VALUE ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGIC THERAPIES FOR ULCERATIVE COLITIS IN CHINA: A RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Author(s)
Tianjian Tang, Mater1, Kailiman Ahemaiti, Mater1, Wei wu, Mater1, Mingfei Yi, Mater1, Yunfeng Lai, PhD2.
1Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China, 2Teacher, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
1Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China, 2Teacher, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
OBJECTIVES: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease associated with increasing clinical and economic burden in China. Evidence regarding their comparative clinical effectiveness, safety, and economic value in the Chinese healthcare setting remains fragmented. To conduct a rapid health technology assessment of biologic therapies for UC in China by synthesizing evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety, and economic value to support clinical practice and reimbursement decision-making.
METHODS: A rapid health technology assessment was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception to June 2026. Eligible studies included rapid HTAs, meta-analyses, real-world studies, and pharmacoeconomic evaluations involving Chinese patients with UC receiving biologic therapies. Evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact was synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity across studies.
RESULTS: 12 studies were included. Clinical evidence consistently demonstrated that biologics improved disease outcomes in UC. Network meta-analysis suggested higher induction remission with infliximab than vedolizumab (OR=1.67, 95% CI: 1.16-2.42), whereas real-world studies showed higher induction remission with vedolizumab (78.26% vs. 53.33%) and superior long-term remission at 52 weeks (69.57% vs. 33.33%, P=0.046). Vedolizumab significantly improved endoscopic remission versus placebo (P=0.0002). Safety evidence indicated that biologics were generally well tolerated. Compared with infliximab, vedolizumab was associated with lower rates of overall adverse events (8.70% vs. 20.00%), skin reactions (0.29% vs. 4.11%), and acute hypersensitivity reactions (0% vs. 1.19%). Economic evidence consistently favored vedolizumab for anti-TNF-naïve patients, with lower total costs (CNY 180,138 vs. 187,487), higher quality-adjusted life years (9.56 vs. 9.31), and a 98.6% probability of being cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Although comparative evidence for induction therapy remains heterogeneous, vedolizumab demonstrated more consistent advantages in long-term disease control, safety, and economic value. Additional multicenter real-world studies and standardized economic evaluations are warranted to strengthen evidence for value-based reimbursement and healthcare resource allocation.
METHODS: A rapid health technology assessment was conducted by systematically searching PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from inception to June 2026. Eligible studies included rapid HTAs, meta-analyses, real-world studies, and pharmacoeconomic evaluations involving Chinese patients with UC receiving biologic therapies. Evidence on clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact was synthesized narratively due to methodological heterogeneity across studies.
RESULTS: 12 studies were included. Clinical evidence consistently demonstrated that biologics improved disease outcomes in UC. Network meta-analysis suggested higher induction remission with infliximab than vedolizumab (OR=1.67, 95% CI: 1.16-2.42), whereas real-world studies showed higher induction remission with vedolizumab (78.26% vs. 53.33%) and superior long-term remission at 52 weeks (69.57% vs. 33.33%, P=0.046). Vedolizumab significantly improved endoscopic remission versus placebo (P=0.0002). Safety evidence indicated that biologics were generally well tolerated. Compared with infliximab, vedolizumab was associated with lower rates of overall adverse events (8.70% vs. 20.00%), skin reactions (0.29% vs. 4.11%), and acute hypersensitivity reactions (0% vs. 1.19%). Economic evidence consistently favored vedolizumab for anti-TNF-naïve patients, with lower total costs (CNY 180,138 vs. 187,487), higher quality-adjusted life years (9.56 vs. 9.31), and a 98.6% probability of being cost-effective.
CONCLUSIONS: Although comparative evidence for induction therapy remains heterogeneous, vedolizumab demonstrated more consistent advantages in long-term disease control, safety, and economic value. Additional multicenter real-world studies and standardized economic evaluations are warranted to strengthen evidence for value-based reimbursement and healthcare resource allocation.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
HTA82
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment
Topic Subcategory
Decision & Deliberative Processes
Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas