Increasing healthcare costs in inflammatory bowel disease 2007-2020 in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease has been linked to increasing healthcare costs, but longitudinal data on other societal costs are scarce. AIM: To assess costs, including productivity losses, in patients with prevalent Crohn's disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC) in Sweden between 2007 and 2020. METHODS: We linked data from national registers on all patients with CD or UC and a matched (sex, birthyear, healthcare region and education) reference population. We assessed mean costs/year in Euros, inflation-adjusted to 2020, for hospitalisations, out-patient visits, medications, sick leave and disability pension. We defined excess costs as the mean difference between patients and matched comparators. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2020, absolute mean annual societal costs in working-age (18-64 years) individuals decreased by 17% in CD (-24% in the comparators) and by 20% in UC (-27% in comparators), due to decreasing costs from sick leave and disability, a consequence of stricter sick leave regulations. Excess costs in 2007 were dominated by productivity losses. In 2020, excess costs were mostly healthcare costs. Absolute and excess costs increased in paediatric and elderly patients. Overall, costs for TNF inhibitors/targeted therapies increased by 274% in CD and 638% in UC, and the proportion treated increased from 5% to 26% in CD, and from 1% to 10% in UC. CONCLUSION: Between 2007 and 2020, excess costs shifted from productivity losses to direct healthcare costs; that is, the patients' compensation for sickness absence decreased, while society increased its spending on medications. Medication costs were driven both by expanding use of TNF inhibitors and by high costs for newer targeted therapies.

The Expiry of Humira® Market Exclusivity and the Entry of Adalimumab Biosimilars in Europe: An Overview of Pricing and National Policy Measures.

Background: From October 2018, adalimumab biosimilars could enter the European market. However, in some countries, such as Netherlands, high discounts reported for the originator product may have influenced biosimilar entry. Objectives: The aim of this paper is to provide a European overview of (list) prices of originator adalimumab, before and after loss of exclusivity; to report changes in the reimbursement status of adalimumab products; and discuss relevant policy measures. Methods: Experts in European countries received a survey consisting of three parts: 1) general financing/co-payment of medicines, 2) reimbursement status and prices of originator adalimumab, and availability of biosimilars, and 3) policy measures related to the use of adalimumab. Results: In May 2019, adalimumab biosimilars were available in 24 of the 30 countries surveyed. Following introduction of adalimumab biosimilars, a number of countries have made changes in relation to the reimbursement status of adalimumab products. Originator adalimumab list prices varied between countries by a factor of 2.8 before and 4.1 after loss of exclusivity. Overall, list prices of originator adalimumab decreased after loss of exclusivity, although for 13 countries list prices were unchanged. When reported, discounts/rebates on originator adalimumab after loss of exclusivity ranged from 0% to approximately 26% (Romania), 60% (Poland), 80% (Denmark, Italy, Norway), and 80-90% (Netherlands), leading to actual prices per pen or syringe between €412 (Finland) and €50 - €99 (Netherlands). To leverage competition following entry of biosimilar adalimumab, only a few countries adopted measures specifically for adalimumab in addition to general policies regarding biosimilars. In some countries, a strategy was implemented even before loss of exclusivity (Denmark, Scotland), while others did not report specific measures. Conclusion: Even though originator adalimumab is the highest selling product in the world, few countries have implemented specific policies and practices for (biosimilar) adalimumab. Countries with biosimilars on the market seem to have competition lowering list or actual prices. Reported discounts varied widely between countries.

Preparing for the incoming wave of biosimilars in oncology.

With the imminent arrival of oncology biosimilars in the therapeutic paradigm, stakeholders including a clinician, specialist nurse, patient advocate, regulator and economist provide their perspective on optimising the uptake of these new agents in the treatment of cancer. A number of key messages emerge, based on the discussion that took place during a session of the European Society for Medical Oncology's Annual Congress, ESMO Madrid 2017. First, for successful integration of biosimilars into the global healthcare paradigm, informing and educating the full scope of stakeholders, including clinicians, nurses, pharmacists and patients, is primordial. Success is dependent on providing solid evidence and ensuring all voices are heard. Second, for oncology medicines, much can be learnt from the growing experience of approved biosimilars in other disease indications, with success stories for patients, their healthcare providers and healthcare budgets alike. Finally, effective sustainability of the impact on healthcare budgets and the redirection of these savings require education and transparency.

To switch from Botox to Dysport in children with CP, a real world, dose conversion, cost-effectiveness study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Children with cerebral palsy (CP) are routinely treated with botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A). Two non dose-equivalent and differently priced products, Botox and Dysport are used. Depending on the conversion one of the products is considerably cheaper. However, the dose conversion factors studied to date have varied widely and relevant studies have not included children. Our objective here was to compare the efficacy and health economics of the switch from Botox to Dysport in children with CP when conversion was set to 1:2. Specifically were these treatments perceived as equivalent in terms of efficacy, duration and side-effects and were the drug cost lowered by using Dysport. METHODS: This prospective, real-world, cost-effectiveness population-based observational study included all children with CP, (n = 159) mean age 9.4 years (SD, 4.3), in the larger Stockholm area who received BoNT-A between September 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Parents reported the efficacy, duration and side-effects of previous treatment while physicians reported doses and goals set by children and parents for the present treatment. Drug acquisition costs were provided by county administrators. RESULTS: In connection with 341 visits caregivers reported comparable effects of similar duration with these products, with few, similar and transient side-effects. The drug-cost per treatment was 4029 SEK for Botox and 2380 SEK in the case of Dysport. CONCLUSION: When Botox was replaced by a two-fold higher Unit dose of Dysport (conversion 1:2) parents perceived the treatment of their children with CP to be equally effective while the cost was 41% lower according to procured prices.

[The willingness to pay for new drugs is based on ethical principles]. / Betalningsviljan för nya läkemedel bygger på etiska principer - NT-rådet tolkar riksdagens plattform för prioritering.

The County Council's board for new therapies (the NT Council) provides recommendations on the use of new drugs based on the ethical platform of priorities, founded by the Swedish parliament. The Council has formulated a policy that interprets the parliamentary ethical platform and operationalize its need and solidarity principle and cost effectiveness principle in four dimensions. The NT Council weighs the health economic evaluation of the drug and the four dimensions: the severity of the condition, the rarity of the condition, the effect size and the data reliability to determine the willingness to pay level and whether the platform allows a recommendation for using of the drug. The severity of the condition has a greater impact than the other dimensions. In the assessment of severity there is also a trade-off between prevention and treatment of manifest diseases and in prevention, the size of the risk of falling ill is of importance. A slightly higher willingness to pay level is reasonable for treatment of very rare conditions, but it is important that identified patients are not given priority over anonymous patient groups with equally strong needs.

Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries.

BACKGROUND: National payers across Europe have been increasingly looking into innovative reimbursement approaches - called managed entry agreements (MEAs) - to balance the need to provide rapid access to potentially beneficial orphan medicinal products (OMPs) with the requirements to circumscribe uncertainty, obtain best value for money or to ensure affordability. This study aimed to identify, describe and classify MEAs applied to OMPs by national payers and to analyse their practice in Europe. METHODS: To identify and describe MEAs, national health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions on OMPs across seven European countries were reviewed and their main characteristics extracted. To fill data gaps and validate the accuracy of the extraction, collaboration was sought from national payers. To classify MEAs, a bespoke taxonomy was implemented. Identified MEAs were analysed and compared by focusing on five key themes, namely by describing the MEAs in relation to: drug targets and therapeutic classes, geographical spread, type of MEA applied, declared rationale for setting-up of MEAs, and evolution over time. RESULTS: 42 MEAs for 26 OMPs, implemented between 2006 and 2012 and representing a variety of MEA designs, were identified. Italy was the country with the highest number of schemes (n=15), followed by the Netherlands (n=10), England and Wales (n=8), Sweden (n=5) and Belgium (n=4). No MEA was identified for France and Germany due to data unavailability. Antineoplastic agents were the primary targets of MEAs. 55% of the identified MEAs were performance-based risk-sharing arrangements; the other 45% were financial-based. Nine of these 26 OMPs were subject to MEAs in two or three different countries, resulting in 24 MEAs. 60% of identified MEAs focused on conditions whose prevalence is less than 1 per 10,000. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that a variety of MEAs were increasingly used by European payers to manage aspects of uncertainty associated with the introduction of OMPs in the healthcare system, and which may be of a clinical, utilisation, or budgetary nature. It remains unclear whether differences in the use of MEAs reflect differences in how 'uncertainty' and 'value' are perceived across healthcare systems.