Real-World Treatment Patterns and Healthcare Resource Use for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data are used to inform decision-makers and optimise therapeutic management for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We analysed data on the epidemiology (by using proxies of prevalence and incidence), patient characteristics, treatment patterns and associated healthcare direct costs for the management of patients with UC and patients with CD in Italy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used administrative databases from eight Local Health Units geographically distributed across Italy. Adult patients with a hospitalisation and/or an exemption for UC or CD were included. Study outcomes were summarised descriptively, and limited statistical tests were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, 9255 adults with UC and 4747 adults with CD were included. Mean (standard deviation) age at inclusion was 54.0 (18.4)/48.6 (18.1) years, for UC/CD. The estimated average incidence of UC and CD for the period 2013-2020 was 36.5 and 18.7 per 100,000, respectively. The most frequently prescribed drug category for patients with UC/CD was conventional treatment [mesalazine and topical corticosteroids (67.4%/61.1%), immunomodulators and systemic corticosteroids (43.2%/47.7%)], followed by biologic treatments (2.1%/5.1%). The mean annual total direct cost per patient was 7678 euro (€), for UC and €6925 for CD. CONCLUSION: This analysis, carried-out in an Italian clinical setting, may help to optimise therapy for patients with UC and CD and provide relevant clinical practice data to inform decision-makers.

Data from clinical practice can be used to guide healthcare decisions and optimise treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This study used anonymised patient information from almost four million individuals across Italy to describe the epidemiology, patient characteristics, treatment patterns and healthcare costs of patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Adults with an Italian National Health System code in their records associated with the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups and rates of perceived incidence were numerically similar to the results reported in similar Italian studies. This study found that patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease were most often prescribed conventional treatments, and biological treatments were least-commonly prescribed. More than half of patients with ulcerative colitis and nearly half of those with Crohn's disease were persistent with first (index) treatment of mesalazine and topical corticosteroids and with biologic index treatment during the follow-up period. Switch occurred in up to approximately a quarter of patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The main factors that predicted switch were index biologic for ulcerative colitis and baseline comorbidities for Crohn's disease. The average direct cost per patient in 1 year was 7678 euro (€) for ulcerative colitis and €6925 for Crohn's disease. The results of this analysis may help to optimise therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, and to inform decision-makers in healthcare systems on which treatment options provide value for money and benefit patients.

Clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving standard and escalated doses of targeted therapies: findings from a global real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Although dosing regimens of targeted therapies (TT) for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are guided by market authorizations and clinical guidelines, little is known about clinical guideline adherence or outcomes in patients receiving escalated doses of TT due to lack of response. This real-world study explored the prevalence of dose escalation and compared outcomes between patients receiving standard and escalated TT doses. METHODS: Data were from the 2020-2021 Adelphi Disease Specific Programme for inflammatory bowel disease, a cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists and their UC and CD patients across five European countries and the US. Physicians provided retrospective data collection of patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, and satisfaction; patients reported quality-of-life and work productivity. Patients were grouped by TT maintenance dose; standard and escalated dose groups were compared. Outcomes were adjusted for time on current TT and severity at current TT initiation using regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,241 UC and 1,477 CD patients, 19.1% and 24.1%, respectively, received escalated TT doses. Despite escalation, a substantial proportion of patients had not achieved remission, had moderate or severe disease activity, or were flaring. Most physicians were not fully satisfied with treatment in the escalated dose group and were more likely to switch patients to another treatment regimen than patients on standard dose. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation is not always an effective approach to resolve inadequate or loss of response in UC and CD, highlighting a need for more therapeutic options or alternative treatment strategies in patients unresponsive to TT.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Biologic Therapy with Ixekizumab Versus Secukinumab in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis with Concomitant Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) antagonists are a recent innovation for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). There are currently no cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing the IL-17A antagonists ixekizumab and secukinumab in PsA from a UK perspective. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a CEA from the UK National Health Service perspective to compare ixekizumab versus secukinumab in patients with PsA and concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed based on the widely accepted York model. In biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve patients, ixekizumab → ustekinumab → best supportive care (BSC) was compared with secukinumab → ustekinumab → BSC. For bDMARD-experienced patients, ixekizumab → BSC was compared with secukinumab → BSC. At the end of the bDMARD trial period, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) responders continued to receive the bDMARD in the continuous treatment period. PsARC nonresponders and patients who ceased continuous treatment transitioned to the trial period of the next treatment. RESULTS: Ixekizumab was less costly and provided more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than secukinumab in bDMARD-naïve and -experienced patients based on list prices, although cost savings and QALY gains were small to modest. In bDMARD-naïve patients, total costs were £155,455 compared with £155,530 for secukinumab (year 2017 values). Total QALYs were 8.127 versus 7.989. In bDMARD-experienced patients, the corresponding values were £140,051 versus £140,264 for total costs and 3.996 versus 3.875 for total QALYs. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab provided more QALYs at a marginally lower cost than secukinumab, and the results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs. Other factors, such as patient preferences for the number of injections and confidential price discounts, may be important considerations in clinical decision-making.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA. METHODS: Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients. RESULTS: For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments. CONCLUSION: Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.