Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 191–199 | Cite as

Choice of NSAID and Management Strategy in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis

The Impact on Costs and Outcomes in the UK
  • Chris J. McCabe
  • Ron L. Akehurst
  • Jeff Kirsch
  • Malcolm Whitfield
  • Martin Backhouse
  • Anthony D. Woolf
  • David L. Scott
  • Paul Emery
  • Ian Haslock
Original Research Article Evaluation of NSAID Therapies in OA/RA

Abstract

Objective:

Although nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are an effective therapy for rheumatoid arthritis, they are associated with significant adverse effects, the management of which imposes additional costs on the healthcare system. Prescribing NSAIDs which have a lower risk of major adverse effects as the first-line NSAID for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis may be expected to lead to an improvement in clinical outcomes and reduce overall treatment costs. This analysis examines data from a published randomised controlled trial of 5 NSAIDs to explore these hypotheses.

Design and Setting:

Data from a clinical trial comparing 5 NSAIDs were combined with published cost data to construct 2 clinical decision models, reflecting alternative approaches to the management of major and minor adverse effects in the UK.

Interventions:

The 5 NSAIDs evaluated in the analysis were nabumetone, diclofenac, ibuprofen, piroxicam and naproxen, although only the results for ibuprofen and nabumetone are reported.

Main outcome measures and results:

The total cost of care per patient receiving nabumetone was estimated to be between 25 pounds sterling (£) and £41 more expensive than ibuprofen. In a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 patients, there were between 690 and 821 more major adverse effects using ibuprofen than nabumetone. The cost per life-year gained (LYG) from using nabumetone rather than ibuprofen ranged between £1880 and £2517 (1995 values), depending upon the management of adverse effects.

Conclusions:

These results indicate that: (i) prescribing the newer, currently more expensive, NSAIDs will not necessarily lead to cost savings; (ii) the management of adverse effects can have a significant impact on costs; and (iii) the additional cost may be justifiable in terms of the mortality and morbidity gains associated with the new lower-risk NSAIDs.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Ibuprofen Naproxen Piroxicam Major Adverse Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    British Medical Association (BMA) and The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British national formulary number 29. London: BMA, 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wynne HA, Campbell M. Pharmacoeconomics of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 3 (2): 107–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McIntosh E. The cost of rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1996; 35 (8): 781–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloor K, Maynard A. Is there scope for improving the costeffective prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs? Pharmacoeconomics 1996; 9 (6): 484–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eversmeyer W, Poland M, DeLapp RE, et al. Safety experience with Nabumetone versus Diclofenac, Naproxen, Ibuprofen and Piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 1993; 95 (S2A): 10S–8SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1980Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheldon T. Problems of using modelling in the economic evaluation of health care. Health Econ 1996; 5: 1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lister BJ, Poland M, DeLapp RE. Efficacy of Nabumetone versus Diclofenac, Naproxen, Ibuprofen and Piroxicam in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Med 1993; 95 Suppl. 2A: 2S–9SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Department of Health and Welsh Office. Drug Tariff NHS England and Wales. London: HMSO, 1994Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chemist and Druggist Monthly Price List. Tonbridge: Benn Publications Ltd., 199510. Royal College of Physicians (RCP). Upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage: guideline for good practice and audit of management. London: RCP PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hudson N, Faulkner G, Smith SJ, et al. Morbidity and treatment in elderly patients surviving hospital admission with bleeding peptic ulcer. Gut 1995; 37: 182–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Department of Health and Personal Social Services. Statistics for England. 1994 ed. London: HMSO, 1995Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Allan R, Dykes P. A study of the factors influencing mortality rates from gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Q J Med 1976; 45: 533–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hunt PS, Hansky K, Korman MG. Mortality in patients with haematemesis and melaena: a prospective study. BMJ 1979; I: 1239–40Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katschinski BD, Logan RFA, Davies J, et al. Audit of mortality in upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage. Postgrad Med J 1989; 65: 913–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Department of Health. Register of cost-effectiveness studies. London: HMSO, 1994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Charlton J, Murphy M. The health of adult Britain 1841-1994. Vol. 2. London: HMSO, 19Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris J. McCabe
    • 1
  • Ron L. Akehurst
    • 1
  • Jeff Kirsch
    • 2
  • Malcolm Whitfield
    • 1
  • Martin Backhouse
    • 3
  • Anthony D. Woolf
    • 4
  • David L. Scott
    • 5
  • Paul Emery
    • 6
  • Ian Haslock
    • 7
  1. 1.School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR)University of SheffieldSheffieldEngland
  2. 2.SmithKline Beecham UK Ltd.Welwyn Garden CityEngland
  3. 3.Novartis Pharma Inc.BasleSwitzerland
  4. 4.Royal Cornwall HospitalTruroEngland
  5. 5.Kings College HospitalLondonEngland
  6. 6.Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Research UnitUniversity of LeedsLeedsEngland
  7. 7.Cleveland General HospitalMiddlesboroughEngland

Personalised recommendations