Economic Evaluation of Linaclotide for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in the United States.

To evaluate the effectiveness and costs of linaclotide (Linzess) versus lubiprostone (Amitiza) in the treatment of adult patients with chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).A decision-tree model using model inputs derived from published literature, linaclotide phase 3 trial data, and a physician survey.Measures of treatment efficacy were selected based on comparability between trial data, with posthoc analyses of linaclotide required to ensure comparability with available lubiprostone data. Response to therapy was defined as (1) having one of the best two satisfaction answers of a 5-point global treatment satisfaction scale at Week 4 or (2) having a weekly spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) frequency 4 at Week 4. Patients who do not respond to therapy are assumed to accrue costs associated with a treatment failure. Model time horizon is aligned with the lubiprostone clinical trial duration of 4 weeks. Model outputs include response rates, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct costs.Linaclotide was associated with lower per-patient costs vs lubiprostone for both definitions of response ($946 vs $1,015 for global assessment and $727 vs $737 for SBM frequency). When treatment response was based on a global assessment of treatment satisfaction, linaclotide was associated with higher effectiveness (response: 39.3% vs 35.0%). For SBM frequency, linaclotide was slightly less effective compared to lubiprostone (response: 58.6% vs 59.6%), but also less costly. Base-case results were robust in sensitivity analysis.Linaclotide is less expensive with similar effectiveness when compared to lubiprostone for the treatment of CIC in adult patients.