COST EFFECTIVENESS OF FIRSEKIBART FOR THE TREATMENT OF ACUTE GOUT PATIENTS UNSUITABLE FOR STANDARD THERAPY IN CHINA
Author(s)
Zixuan Wang, B.S., Nuoming Xu, M.Sc., Shitong Xie, PhD;
Tianjin University, School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin, China
Tianjin University, School of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, Tianjin, China
OBJECTIVES: Firsekibart, a first-in-class novel drug, demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing gout flare risk in its phase 3 trial. However, the economic value of this treatment remains uncertain. Our study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Firsekibart versus conventional compound betamethasone for the treatment of acute gout patients unsuitable for standard therapy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.
METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was developed using a short-term decision tree (24 weeks) followed by a long-term Markov model (alive and dead) with three health states to simulate the lifetime disease progression and costs for gout patients. Key clinical data were generated from the randomized phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of Firsekibart compared with betamethasone. Healthcare costs were determined from the Chinese pharmaceutical database, published literature and clinicians opinions. Health state utilities were obtained from a nationwide survey covering 1,000 gout patients in China, and were supplemented by values from published literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 4.5% annually. Incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the modeling results.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥56,477 (US$8,059) for Firsekibart, and CN¥49,664 (US$7,087) for betamethasone. Total QALYs were 11.78 and 11.69, respectively. The lifetime incremental cost per patient for Firsekibart was CN¥6,813 (US$972), with an incremental QALY of 0.09, yielding an ICER of CN¥80,157 (US$11,438) per QALY, which was below the threshold of one time per-capita GDP of CN¥95,749/QALY (US$13,663/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Firsekibart was cost-effective compared with compound betamethasone in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its superiority in preventing flares. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China.
METHODS: A cohort state-transition model was developed using a short-term decision tree (24 weeks) followed by a long-term Markov model (alive and dead) with three health states to simulate the lifetime disease progression and costs for gout patients. Key clinical data were generated from the randomized phase 3 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of Firsekibart compared with betamethasone. Healthcare costs were determined from the Chinese pharmaceutical database, published literature and clinicians opinions. Health state utilities were obtained from a nationwide survey covering 1,000 gout patients in China, and were supplemented by values from published literature. Both costs and health outcomes were discounted at 4.5% annually. Incremental costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the modeling results.
RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, lifetime costs per patient were CN¥56,477 (US$8,059) for Firsekibart, and CN¥49,664 (US$7,087) for betamethasone. Total QALYs were 11.78 and 11.69, respectively. The lifetime incremental cost per patient for Firsekibart was CN¥6,813 (US$972), with an incremental QALY of 0.09, yielding an ICER of CN¥80,157 (US$11,438) per QALY, which was below the threshold of one time per-capita GDP of CN¥95,749/QALY (US$13,663/QALY) in China. Similar results were obtained in various sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Firsekibart was cost-effective compared with compound betamethasone in the Chinese setting, which is mainly due to its superiority in preventing flares. The results could inform deliberations regarding reimbursement and access to this treatment in China.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE242
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
SDC: Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal), STA: Biologics & Biosimilars