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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Process and Clinical Outcomes of a Biosimilar Adoption Program with Infliximab-Dyyb.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the FDA approved infliximab-dyyb (IFX-dyyb) as a biosimilar to infliximab (IFX). Deemed to have comparable efficacy and safety to IFX, IFX-dyyb is 20%-30% less expensive, allowing significant cost savings for institutions and some payers. In 2018, IFX was reported to be the drug with the highest spend since 2013, costing $3.8 billion; however, transition to IFX-dyyb would save $1.1 billion. Regardless, many institutions have not transitioned to IFX-dyyb or other IFX biosimilars (e.g., IFX-abda) because of concerns about clinical outcomes, uncertainty regarding financial impact, and barriers to operationalizing biosimilar adoption. At Boston Medical Center, a decision was made in March 2018 to adopt IFX-dyyb and transition patients who have been on IFX for ≥ 6 months for all indications to IFX-dyyb. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe a biosimilar adoption process of IFX-dyyb in patients on IFX for ≥ 6 months; (b) characterize cost savings of transitioning patients to IFX-dyyb; and (c) evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who transitioned to IFX-dyyb. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients eligible for the IFX-dyyb switch from March 2018 to June 2019 at a large academic medical center. For process outcomes, we collected the proportion of patients who transitioned to IFX-dyyb and calculated the cost savings generated. To assess clinical outcomes of adult IBD patients who transitioned, we collected IFX and IFX-dyyb dosage, Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) scores, c-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and colonoscopy results. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's test were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 151 eligible patients, 146 (97%) successfully transitioned to IFX-dyyb. Based on our conversion rate to IFX-dyyb, our health system is forecasted to save approximately $500,000 annually. From March to June 2018, 63 of 75 (84%) eligible IBD patients transitioned from IFX to IFX-dyyb. In this cohort, of the 40 patients with HBI or SCCAI scores before and after transition, 36 (90%) maintained remission. For 32 patients, the mean CRP (SD) before transition was 11.2 (22) and 4.1 (4.8) after transition (P = 0.09). Since the IFX-dyyb transition, 9 patients had a colonoscopy, of which 5 (56%) were in endoscopic remission. As of October 2018, 56 (89%) patients continued with IFX-dyyb after transition. Of the 46 patients who had 12-15 months posttransition data, 38 (83%) remained on IFX-dyyb. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a biosimilar adoption program can be successful and result in significant cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. A model that uses actionable strategies and embraces collaboration among stakeholders is described here, with outcomes demonstrating successful IFX-dyyb uptake and no changes in clinical outcomes of transitioned adult patients with IBD. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Farraye reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. Shah reports speaker fees from Pfizer. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

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.

How the Beneficial Effects of Alvimopan Differ With Surgical Approach for Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the beneficial perioperative effects of alvimopan differ with surgical approach for patients who undergo open radical cystectomy (ORC) vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed all patients who underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion at our institution between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2018. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical approach, alvimopan therapy, hospital length of stay (LOS), days until return of bowel function (ROBF), and complications. Outcomes and interactions were evaluated through regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 573 patients, 236 (41.2%) underwent RARC, 337 (58.8%) underwent ORC, and 205 (35.8%) received alvimopan. Comparison of 4 cohorts (ORC with alvimopan, ORC without alvimopan, RARC with alvimopan, and RARC without alvimopan) showed that patients who underwent ORC without alvimopan had the highest rate of postoperative ileus (25.6%, P = .02), longest median hospital LOS (7 days, P < .001), and longest time until ROBF (4 days, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the interaction between surgical approach and alvimopan use was significant for the outcome of ROBF (estimate, 1.109; 95% confidence interval, 0.418-1.800; P = .002). In the RARC cohort, multivariable analysis showed no benefit of alvimopan with respect to ileus (P = .27), LOS (P = .09), or ROBF (P = .36). Regarding joint effects of robotic approach and alvimopan, RARC had no effect on gastrointestinal tract outcomes. CONCLUSION: We observed a diminished beneficial effect of alvimopan among patients undergoing RARC and a statistically significant benefit of alvimopan among patients undergoing ORC. The implications of these findings may permit more selective medication use for patients who would benefit the most from this drug.

Identification of the Most Cost-effective Position of Vedolizumab Among the Available Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are limited data on the most cost-effective sequencing of biologics for ulcerative colitis [UC]. METHODS: We used Markov modelling to identify the most cost-effective position for vedolizumab among biologics for steroid-dependent UC, with a base-case of a 35-year-old male. We assessed three treatment algorithms, with vedolizumab use: prior to an initial anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFα] and azathioprine [Algorithm 1]; prior to a second anti-TNF and azathioprine [Algorithm 2]; and prior to colectomy [Algorithm 3]. The initial anti-TNF could be either infliximab or adalimumab. Transition probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life-year estimates were derived from published estimates, Medicare, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Primary analyses included 100 trials of 100 000 individuals over 1 year, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess our findings. RESULTS: From a population perspective, when both infliximab and adalimumab are available, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic if ≥14% of initial anti-TNF use was adalimumab. If infliximab is the primary biologic, vedolizumab use after infliximab [Algorithm 2] and prior to adalimumab was the most cost-effective strategy. All models were sensitive to biologic pricing. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation demonstrated that the most cost-effective strategy in UC depends on the proportion of patients using adalimumab as the initial anti-TNF. If adalimumab was ≥14%, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic. When only infliximab was available for first-line therapy, the most cost-effective position of vedolizumab was prior to cycling to adalimumab.

Number needed to treat and cost per remitter for biologic treatments of Crohn's disease in Japan.

Aims: Adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab have been approved for patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan. This study compared the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease based on data from randomized controlled trials.Methods: Data were extracted from four phase 3 clinical trials: CHARM, NCT00445432, ACCENT I, and IM-UNITI. A network meta-analysis (NMA) compared 1-year clinical remission rates in patients who responded to treatment during an induction phase. Remission was defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. The number needed to treat (NNT) was defined as the inverse of the risk reduction (compared with placebo) estimated from the NMA among initial responders. Cost per incremental remitter was calculated based on the projected per patient drug cost (2018 Japanese Yen [¥]) and the NNT.Results: Among initial responders, the remission rates were 45.2%, 31.9%, 27.4%, 24.1%, and 15.6% for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW), infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks, and placebo, respectively. The NNT was the lowest for adalimumab 40 mg EOW. Compared with adalimumab, the incremental cost per remitter was numerically higher for infliximab (¥5,375,470) and statistically higher for ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks and ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks (¥42,788,597 and ¥41,495,543, respectively).Limitations: Indirect comparisons are limited by the availability of suitable clinical evidence and there may be residual heterogeneity that could not be adjusted for.Conclusion: Adalimumab was associated with a numerically lower cost per remitter compared with infliximab and a statistically lower cost per remitter compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan.

Proactive Vs Reactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab in Crohn's Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in a Simulated Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly performed for Infliximab (IFX) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Reactive TDM is a cost-effective strategy to empiric IFX dose escalation. The cost-effectiveness of proactive TDM is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of proactive vs reactive TDM in a simulated population of CD patients on IFX. METHODS: We developed a stochastic simulation model of CD patients on IFX and evaluated the expected health costs and outcomes of a proactive TDM strategy compared with a reactive strategy. The proactive strategy measured IFX concentration and antibody status every 6 months, or at the time of a flare, and dosed IFX to a therapeutic window. The reactive strategy only did so at the time of a flare. RESULTS: The proactive strategy led to fewer flares than the reactive strategy. More patients stayed on IFX in the proactive vs reactive strategy (63.4% vs 58.8% at year 5). From a health sector perspective, a proactive strategy was marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $146,494 per quality-adjusted life year), assuming a 40% of the wholesale price of IFX. The results were most sensitive to risk of flaring with a low IFX concentration and the cost of IFX. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming 40% of the average wholesale acquisition cost of biologic therapies, proactive TDM for IFX is marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive TDM strategy. As the cost of infliximab decreases, a proactive monitoring strategy is more cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in adult patients with short bowel syndrome: Markov modeling using traditional cost-effectiveness criteria.

BACKGROUND: Adults with short bowel syndrome have a high mortality and significant morbidity due to unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation that necessitate chronic use of parenteral nutrition (PN). Teduglutide is a novel therapy that promotes intestinal adaptation to improve rehabilitation but with a price >$400,000/y. OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using teduglutide in US adult patients with short bowel syndrome. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the costs (in US dollars) and effectiveness (in quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs) of treatment compared with no teduglutide use, with a presumed starting age of 40 y. Parameters were obtained from published data or estimation. The primary effect modeled was the increased likelihood of reduced PN days per week when using teduglutide, leading to greater quality of life and lower PN costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model parameters. RESULTS: In the base scenario, teduglutide cost $949,910/QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, only reducing teduglutide cost decreased the cost/QALY gained to below the typical threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. Specifically, teduglutide cost would need to be reduced by >65% for it to reach the threshold value. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored no teduglutide use in 80% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. However, teduglutide therapy was cost-saving in 13% of model iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold as treatment for PN reduction in adult patients with short bowel syndrome compared with standard intestinal rehabilitation. Subpopulations that demonstrate maximum benefit could be cost-saving, and complete nonuse could lead to financial loss. Teduglutide becomes economically reasonable only if its cost is substantially reduced.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reimbursing Infliximab for Moderate to Severe Crohn's Disease in China.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of reimbursing infliximab for moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease (MS-CD) in China from the perspective of public insurance payers. METHODS: A decision-analytic model with a lifetime time horizon was constructed to simulate the disease progression and direct medical costs in Chinese MS-CD patients under two scenarios: reimbursing infliximab vs. not reimbursing infliximab. A cross-sectional study and literature review were conducted to estimate model variables. The constructed decision-analytic model ran the base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) to assess the cost-effectiveness of reimbursing infliximab using reimbursed medical costs. RESULTS: Base case analysis discounting health benefits and costs estimated that reimbursing infliximab could increase overall survival by 0.604 years, increase total quality-adjusted life years (QALY) by 0.697 QALY, reduce absolute lifetime surgery risk by 13.1%, and increase reimbursed costs by ¥29,409. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per gained additional QALY (ICER) based on discounted health benefits and reimbursed medical costs (3% per year) was ¥42,198. The one-way sensitivity analyses identified that the cost-effectiveness of reimbursing infliximab for MS-CD was mainly driven by the treatment efficacies of maintenance therapy, quality of life, and unit price of infliximab. PSA estimated that reimbursing infliximab was associated with a 63.8% chance to be cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay of the 2018 Chinese gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC). CONCLUSION: Reimbursing infliximab for MS-CD in Chinese patients was highly attractive, costing Chinese public insurance payers less than the 2018 Chinese GDPPC to gain 1 QALY.

Implementation of infliximab standardized doses after pharmacokinetic modelization in a cohort of patients with Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND: According to infliximab (IFX) license in Crohn's disease (CD), infusion doses are based on patient's body-weight. Dose banding providing standardized doses (SD) has been implemented in parenteral chemotherapy in order to optimize aseptic unit capacity and reduce drug expenditure, duration of hospital stay and costs without decreasing efficacy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The first part was a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive CD patients receiving IFX maintenance therapy to determine standardized doses covering more than 50% of infusions. The second part was a prospective cohort study assessing the impact of SD compared to body-weight doses (BWD) on admission duration and costs. RESULTS: Six IFX SD covering more than 90% of infusion doses were implemented for dose banding. According to the Monte-Carlo simulation, there was no significant difference between IFX SD and BWD maintenance regimens. When assessed prospectively in 116 patients (75 patients treated with SD and 41 with BWD) corresponding to 128 infusions, hospitalization duration was shortened by 70 min per patient (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: According to a pharmacokinetic model, IFX SD has a pharmacokinetic profile close to BWD and is associated with reduced length of hospitalization in a cohort of patients with CD. IFX SD implementation could optimize infusion units functioning and, save time and costs without decreasing efficacy.

Cost-of-illness of inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor: A French large single-centre experience.

Background: No study has evaluated the direct annual costs of inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify annual direct costs and main cost drivers of anti-tumour necrosis factor-treated inflammatory bowel disease patients. Methods: All inflammatory bowel disease patients treated with infliximab or adalimumab at Nancy University Hospital were consecutively screened for inclusion from November 2016-February 2017. Data about hospitalisation, surgery, medication, outpatient visits, investigations and transport over the previous 12 months were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 108 patients (n = 83 Crohn's disease; n = 25 ulcerative colitis) were included. The mean annual cost per patient was €15,775 (standard deviation €7221), with no difference between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis (p = 0.2). The main cost driver was medication, which accounted for 84% of the total direct cost. Hospitalisation and surgery represented 11% and 2% of the direct costs. History of switch to another anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment was identified as the only independent predictor of greater direct costs in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.0018). Conclusions: In a French tertiary referral centre, direct costs of anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy-treated patients were mainly driven by medication, while hospitalisation and surgery represented only a minor part of the costs. There was no difference between Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis patients.

Value Assessment and Quantitative Benefit-Risk Modelling of Biosimilar Infliximab for Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Regulatory approval of biosimilars often depends on extrapolating evidence from one clinical indication to all of those of the originator biologic. We aimed to develop a quantitative benefit-risk analysis to assess whether the resulting increase in the uncertainty in the clinical performance of biosimilars (i.e. risk) may be countered by their lower pricing (benefit). METHODS: A 1-year decision-analytic model was developed for the biosimilar infliximab (Inflectra®) for Crohn's disease. The perspective was that of the National Health Service in the UK and costs were valued to 2015/16. A hypothetical cohort of biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease was simulated through the model. Immunogenicity to infliximab was a key modifier, influencing rates of non-response and infusion reactions. Net health benefit was estimated based on quality-adjusted life-years. A range of sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the results and explored how the biosimilar price must respond to varying immunogenicity to remain the preferred option. RESULTS: The base-case analysis predicted a positive incremental net health benefit of 0.04 (95% central range 0.00-0.09) favouring the biosimilar, based on 0.803 quality-adjusted life-years, and costs of £18,087 and £19,176 for the biosimilar and originator, respectively. Two-way sensitivity analyses suggested that if 50% of patients developed antibodies, the value-based price of £410 per vial must be lower than that of the originator (£420), but remain higher than the actual market price (£378). CONCLUSIONS: The model supports the use of Inflecta® for Crohn's disease in the UK, and provides a framework for the quantitative evaluation of biosimilars in the context of a health technology assessment. Value-based pricing using this methodology could protect health systems from the potential risks of biosimilars where they are untested in the approved populations.