Simulated cost-effectiveness of a novel precision-guided dosing strategy in adult patients with Crohn's disease initiating infliximab maintenance therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who lose response to biologics experience reduced quality of life (QoL) and costly hospitalizations. Precision-guided dosing (PGD) provides a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) profile that allows for biologic dosing to be personalized. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) PGD relative to two other dose intensification strategies (DIS). METHODS: We developed a hybrid (Markov and decision tree) model of patients with CD who had a clinical response to IFX induction. The analysis had a US payer perspective, a base case time horizon of 5 years, and a 4-week cycle length. There were three IFX dosing comparators: PGD; dose intensification based on symptoms, inflammatory markers, and trough IFX concentration (DIS1); and dose intensification based on symptoms alone (DIS2). Patients that failed IFX initiated ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, and conventional therapy. Transition probabilities for IFX were estimated from real-world clinical PK data and interventional clinical trial patient-level data. All other transition probabilities were derived from published randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness analyses. Utility values were sourced from previous health technology assessments. Direct costs included biologic acquisition and infusion, surgeries and procedures, conventional therapy, and lab testing. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of results was assessed via one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: PGD was the cost-effective IFX dosing strategy with an ICER of 122,932 $ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to DIS1 and dominating DIS2. PGD had the lowest percentage (1.1%) of patients requiring a new biologic through 5 years (8.9% and 74.4% for DIS1 and DIS2, respectively). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of PGD was most sensitive to the time between IFX doses. PSA demonstrated that joint parameter uncertainty had moderate impact on some results. CONCLUSIONS: PGD provides clinical and QoL benefits by maintaining remission and avoiding IFX failure; it is the most cost-effective under conservative assumptions.

Treatment-Free Interval: A Novel Approach to Assessing Real-World Treatment Effectiveness and Economic Impact Among Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome with Diarrhea.

INTRODUCTION: Objective assessment of treatment effectiveness using real-world claims data is challenging. This study assessed treatment-free intervals (TFI) as a proxy for treatment effectiveness, and all-cause healthcare costs among adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) treated with rifaximin or eluxadoline in the USA. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years) with IBS-D and ≥ 1 rifaximin or eluxadoline prescription were identified in the IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus database (10/01/2015-12/31/2021) and classified into two mutually exclusive cohorts (i.e., rifaximin and eluxadoline). Index date was the date of rifaximin or eluxadoline initiation. Entropy-balanced baseline characteristics, TFI (periods of ≥ 30 consecutive days without IBS-D treatment), and healthcare costs were reported. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using mean cost differences. RESULTS: There were 7094 and 2161 patients in the rifaximin and eluxadoline cohorts, respectively. After balancing, baseline characteristics (mean age 44.1 years; female 72.4%) were similar between cohorts. A higher proportion of patients treated with rifaximin achieved a TFI of ≥ 30 days (76.2% vs. 66.7%), ≥ 60 days (67.0% vs. 47.0%), ≥ 90 days (61.0% vs. 38.7%), ≥ 180 days (51.7% vs. 31.0%), and ≥ 240 days (47.7% vs. 27.9%) compared to eluxadoline. Among patients with a TFI ≥ 30 days, mean TFI durations were 8.3 and 6.0 months for the rifaximin and eluxadoline cohorts. Mean all-cause healthcare costs were lower for rifaximin vs. eluxadoline ($18,316 vs. $23,437; p = 0.008), primarily driven by pharmacy costs ($7348 vs. $10,250; p < 0.001). In a simulated health plan of one million commercially insured lives, initiating 50% of patients on rifaximin instead of eluxadoline resulted in total cost savings of $2.1 million per year or $0.18 per-member-per-month. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study suggests that TFI is a meaningful surrogate measure of treatment effectiveness in IBS-D. Patients treated with rifaximin had longer treatment-free periods and lower healthcare costs than patients treated with eluxadoline.

Real-world clinical outcomes and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease treated with vedolizumab versus ustekinumab in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world treatment persistence, dose escalation, rates of opportunistic or serious infections, and healthcare costs in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) receiving vedolizumab (VDZ) vs ustekinumab (UST) in the United States. METHODS: A retrospective observational study in adults with CD initiated on VDZ or UST on/after 26 September 2016, was performed using the IBM Truven Health MarketScan databases (1 January 2009-30 September 2018). Rates of treatment persistence, dose escalation, opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters, and healthcare costs per patient per month (PPPM) were evaluated. Entropy balancing was used to balance patient characteristics between cohorts. Event rates were assessed using weighted Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared between cohorts using log-rank tests. Healthcare costs were compared between cohorts using weighted 2-part models. RESULTS: 589 VDZ and 599 UST patients were included (172 [29.2%] and 117 [19.5%] were bio-naïve, respectively). After weighting, baseline characteristics were comparable between cohorts. No significant difference in rates of treatment persistence (12-month: VDZ, 76.5%; UST, 82.1%; p = .17), dose escalation (12-month: VDZ, 29.3%; UST, 32.7%; p = .97), or opportunistic or serious infection-related encounters were observed between VDZ and UST. Total mean healthcare costs were significantly lower for patients treated with VDZ vs UST (mean cost difference = -$5051 PPPM; p < .01). Findings were consistent in bio-naïve patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, similar treatment persistence, dose escalation, and rates of opportunistic or serious infections were observed with VDZ- and UST-treated patients with CD. However, VDZ was associated with a significantly lower cost outlay for healthcare systems.

Crohn's disease (CD) causes inflammation in the digestive system. Vedolizumab (VDZ) and ustekinumab (UST) are therapies for patients with CD. Little is known about the clinical outcomes and healthcare costs of VDZ versus UST in the real world in the United States. We used health claims data and found that VDZ and UST had comparable real-world clinical outcomes. After 12 months of treatment, the proportions of patients with CD who stayed on treatment and those who needed to increase therapy dose were similar with VDZ and UST. The rate of infection was also similar between the two groups of patients. However, the monthly healthcare costs were $5051 less for patients treated with VDZ than with UST. This was mainly due to the lower cost of VDZ, which was almost half of that of UST. The lower treatment costs with VDZ may provide substantial savings for the healthcare system and patients specifically. Future cost-effectiveness studies on VDZ and UST are needed to aid treatment selection for patients with CD.

Randomised clinical trial: First-line infliximab biosimilar is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in paediatric Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: Data on cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab in paediatric patients with Crohn's disease are limited. Since biologics are increasingly prescribed and accompanied by high costs, this knowledge gap needs to be addressed. AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of first-line infliximab compared to conventional treatment in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. METHODS: We included patients from the Top-down Infliximab Study in Kids with Crohn's disease randomised controlled trial. Children with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease were treated with azathioprine maintenance and either five induction infliximab (biosimilar) infusions or conventional induction treatment (exclusive enteral nutrition or corticosteroids). Direct healthcare consumption and costs were obtained per patient until week 104. This included data on outpatient hospital visits, hospital admissions, drug costs, endoscopies and surgeries. The primary health outcome was the odds ratio of being in clinical remission (weighted paediatric Crohn's disease activity index<12.5) during 104 weeks. RESULTS: We included 89 patients (44 in the first-line infliximab group and 45 in the conventional treatment group). Mean direct healthcare costs per patient were €36,784 for first-line infliximab treatment and €36,874 for conventional treatment over 2 years (p = 0.981). The odds ratio of first-line infliximab versus conventional treatment to be in clinical remission over 104 weeks was 1.56 (95%CI 1.03-2.35, p = 0.036). CONCLUSIONS: First-line infliximab treatment resulted in higher odds of being in clinical remission without being more expensive, making it the dominant strategy over conventional treatment in the first 2 years after diagnosis in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02517684.

Savings in social expenditures for work incapacity in patients with inflammatory bowel disease depend on access to innovative therapies in Poland.

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) are an increasing burden for societies. We examined Polish Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) work incapacity expenditures for people with IBD compared with the general population. METHODS: Aggregate data were obtained on ZUS expenditures between 2012 and 2021 in Polish zlotys (PLN). Annual work incapacity benefit expenditures were analyzed and IBD benefit expenditures were examined relative to innovative IBD drug utilization in individual provinces. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2021, annual ZUS expenditures per person increased, while expenditures per IBD patient decreased. Proportionally, absenteeism was the largest ZUS expenditure in the general population, while disability pensions were the largest in the IBD population. ZUS expenditures due to absenteeism in the general population increased by PLN 282 per person; those due to disability pensions decreased by PLN 85. Disability pension spending due to Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) decreased by PLN 371 and PLN 284, respectively, while absenteeism spending per person with CD and UC decreased (PLN 58 and PLN 35, respectively). Nationwide in 2021, 8.5% of people with CD and 1.9% of those with UC received innovative drugs. The percentage of people receiving innovative drugs and ZUS expenditure per person were inversely related in 9/16 provinces for CD and 5/16 for UC. CONCLUSION: Polish state spending on work incapacity benefits increased in the general population but decreased in people with IBD between 2012 and 2021. Use of innovative drugs was associated with reduced spending per person with IBD in some provinces.

Cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in adult patients with short bowel syndrome - a European socioeconomic perspective.

BACKGROUND: Short bowel syndrome with intestinal failure (SBS-IF) is a rare but devastating medical condition. An absolute loss of bowel length forces the patients into parenteral support dependency and a variety of medical sequelae, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Interdisciplinary treatment may include therapy with the effective but expensive intestinotrophic peptide teduglutide. OBJECTIVES: A time-discrete Markov model was developed to simulate the treatment effect [lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs)] of teduglutide plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with SBS-IF. METHODS: The health status of the model was structured around the number of days on PS. Clinical data from 3 data sets were used: 1) an Austrian observational study (base case), 2) pooled observational cohort studies, and 3) a prospective study of teduglutide effectiveness in parenteral nutrition-dependent short bowel syndrome subjects. Direct and indirect costs were derived from published sources. QALYs, LYs, and costs were discounted (3% per annum). RESULTS: Under the base case assumption, teduglutide is associated with costs of 2,296,311 € per patient and 10.78 QALYs (13.74 LYs) over a lifetime horizon. No teduglutide is associated with 1,236,816 € and 2.24 QALYs (8.57 LYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) amounts to 123,945 €. In case of the pooled clinical data set, the ICUR increases to 184,961 €. If clinical data based on the study of teduglutide effectiveness in parenteral nutrition-dependent short bowel syndrome subjects were used, the ICUR increased to 235,612 €. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide in treating patients with SBS-IF meets the traditional cost-effectiveness criteria from a European societal perspective. Nevertheless, the varying concentrations of teduglutide efficacy leave a degree of uncertainty in the calculations.

Transitioning patients from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab for inflammatory bowel disease: what is the opportunity cost of improving access to healthcare?

BACKGROUND: Biologic drugs are highly effective for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) management but are key drivers of costs of care especially when administered intravenously (i.v.). Availability of subcutaneous (SC) formulations has increased convenience for patients and improved access to care, but at the cost of revenue to health services. AIMS: To evaluate the economic impact of transitioning a tertiary centre IBD cohort from i.v. to SC biologic administration and assess the implications for key stakeholders. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients who received i.v. infliximab or vedolizumab in the outpatient infusion centre of a tertiary IBD centre between July 2019 and June 2021 was undertaken. Data were collated from electronic medical records, pharmacy dispensing systems and the hospital business intelligence unit. An economic analysis and theoretical financial/capacity impact analysis of a transition to an SC model were estimated under two scenarios using a random 10% and 30% of the patient cohort. RESULTS: Transitioning our IBD cohort from i.v. to SC administration would result in a loss to our health service of AU$2 732 123.75, composed of AU$1 463 003.75 in Weighted Inlier Equivalent Separation (WIES) and AU$1 269 120 in drug procurement revenue. However, it would ease capacity in the infusion centre by up to 5256 h. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning patients to SC administration results in improved access to infusion centres and substantial savings to state governments; however, switching results in a loss of i.v. biologic-generated WIES to health services. Alternative funding models are required to achieve sustainability in IBD care and reduce reliance on i.v. biologic-generated income.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous vedolizumab vs subcutaneous adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of intravenous (IV) vedolizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) adalimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) was assessed in the VARSITY clinical trial, which demonstrated for the first time in a head-to-head clinical trial setting the superiority of IV vedolizumab with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. Both therapies offer better clinical outcomes compared with immunomodulators and corticosteroids but are often more expensive than other pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, payers and decision makers face the task of leveraging finite resources for optimal health benefits, which can be aided by the use of cost-effectiveness models. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab from a US payer perspective using head-to-head data from the VARSITY trial. METHODS: A cohort decision tree was developed to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes associated with IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab to treat adults with moderately to severely active UC. Simulated cohorts began the model at treatment induction and continued to maintenance treatment with vedolizumab or adalimumab unless experiencing nonresponse or serious adverse drug reaction (ADR), in which case those patients transitioned to second-line treatment with tofacitinib, infliximab, or golimumab, where they could achieve response and/or remission or not. Those who still did not achieve response or remission or who had a serious ADR transitioned to a state of nonresponse for the remainder of the model or received surgery. The process was modeled for patients who were treatment naive and treatment experienced at baseline separately. Efficacy and safety inputs for vedolizumab and adalimumab were taken from the VARSITY trial, and corresponding inputs for other biologics were derived from a network meta-analysis. All clinical inputs were extrapolated over 2 years. Direct medical costs (expressed in 2019 US dollars) included those related to drug acquisition and administration, ADRs, routine monitoring, and additional treatment procedures. Outcomes were not discounted given the short time horizon. Univariate sensitivity and scenario analysis were applied to evaluate the robustness of the model to underlying parameter and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: Initial treatment with vedolizumab was associated with a higher remission rate at 2 years (73.5% vs 71.5%) and higher persistence (22.0% vs 14.4%) compared with adalimumab. Total direct medical costs were lower for the vedolizumab cohort ($100,022 vs $151,133), primarily driven by the lower annual drug acquisition cost of vedolizumab ($85,953 vs $137,492). When endoscopic improvement was used as the outcome measure, IV vedolizumab was also associated with higher endoscopic remission and lower overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: With better clinical outcomes and lower direct medical costs over a 2-year model horizon, vedolizumab IV was the dominant treatment strategy vs adalimumab SC in adults with moderately to severely active UC. Outcomes were driven primarily by the probability of major ADRs and induction response. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Lexington, MA). Schultz and Turpin are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Turpin has stock or stock options in Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Diakite, Carter, and Snedecor are employees of OPEN Health (Bethesda, MD), which received payment from Takeda for the design and execution of this study. This study was presented at the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2020 Congress and Digestive Disease Week (DDW), 2020 Virtual Congress.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Switching Australian patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease from originator to biosimilar infliximab: a multicentre, parallel cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether non-medical switching of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from originator infliximab to a biosimilar (CT-P13, Inflectra) is safe and clinically non-inferior to continued treatment with originator infliximab. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, multicentre, parallel cohort, non-inferiority study in seven Australian hospitals over 48 weeks, May 2017 - October 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18 years or older) with IBD receiving maintenance originator infliximab (Remicade) who had been in steroid-free clinical remission for at least 12 weeks. INTERVENTION: Managed program for switching patients in four hospitals from originator to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13); patients in three other hospitals continued to receive originator infliximab (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical disease worsening requiring infliximab dose escalation or change in therapy. RESULTS: The switch group included 204 patients, the control group 141 patients with IBD. Ten patients in the control group (7%) and 16 patients switched to CT-P13 (8%) experienced clinical deterioration; the adjusted risk difference (control v switch group) was -1.1 percentage points (95% CI, -6.1 to 8.2 percentage points), within our pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points. Serious adverse events leading to infliximab discontinuation were infrequent in both the switch (six, 3%) and control (six, 4%) groups. CONCLUSION: Switching patients with IBD from originator to biosimilar infliximab is safe and non-inferior to continuing treatment with originator infliximab. Moreover, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab, by increasing market competition, has resulted in substantial cost savings for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study. CONCLUSION: For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasingly common, and results in significant morbidity. Traditional therapies include corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, thiopurines and methotrexate but in more recent years biologics have transformed the management of IBD. However, these agents come with a significant financial cost, making them unavailable for many patients worldwide. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an important means to optimise clinical outcomes from pharmacotherapy. Recent studies have also focussed on the cost-effectiveness as an outcome of TDM. TDM of traditional therapies is principally mediated through improved disease control. Cost-savings from TDM of biologic therapies arises mainly from reduced pharmaceutical use with equitable clinical outcomes. This review considers the cost-effectiveness of TDM for IBD therapies, with a focus on recent research into biologic TDM.

Alvimopan Is Associated With a Reduction in Length of Stay and Hospital Costs for Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of alvimopan in patient undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. We hypothesize that alvimopan can decrease cost for RC by reducing length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective RC for bladder cancer from 2009 to 2015 in the Premier Healthcare Database, a nationwide, all-payer hospital-based database, and compared patients who received and did not receive alvimopan in the perioperative period. Hospitals that had no record of administering alvimopan for patients undergoing RC were excluded. The primary outcomes were LOS and the direct hospital costs. The secondary outcomes were 90-day readmission for ileus and major complications. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, the study cohort consisted of 1087 patients with 511 patients receiving perioperative alvimopan. Alvimopan was associated with a reduction in hospital costs by -$2709 (95% confidence interval: -$4507 to -$912, P = .003), decreased median LOS (7 vs 8 days, P < .001), and lower likelihood of readmission for ileus (adjusted odds ratio: 0.63, P = .041). While alvimopan use led to higher pharmacy costs, this was outweighed by lower room and board costs due to the reduced LOS. There was no significant difference between 2 groups regarding major complications. These results were robust across multiple adjusted regression models. CONCLUSION: Our data show that alvimopan is associated with a substantial cost-saving in patients undergoing RC, and suggest that routine use of alvimopan may be a potential cost-effective strategy to reduce the overall financial burden of bladder cancer.