Access to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: a nation-level study.

INTRODUCTION: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars provide an opportunity to improve accessibility to highly effective drugs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate access to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a 10 year timeframe in Poland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database. RESULTS: By 2022, 11 102, 6602, and 4400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs or JAKis. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab, followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased from 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.8% to 3.2%, 8.7%, and 3.5% for RA, PsA, and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) still predominate among innovative therapeutics, but their market share declined from 87% to 46%. The number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from 7315 EUR to 2886 EUR. Despite recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding the COVID­19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, biosimilars­related savings improved availability of higher­priced innovative drugs rather than less costly TNFis. Data­driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

The cost of living.

The new biologics have great potential to help patients with hitherto uncurable diseases. But their exorbitant costs challenges the basis of health care systems based on equity.

Reducing biopharmaceutical manufacturing costs through continuous processing in a flexible J.POD® facility.

In this work, process models were developed to capture the impact of biomanufacturing costs on a commercial scale and emphasize the way in which facility design and operation must balance meeting product demand while minimizing production costs. Using a scenario-based modeling approach, several facility design strategies were evaluated, including a traditional large stainless-steel facility and a small footprint, portable-on-demand (POD)-based facility. Bioprocessing platforms were compared by estimating their total production costs across different facility types and specifically illustrating how continuous bioprocessing has gained in popularity as a novel and cost-effective approach to manufacture high-quality biopharmaceuticals. The analysis showed how fluctuations in market demand have a dramatic effect on manufacturing costs and plant utilization, with far-reaching implications on the total cost to patients.

Trends in the Cost and Utilization of Omalizumab in the Medicare Population: 2013-2017.

Background: Omalizumab has been demonstrated to be effective in treating chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) and was FDA approved for this indication in 2014. Previous work has shown that access to injectable biologics varies across US counties. In the present study we evaluate geographic and temporal trends in the utilization of omalizumab in the Medicare population by dermatologists, with its use by allergists and pulmonologists as comparators. Methods: We analyzed year-over-year trends in omalizumab utilization across geographic regions using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D files. Results: Utilization of omalizumab by dermatologists increased rapidly after its FDA approval, from 0.08 claims/100,000 enrollees totaling $209/100,000 enrollees in 2014 to 1.45 claims/100,000 enrollees totaling $3115/100,000 enrollees in 2017. Nonetheless, prescribing dermatologists were present in only 2.8% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 2.0%-3.9%) and 0.2% (95% CI: 0.0%-0.5%) of metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, respectively, in 2017, demonstrating limited availability, especially in non-metropolitan counties. Similarly, prescribers of any specialty were available in 32.9% (95% CI: 30.2%-35.6%) and 3.8% (95% CI: 3.1%-4.8%) of metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties, respectively, in 2017. Conclusions: Our data suggest that despite increasing omalizumab utilization, there remains a lack of access across many counties, particularly in non-metropolitan regions. Efforts to expand omalizumab prescriber accessibility in these counties may improve outcomes for patients with CSU.

Cost-effectiveness of axicabtagene ciloleucel versus lisocabtagene maraleucel for adult patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma after two or more lines of systemic therapy in the US.

AIMS: This study evaluated from a US payer perspective the cost-effectiveness of two chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR T) cell therapies, axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) versus lisocabtagene maraleucel (liso-cel), for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) following two or more systemic therapy lines. METHODS: We developed a 3-state (i.e., pre-progression, post-progression, death) partitioned survival model to estimate patients' lifetime outcomes. Mixture cure models were used for survival extrapolation to account for long-term remission. Survival inputs were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) that reweighted the ZUMA-1 population (receiving axi-cel) to match patient characteristics in TRANSCEND-NHL-001 (assessing liso-cel). Costs included apheresis, drug acquisition, and administration for conditioning chemotherapy and CAR T therapies, monitoring, transplant, hospitalization, adverse events, routine care, and terminal care, per published literature and databases. Utilities were derived from ZUMA-1 and literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In the base case, axi-cel was associated with more QALYs (7.76 vs. 5.94) and greater costs overall ($611,440 vs. $597,174) than liso-cel, at $7,843/QALY gained. The incremental costs (+$14,266) were largely driven by higher routine care costs (+$18,596) due to longer survival and hospitalization (+$10,993) but partially offset by reduced costs of CAR T acquisition (‒$11,300) and terminal care (‒$4,025). Sensitivity analyses consistently suggested robustness of base-case results. LIMITATIONS: This study relied on an MAIC in which trial design differences and unobserved confounders could not be accounted for. Future real-world studies for recently approved CAR T are warranted to validate our results. Due to a lack of data, we assumed equivalent use of transplants and treatment for B-cell aplasia between the two therapies based on clinicians' opinions. CONCLUSIONS: In the US, axi-cel is a potentially cost-effective treatment option compared with liso-cel for adult patients with r/r LBCL after two or more systemic therapy lines.

Treatment patterns and health care costs among patients with psoriatic arthritis treated with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

BACKGROUND: Biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (tsDMARD) therapies are used in management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Although previous studies have demonstrated that rates of adherence, persistence, discontinuation, and switching, as well as health care costs, are variable among treatments, limited published data exist on more recently approved therapies. OBJECTIVE: To describe adherence, persistence, discontinuation, reinitiation, switching, dosing patterns, and health care costs among PsA patients treated with biologics and tsDMARDs. METHODS: This was a real-world, retrospective administrative claims study. Adult PsA patients with at least 1 claim for an approved PsA biologic (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, secukinumab, or ustekinumab) or tsDMARD (apremilast or tofacitinib) between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, were selected from the IBM MarketScan administrative claims databases. The first claim for one of the study treatments determined the index date and drug cohort. Patients were required to be continuously enrolled in their health plans for 12 months before and after the index date and to have at least 1 claim with a diagnosis of PsA in the 12 months before or on the index date. Adherence (measured by proportion of days covered [PDC] and medication possession ratio [MPR]), persistence (< 60-day gap in treatment), discontinuation (> 90-day gap), reinitiation of index drug, switching, and dosing patterns for each index drug were assessed during the 12-month follow-up period. Health care costs were reported per patient per month (PPPM) during the 12-month follow-up and assessed after adjusting PsA treatment costs by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review discount factors to account for discounts and rebates not usually reflected in claims data and by adherence. RESULTS: Overall, 6,674 patients met the selection criteria. The top 3 index drugs were adalimumab (37%), apremilast (26%), and etanercept (18%). Over 12 months of follow-up, 31%-59% of patients remained persistent on the index drug, whereas 35%-56% discontinued, 13%-29% switched to a different biologic or tsDMARD, and 3%-15% reinitiated the index therapy, depending on the index drug. The mean PDC ranged from 0.51 to 0.69 during the 12-month follow-up and 0.80 to 0.93 during the follow-up period before discontinuation. Dose values were largely consistent with prescribing information, with the exception of secukinumab. Index drug costs PPPM ranged from $2,361 (apremilast) to $6,528 for ustekinumab after adjustment for discounts and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this real-world analysis suggest that there is substantial variability in persistence, discontinuation, adherence, reinitiating, and switching patterns among the different biologic and tsDMARD treatment options for PsA patients. In addition, this study provides real-world cost data for biologics and tsDMARDs among patients with PsA. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly Inc., which participated in analysis and interpretation of data, drafting, reviewing, and approving the publication. All authors contributed to the development of the publication and maintained control over the final content. Murage, Malatestinic, Zhu, Atiya, Kern, Stenger, and Sprabery are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly Inc. Princic and Park are employed by IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Eli Lilly Inc. to conduct this study. Ogdie has received consulting fees from Amgen, AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Pfizer and has also received grant support from Pfizer, Novartis, and Amgen. Portions of these data have been presented in poster form at the virtual International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) 2020 and Congress of Clinical Rheumatology (CCR) West 2020 conferences.

Durable cell and gene therapy potential patient and financial impact: US projections of product approvals, patients treated, and product revenues.

Durable cell and gene therapies potentially transform patient lives, but payers fear unsustainable costs arising from the more than 1000 therapies in the development pipeline. A novel multi-module Markov chain Monte Carlo-based model projects product-indication approvals, treated patients, and product revenues. We estimate a mean 63.5 (54-74 5th to 95th percentile range) cumulative US product-indication approvals through 2030, with a mean 93000 patients treated in 2030 generating a mean US$24.4 billion (US$17.0B-35.0B, US$73.0B extreme) list price product revenues not including ancillary medical costs or cost offsets. Thus, the likely dozens of durable cell and gene therapies developed through 2030 are unlikely to threaten US health system financial sustainability.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. RESULTS: The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Biologics for psoriatic arthritis: network meta-analysis in review.

OBJECTIVE: A review of network meta-analysis to assess efficacy and safety of biologics for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on electronic databases to identify Bayesian meta-analysis reporting clinical parameters of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of biologics that are approved for the treatment of PsA patients. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies and included them for review. There is insufficient statistical evidence to demonstrate clear differences in effectiveness between available biologic agents for PsA due to many differences in methods and clinical parameters reported in the studies. Old biologics are reported to be safe. CONCLUSIONS: New molecules approved for the treatment of PsA appear promising treatments but further comparative studies methodologically well-conducted are necessary. It is also necessary to follow strictly international recommendations to conduct NMA to better help physicians and decision-makers in making appropriate decisions.

Challenges raised by the economic evaluation of CAR-T-cell therapies. The review by the French National Authority for Health.

Since 2013, the process of pricing of innovative drugs by the French National Health Insurance has considered both cost-effectiveness and budget impact. CAR-T cell therapies were first subject to economic evaluation from 2019 in France. We aim to describe the process and results of the economic evaluation of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel as well as the challenges these evaluations raised. Evaluations submitted by the firms were reviewed by HAS and submitted to the Committee of Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP). The CEESP issued opinions related to: (1) the methodological quality of economic evidence and, (2) the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the drugs. The CEESP invalidated the estimated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of tisagenlecleucel due to the insufficient clinical evidence and methodological quality to extrapolate the long-term progression of the disease after treatment and compare tisagenlecleucel with alternatives. The CEESP concluded that tisagenlecleucel was not proven cost-effective. The estimated ICUR of axicabtagene ciloleucel at €114,509/QALY vs. chemotherapies was associated with an acceptable level of methodological quality despite being based on a weak indirect comparison and limited data on quality of life. The CEESP considered axicabtagene ciloleucel ICUR to be "very high" and questioned the societal/community willingness-to-pay of the claimed price. The primary source of uncertainty surrounding the ICUR estimates of both drugs was the lack of hindsight on effectiveness. The economic evaluation of CAR-T cell therapies highlights the risk of inefficient resource allocation driven by limited clinical data. It calls for payment schemes accounting for this risk and effective collection of post-marketing data.

Information Opacity in Biopharmaceutical Innovation Through the Lens of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed myriad and complex challenges for our national health care system spanning preparedness, response, access, costs, infrastructure, coordination, and medical innovation. These challenges implicate federal, state, and local agencies and actors, as well as international collaborative bodies. One constant throughout the pandemic has been the pressing need for safe and effective diagnostics, prophylactic vaccines, and drug treatments to counter the virus.1 Inarguably, significant problems with the multi-faceted system of drug and vaccine innovation and regulation manifested long before the COVID-19 pandemic.2 The pandemic, however, has laid bare the inextricable connections among federal funding, patents, product review and approval mechanisms, and the eventual medical products and resulting costs.

Early Cost-Effectiveness of Onasemnogene Abeparvovec-xioi (Zolgensma) and Nusinersen (Spinraza) Treatment for Spinal Muscular Atrophy I in The Netherlands With Relapse Scenarios.

OBJECTIVES: Onasemnogene Abeparvovec-xioi (AVXS-101) is a gene therapy intended for curative treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) with an expected price of around €2 000 000. The goal of this study is to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment of SMA I patients with AVXS-101 in The Netherlands including relapse scenarios. METHODS: An individual-based state-transition model was used to model treatment effect and survival of SMA I patients treated with AVXS-101, nusinersen and best supportive care (BSC). The model included five health states: three health states according to SMA types, one for permanent ventilation and one for death. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Effects of relapsing to lower health states in the years following treatment was explored. RESULTS: The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AVXS-101 versus BSC is €138 875/QALY, and €53 447/QALY for AVXS-101 versus nusinersen. If patients relapse within 10 years after treatment with AVXS-101, the ICER can increase up to 6-fold, with effects diminishing thereafter. Only relapses occurring later than 50 years after treatment have a negligible effect on the ICER. To comply with Dutch willingness-to-pay reference values, the price of AVXS-101 must decrease to €680 000. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this model, treatment with AVXS-101 is unlikely to be cost-effective under Dutch willingness-to-pay reference values. Uncertainty regarding the long-term curative properties of AVXS-101 can result in multiplication of the ICER. Decision-makers are advised to appropriately balance these uncertainties against the price they are willing to pay now.

Does Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Overvalue Potential Cures? Exploring Alternative Methods for Applying a "Shared Savings" Approach to Cost Offsets.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative methods to calculate and/or attribute economic surplus in the cost-effectiveness analysis of single or short-term therapies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review of articles describing alternative methods for cost-effectiveness analysis of potentially curative therapies whose assessment using traditional methods may suggest unaffordable valuations owing to the magnitude of estimated long-term quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains or cost offsets. Through internal deliberation and discussion with staff at the Health Technology Assessment bodies in England and Canada, we developed the following 3 alternative methods for further evaluation: (1) capping annual costs in the comparator arm at $150 000 per year; (2) "sharing" the economic surplus with the health sector by apportioning only 50% of cost offsets or 50% of cost offsets and QALY gains to the value of the therapy; and (3) crediting the therapy with only 12 years of the average annual cost offsets or cost offsets and QALY gains over the lifetime horizon. The impact of each alternative method was evaluated by applying it in an economic model of 3 hypothetical condition-treatment scenarios meant to reflect a diversity of chronicity and background healthcare costs. RESULTS: The alternative with greatest impact on threshold price for the fatal pediatric condition spinal muscular atrophy type 1 was the 12-year cutoff scenario. For a hypothetical one-time treatment for hemophilia A, capping cost offsets at $150 000 per year had the greatest impact. For chimeric antigen receptor T-cell treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, capping cost offsets or using 12-year threshold had little impact, whereas 50% sharing of surplus including QALY gains and cost offsets greatly reduced threshold pricing. CONCLUSIONS: Health Technology Assessment bodies and policy makers will wrestle with how to evaluate single or short-term potentially curative therapies and establish pricing and payment mechanisms to ensure sustainability. Scenario analyses using alternative methods for calculating and apportioning economic surplus can provide starkly different assessment results. These methods may stimulate important societal dialogue on fair pricing for these novel treatments.

Efficacy of a tight-control and treat-to-target strategy in axial spondyloarthritis: results of the open-label, pragmatic, cluster-randomised TICOSPA trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits of a tight-control/treat-to-target strategy (TC/T2T) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with those of usual care (UC). METHODS: Pragmatic, prospective, cluster-randomised, controlled, open, 1-year trial (NCT03043846). 18 centres were randomised (1:1). Patients met Axial Spondylo Arthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA, had an Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) ≥2.1, received non-optimal treatment by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and were biologic-naive. INTERVENTIONS: (1) TC/T2T: visits every 4 weeks and prespecified strategy based on treatment intensification until achieving target (ie, ASDAS <2.1); (2) UC: visits every 12 weeks and treatment at the rheumatologist's discretion. MAIN OUTCOME: Percentage of patients with a ≥30% improvement on the ASAS-Health Index (ASAS-HI). Other efficacy outcomes and adverse events were recorded. A health economic evaluation was performed. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Two-level mixed models were used to estimate efficacy outcomes. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for TC/T2T versus UC. RESULTS: 160 patients were included (80/group). Mean (SD) age was 37.9 (11.0) years and disease duration was 3.7 (6.2) years; 51.2% were men. ASDAS at inclusion was 3.0 (0.7), and ASAS-HI was 8.6 (3.7). ASAS-HI improved by ≥30% in 47.3% of the TC/T2T arm and in 36.1% of those receiving UC (non-significant). All secondary efficacy outcomes were more frequent in the TC/T2T arm, although not all statistically significant. Safety was similar in both arms. From a societal perspective, TC/T2T resulted in an additional 0.04 QALY, and saved €472 compared with UC. CONCLUSION: TC/T2T was not significantly superior to UC for the primary outcome, while many secondary efficacy outcomes favoured it, had a similar safety profile and was favourable from a societal health economic perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03043846.

Developments and opportunities in continuous biopharmaceutical manufacturing.

Today's biologics manufacturing practices incur high costs to the drug makers, which can contribute to high prices for patients. Timely investment in the development and implementation of continuous biomanufacturing can increase the production of consistent-quality drugs at a lower cost and a faster pace, to meet growing demand. Efficient use of equipment, manufacturing footprint, and labor also offer the potential to improve drug accessibility. Although technological efforts enabling continuous biomanufacturing have commenced, challenges remain in the integration, monitoring, and control of traditionally segmented unit operations. Here, we discuss recent developments supporting the implementation of continuous biomanufacturing, along with their benefits.

Clinical and economic burden of severe asthma among US patients treated with biologic therapies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may remain uncontrolled despite biologic therapy in addition to standard therapy, but this disease burden has not been quantified. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic burden in a US national sample. METHODS: Patients who have severe asthma with indicated biologic treatment (earliest use = index date) were selected from the MarketScan database between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2018. Inclusion criteria were continuous enrollment for 12 months postindex with a minimum of 2 biologic fills, greater than or equal to 12 years of age, evidence of medium- to high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonist combination before the index, and absence of other respiratory diagnoses and malignancies. Disease exacerbations (used to classify asthma control), health care costs, and treatment characteristics were reported during the 12-month postindex period. RESULTS: The sample included 3262 biologic patients; 88% with anti-immunoglobulin E therapy (omalizumab) and 12% non-anti-immunoglobulin E (reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab). The mean age was 49 (±15) years; 64% were women. Prescriptions included inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß-agonist (82%), systemic corticosteroids (76%), and leukotriene receptor antagonists (68%). Notably, 63% of patients presented greater than or equal to 1 asthma exacerbation (mean 1.3 per patient/year). Furthermore, 35% of patients were categorized as having controlled asthma, whereas 28% were suboptimally controlled and 29% were uncontrolled. Patients with uncontrolled disease had higher all-cause and asthma-related costs ($69,206 and $45,693, respectively) than patients with suboptimally controlled ($59,407 and $40,793, respectively) or controlled disease ($53,083 and $38,393, respectively). Furthermore, 62% of newly treated patients were persistent with their index biologic. CONCLUSION: Biologic therapies are effective in reducing exacerbations, but a substantial proportion of patients with severe asthma treated with current biologics continue to experience uncontrolled disease, highlighting a remaining unmet need for patients with severe uncontrolled asthma.