Microsimulation model of the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab compared to belimumab in the United Arab Emirates

Introduction: SLE imposes a significant morbidity and mortality as well as a substantial burden on the healthcare system. The model aimed to measure the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab implementation against belimumab as an add-on-therapy to the standard of care (SoC) over a lifetime horizon for Emirati patients. Methodology: A microsimulation model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of anifrolumab against belimumab (IV/SC) as an add-on therapy to SoC in a hypothetical cohort of adult Emirati patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) over a lifetime horizon. The clinical data was captured from published clinical trials as; TULIP-1, TULIP-2, BLISS-52, BLISS-76 and BLISS‐SC. Health utility scores were constructed according to a linear regression model from the pooled data of the two TULIP Phase III trials of anifrolumab. Our model captures direct SLE-related medical costs from the Dubai Health Authority. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model uncertainty. Results: Using BICLA as a response criterion in the Johns Hopkins cohort, anifrolumab was found to be more effective than belimumab (IV/SC; the incremental discounted QALY of anifrolumab against belimumab was 0.42). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 466,371 ($209,135) and AED 252,612 ($113,279), respectively, these ICERs are below the cost-effectiveness threshold in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) (three times gross domestic product capita; AED 592,278). In the Toronto lupus cohort, the ICER of anifrolumab against belimumab IV and belimumab SC were AED 491,403 ($220,360) and AED 276,642 ($124,055), respectively (anifrolumab was a cost-effective option vs. belimumab IV and belimumab SC). Conclusion: The addition of anifrolumab to SoC is a cost-effective option versus belimumab for the treatment of adult patients with active, autoantibody-positive SLE, despite being allocated to SoC. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated by a reduction in complications and organ damage, which reflected costs and outcomes.