance remission rate 0.446 0.358 26,366 
  0.535 24,373 
Percentage of responders (%) 135 120 24,009 
  150 25,687 
IFX serious adverse effect rate 0.111 0.075 24,197 
  0.147 24,197 
Mortality associated with IFX 0.004 0.000 24,197 
  0.010 24,197 
AZA adverse effect rate 0.089 0.060 24,944 
  0.127 24,880 
Annual incidence of lymphoma 27.1 10.0 24,854 
  100.0 25,192 
Lymphoma risk RR = 4.18 2.07 24,849 
  7.51 25,026 
CD-related cost post-IFX (GBP) 2214.37 1,304.27 22,769 
  3,108.29 27,027 
Percentage of costs in remission (%) 75 50 23,730 
  100 26,105 
Lymphoma-related cost (GBP) 4908.43 2454.21 24,901 
  7362.65 24,934 
Utility of remission 0.89 0.80 30,215 
    0.98 21,200 
Utility of post-surgery remission 0.86 0.77 24,820 
  0.95 25,016 
Utility of mild disease 0.77 0.69 25,255 
  0.85 24,589 
Utility of nonresponding active disease 0.40 0.18 17,147 
  0.62 45,564 
Decrement utility of lymphoma 0.15 0.00 24,893 
Parameter Base-case estimate Sensitivity estimate ICERa (GBP/QALY) 
IFX monotherapy    
Initial response rate 0.735 0.609 24,326 
  0.861 25,907 
Maintenance remission rate 0.309 0.234 24,203 
  0.384 26,300 
Combination therapy with IFX plus AZA    
Initial response rate 0.882 0.846 25,113 
  0.918 24,757 
Maintenance remission rate 0.446 0.358 26,366 
  0.535 24,373 
Percentage of responders (%) 135 120 24,009 
  150 25,687 
IFX serious adverse effect rate 0.111 0.075 24,197 
  0.147 24,197 
Mortality associated with IFX 0.004 0.000 24,197 
  0.010 24,197 
AZA adverse effect rate 0.089 0.060 24,944 
  0.127 24,880 
Annual incidence of lymphoma 27.1 10.0 24,854 
  100.0 25,192 
Lymphoma risk RR = 4.18 2.07 24,849 
  7.51 25,026 
CD-related cost post-IFX (GBP) 2214.37 1,304.27 22,769 
  3,108.29 27,027 
Percentage of costs in remission (%) 75 50 23,730 
  100 26,105 
Lymphoma-related cost (GBP) 4908.43 2454.21 24,901 
  7362.65 24,934 
Utility of remission 0.89 0.80 30,215 
    0.98 21,200 
Utility of post-surgery remission 0.86 0.77 24,820 
  0.95 25,016 
Utility of mild disease 0.77 0.69 25,255 
  0.85 24,589 
Utility of nonresponding active disease 0.40 0.18 17,147 
  0.62 45,564 
Decrement utility of lymphoma 0.15 0.00 24,893 

IFX: infliximab; AZA: azathioprine; RR: relative risk; CD: Crohn's disease.

ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

a Base-case = 24,917 GBP/QALY.