1,485
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

A projected cost-utility analysis of avacopan for the treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis in Spain

, , , , , & show all
Pages 227-235 | Received 27 Oct 2023, Accepted 15 Dec 2023, Published online: 25 Dec 2023

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Source: Jayne et al. 2021 [Citation15].

Figure 1. Markov model for AAV.

The cycles represent different health states that are mutually exclusive, and the square represent health events.
ESRD: end-stage renal disease; Ind: induction.
Note: Active disease represents the starting health state.
Figure 1. Markov model for AAV.

Table 2. Costs and utilities included.

Table 3. Base case results: avacopan vs. GC arm (€ 2022).

Figure 2. Tornado diagram: avacopan vs. GC arm.

AAV: antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis; AVA: avacopan; CYC: cyclophosphamide; eGFR: estimated glomerular filtration rate; GC: glucocorticoids; ICUR: incremental cost-utility ratio; ITT: intention to treat; RTX: rituximab.
Figure 2. Tornado diagram: avacopan vs. GC arm.

Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness plane: avacopan vs. GC arm.

AVA: avacopan; CYC: cyclophosphamide; ICUR: Incremental cost-utility ratio; QALY: quality-adjusted life years; RTX: rituximab; WTP: willingness-to-pay.
Note: A WTP threshold of €60,000 per QALY gained was assumed.
Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness plane: avacopan vs. GC arm.

Figure 4. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: avacopan vs. GC arm.

AVA: avacopan; CYC: cyclophosphamide; GC: glucocorticoids; RTX: rituximab.
Figure 4. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve: avacopan vs. GC arm.

Table 4. Scenario analysis: progression to ESRD (€ 2022).

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download MS Word (45.3 KB)