Cost-Effectiveness of Early Treatment with Originator Biologics or Their Biosimilars After Methotrexate Failure in Patients with Established Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence supports the clinical benefits of early aggressive biologic treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but the cost-effectiveness of early intervention with originator biologics such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or their biosimilars has not been well studied. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate lifetime costs and utilities for patients with established RA who do not respond to methotrexate (MTX) therapy. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing a standard intervention pathway (addition of originator biologic TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 12 months) and two early intervention pathways (either addition of originator biologic TNFis or addition of biosimilar TNFis to MTX monotherapy at 6 months). RESULTS: Early intervention with an originator biologic TNFi at 6 months was associated with increases in total lifetime costs of £1692 and utilities of 0.10 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient compared with standard intervention at 12 months, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £17,335/QALY. Early intervention with a biosimilar TNFi increased costs by £70 and utilities by 0.10 QALYs per patient and was associated with an ICER of £713/QALY. CONCLUSION: Switching from MTX monotherapy to combination therapy with either an originator biologic or biosimilar TNFis at 6 months after csDMARD failure in patients with RA was cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000/QALY. FUNDING: Pfizer Inc.

Differentiating biosimilarity and comparability in biotherapeutics.

The manufacture of biologics is a complex process involving numerous steps. Over time, differences may arise as a result of planned changes to the manufacturing processes of a biologic from the same manufacturer. Comparability is the regulatory process that outlines the scope of an assessment required of an already licensed biologic after a manufacturing process change made by the same manufacturer. The aim of a comparability assessment is to demonstrate that any pre-manufacturing and post-manufacturing changes have no adverse impact on quality, safety, and efficacy of the biologic. A comparability assessment is distinct from a biosimilarity assessment, which involves extensive assessment of a biologic that is highly similar to the originator (reference product) in terms of quality, safety, and efficacy. The US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization have applied the fundamental comparability concepts into their respective biosimilarity guidance documents. In this review, we examine the rationale behind the distinct, highly regulated approval processes governing changes that may occur over time to an originator biologic due to planned manufacturing changes (as described by a comparability exercise) and those that outline the approval of a proposed biosimilar drug, based on its relationship with the reference product (biosimilarity evaluations).