↓ Skip to main content

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs plus proton-pump inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis in Saudi Arabia
Published in
Health Economics Review, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13561-015-0053-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherif A Nasef, A. Aziz Shaaban, Joaquin Mould-Quevedo, Tarek A Ismail

Abstract

Cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors including celecoxib are as effective as non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ns-NSAIDs) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and have less gastrointestinal toxicity. Although they are associated with higher treatment costs, COX-2 inhibitors may simultaneously reduce costs associated with adverse events, hence, their overall economic benefit should be assessed. To evaluate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib versus ns-NSAIDs, with/without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) co-therapy, for managing OA in Saudi Arabian subjects aged ≥65 years. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence health economic model from the UK, updated with relative risks of adverse events using CONDOR trial data, was adapted. Patients received celecoxib or ns-NSAIDs, with/without omeprazole. The effectiveness measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained per patient. The analysis was conducted from the patient's perspective. Frequencies of resource use for adverse events were based on data collected in July 2012 from seven private hospitals in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). Over a 6-month treatment duration, QALYs gained per patient were higher with celecoxib (0.37) and celecoxib plus PPI (0.40) versus comparators. Ibuprofen plus PPI showed the lowest expected cost per patient (US$ 1,314.50 versus US$ 1,422.80 with celecoxib plus PPI and US$ 1,543.50 with celecoxib). Celecoxib plus PPI was the most cost-effective option with an ICER of US$ 1,805.00, followed by celecoxib (ICER, US$ 7,633.33) versus ibuprofen plus PPI. Over 2- and 5-year treatment durations, celecoxib plus PPI, and celecoxib, showed higher QALYs gained/patient and lower ICERs versus comparators. These ICERs are <1 gross domestic product/capita in Saudi Arabia in 2013 (US$ 25,961). CEACs over 6 months' treatment showed a significantly higher likelihood that celecoxib plus PPI and celecoxib alone would be more cost effective versus comparators once the willingness to pay is over US$ 2,000.00. After considering new adverse event risks, celecoxib with/without PPI co-therapy was deemed very cost effective for medium- and long-term use in Saudi Arabian OA patients aged ≥65 years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 14 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,414,796
of 22,811,321 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#333
of 429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,480
of 266,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,811,321 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.