COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF FLURBIPROFEN VERSUS LOXOPROFEN SODIUM CATAPLASMS IN KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: EVIDENCE FROM A PHYSICIAN-PHARMACIST COLLABORATIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL
Author(s)
PENG MEN, PhD1, ZIYANG WU, MPharm2, ZHENPENG GUAN, MD3, SUODI ZHAI, MD2.
1Pharmacist-in-charge/Researcher, Peking University Third Hospital/Institute for Drug Evaluation of Peking University Health Science Center, BEIJING, China, 2Peking University Third Hospital/Institute for Drug Evaluation of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, 3Peking University Shougang Hospital, Beijing, China.
1Pharmacist-in-charge/Researcher, Peking University Third Hospital/Institute for Drug Evaluation of Peking University Health Science Center, BEIJING, China, 2Peking University Third Hospital/Institute for Drug Evaluation of Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China, 3Peking University Shougang Hospital, Beijing, China.
OBJECTIVES: Pharmacoeconomic evidence comparing topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) remains limited. Comparative effectiveness and economic evidence generated through multidisciplinary collaborative research is particularly scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of flurbiprofen cataplasms (FPC) versus loxoprofen sodium cataplasms (LSC) within a physician-pharmacist collaborative care model and to generate comparative economic evidence for topical NSAID selection in China.
METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a physician-pharmacist collaborative randomized controlled trial in a tertiary teaching hospital and its affiliated primary healthcare center. A total of 250 patients with KOA were randomized (1:1) to receive FPC (n=125) or LSC (n=125) for four weeks. Physicians and clinical pharmacists jointly participated in study design, patient recruitment, medication management, outcome assessment, and economic evaluation. Clinical pharmacists were additionally responsible for medication education, adherence monitoring, adverse-event surveillance, and data collection. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle from both the Chinese healthcare system and societal perspectives. Deterministic and non-parametric bootstrap sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: From the healthcare system perspective, mean per-patient costs were lower in the FPC group than in the LSC group (705.68 vs. 831.06 CNY), resulting in cost savings of 125.38 CNY. From the societal perspective, cost savings increased to 361.27 CNY after incorporating direct non-medical costs and productivity losses. Patients receiving FPC achieved higher QALYs than those receiving LSC (0.0163 vs. 0.0110). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings and consistently demonstrated the economic dominance of FPC over LSC.
CONCLUSIONS: Within a physician-pharmacist collaborative research framework, FPC was associated with lower costs and greater health benefits than LSC, suggesting that FPC is a dominant strategy for KOA in China. This study also provides a practical example of physician-pharmacist collaboration in conducting an RCT and an accompanying trial-based cost-utility analysis to support evidence-based decision-making.
METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was conducted alongside a physician-pharmacist collaborative randomized controlled trial in a tertiary teaching hospital and its affiliated primary healthcare center. A total of 250 patients with KOA were randomized (1:1) to receive FPC (n=125) or LSC (n=125) for four weeks. Physicians and clinical pharmacists jointly participated in study design, patient recruitment, medication management, outcome assessment, and economic evaluation. Clinical pharmacists were additionally responsible for medication education, adherence monitoring, adverse-event surveillance, and data collection. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle from both the Chinese healthcare system and societal perspectives. Deterministic and non-parametric bootstrap sensitivity analyses were performed.
RESULTS: From the healthcare system perspective, mean per-patient costs were lower in the FPC group than in the LSC group (705.68 vs. 831.06 CNY), resulting in cost savings of 125.38 CNY. From the societal perspective, cost savings increased to 361.27 CNY after incorporating direct non-medical costs and productivity losses. Patients receiving FPC achieved higher QALYs than those receiving LSC (0.0163 vs. 0.0110). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the findings and consistently demonstrated the economic dominance of FPC over LSC.
CONCLUSIONS: Within a physician-pharmacist collaborative research framework, FPC was associated with lower costs and greater health benefits than LSC, suggesting that FPC is a dominant strategy for KOA in China. This study also provides a practical example of physician-pharmacist collaboration in conducting an RCT and an accompanying trial-based cost-utility analysis to support evidence-based decision-making.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
EE501
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Trial-Based Economic Evaluation
Disease
Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal), No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas