Clinical and cost-effectiveness of epoprostenol, iloprost, bosentan, sitaxentan and sildenafil for pulmonary arterial hypertension within their licensed indications: a systematic review and economic evaluation.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of epoprostenol, iloprost, bosentan, sitaxentan and sildenafil for the treatment of adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) within their licensed indications.


METHODS
Major electronic databases (including the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched up to February 2007. Further data were obtained from dossiers submitted to NICE by the manufacturers of the technologies.


METHODS
The systematic clinical and economic reviews were conducted according to accepted procedures. Model-based economic evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of the technologies from the perspective of the UK NHS and personal social services were carried out.


RESULTS
In total, 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this assessment, mostly of 12-18 weeks duration and comparing one of the technologies added to supportive treatment with supportive treatment alone. Four published economic evaluations were identified. None produced results generalisable to the NHS. There was no consensus in the industry submissions on the most appropriate model structure for the technology assessment. Improvement in 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) was seen with intravenous epoprostenol in primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) patients with mixed functional class (FC) (mainly III and IV, licensed indication) compared with supportive care (58 metres; 95% CI 6-110). For bosentan compared with supportive care, the pooled result for improvement in 6MWD for FCIII patients with mixed PAH (licensed indication) was 59 metres (95% CI 20-99). For inhaled iloprost, sitaxentan and sildenafil no stratified data for improvement in 6MWD were available. The odds ratio (OR) for FC deterioration at 12 weeks was 0.40 (95% CI 0.13-1.20) for intravenous epoprostenol compared with supportive care. The corresponding values for inhaled iloprost (FCIII PPH patients; licensed indication), bosentan, sitaxentan (FCIII patients with mixed PAH; licensed indication) and sildenafil (FCIII patients with mixed PAH; licensed indication) were 0.29 (95% CI 0.07-1.18), 0.21 (95% CI 0.03-1.76), 0.18 (95% CI 0.02-1.64) and [Commercial-in-confidence information has been removed] respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the technologies plus supportive care compared with supportive care alone, determined by independent economic evaluation, were 277,000 pounds/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for FCIII and 343,000 pounds/QALY for FCIV patients for epoprostenol, 101,000 pounds/QALY for iloprost, 27,000 pounds/QALY for bosentan and 25,000 pounds/QALY for sitaxentan. For the most part sildenafil plus supportive care was more effective and less costly than supportive care alone and therefore dominated supportive care. In the case of epoprostenol the ICERs were sensitive to the price of epoprostenol and for bosentan and sitaxentan the ICERs were sensitive to running the model over a shorter time horizon and with a lower cost of epoprostenol. Two RCTs directly compared the technologies against each other with no significant differences observed between the technologies. Combinations of technologies were investigated in four RCTs, with some showing conflicting results.


CONCLUSIONS
All five technologies when added to supportive treatment and used at licensed dose(s) were more effective than supportive treatment alone in RCTs that included patients of mixed FC and types of PAH. Current evidence does not allow adequate comparisons between the technologies nor for the use of combinations of the technologies. Independent economic evaluation suggests that bosentan, sitaxentan and sildenafil may be cost-effective by standard thresholds and that iloprost and epoprostenol may not. If confirmed, the use of the most cost-effective treatment would result in a reduction in costs for the NHS. Long-term, double-blind RCTs of sufficient sample size that directly compare bosentan, sitaxentan and sildenafil, and evaluate outcomes including survival, quality of life, maintenance on treatment and impact on the use of resources for NHS and personal social services are needed.
Chen
Y-F
YF
Public Health, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Health & Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK.
Jowett
S
S
Barton
P
P
Malottki
K
K
Hyde
C
C
Gibbs
J S R
JS
Pepke-Zaba
J
J
Fry-Smith
A
A
Roberts
J
J
Moore
D
D
D000959:Antihypertensive Agents / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D000077300:Bosentan; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D065128:Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; D011464:Epoprostenol / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D006801:Humans; D006976:Hypertension, Pulmonary / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics; D016285:Iloprost / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D007555:Isoxazoles / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D010726:Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010879:Piperazines / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D011687:Purines / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000068677:Sildenafil Citrate; D013449:Sulfonamides / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D013450:Sulfones / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D013876:Thiophenes / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use; D014481:United States; D014665:Vasodilator Agents / Q000191:economics / Q000627:therapeutic use*
D000959:Antihypertensive Agents; D065128:Endothelin Receptor Antagonists; D007555:Isoxazoles; D010726:Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors; D010879:Piperazines; D011687:Purines; D013449:Sulfonamides; D013450:Sulfones; D013876:Thiophenes; D014665:Vasodilator Agents; D000068677:Sildenafil Citrate; D011464:Epoprostenol; C106276:sitaxsentan; D016285:Iloprost; D000077300:Bosentan