Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Patent and Marketing Exclusivities 101 for Drug Developers.

Despite an ever-increasing need for newer, safer, more effective, and more affordable therapies to treat a multitude of diseases and conditions, drug development takes too long, costs too much, and is too uncertain to be undertaken without the conferment of exclusionary rights or entry barriers to motivate and sustain investment in it. These entry barriers take the form of patents that protect intellectual property and marketing exclusivity provisions that are provided by statute. This review focuses on the basic ins and outs of regulatory and patent exclusivities for which new chemical entities (NCEs), referring to never-before approved drugs with an entirely new active ingredient, are eligible and uses RRx-001, a small molecule aerospace-derived NCE in development for the treatment of cancer, radiation toxicity, and diseases of the NLR family pyrin domain containing 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome, as a "real world" example. This is intended as a '101-type' of primer; its aim is to help developers of original pharmaceuticals navigate the maze of patents, other IP regulations, and statutory exclusivities in major markets so that they can make proper use of them.

Stick or twist? Cost-effectiveness of siponimod compared with continuing existing disease-modifying therapies in the treatment of active secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Identification of the phenotypic transition from relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) to secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) is often delayed due to disease complexity and an unwillingness to withdraw RRMS disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), driven by limited SPMS treatment options. Despite the paucity of clinical evidence for efficacy in patients with SPMS, DMTs licensed for RRMS are frequently continued into the early stages of SPMS. The cost-effectiveness of oral siponimod, an active SPMS DMT, versus continued oral or infused RRMS DMTs for patients with active SPMS, was evaluated. METHODS: A cohort Markov model based on disease progression through Expanded Disability Status Scale health states, with annual cycles and lifetime horizon, was employed to determine the cost-effectiveness of siponimod from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective for patients with active SPMS. Baseline characteristics, health state utility values, hazard ratios for time to 6-month confirmed disability progression, annualized relapse rate ratios and adverse events for siponimod were obtained from the phase 3 EXPAND clinical trial, supplemented by published literature. Published costs, resource use data and comparator efficacy data were obtained from the literature and, in the absence of data, reasonable assumptions were made. RESULTS: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were greater for siponimod versus all comparators (3.45 versus 2.69-2.83). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), calculated as cost per QALY, for siponimod versus natalizumab (dominant), ocrelizumab (£4,760), fingolimod (£10,033) and dimethyl fumarate (£15,837) indicated that siponimod was cost-effective at the commonly accepted willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of active SPMS and treatment of this phenotype with siponimod offers a cost-effective and clinically beneficial treatment approach compared with the continuation of oral or infused RRMS DMTs.

The Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™): a clinical outcome measure for the severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD. METHODS: Data were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies. RESULTS: Across studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P < 0·001). Responsiveness was demonstrated vs. EASI (P < 0·001 for much improved vs. improved and improved vs. stable). Anchor- and distribution-based methods supported a vIGA-AD change of -1·0 as clinically meaningful. These findings are limited to populations defined by the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vIGA-AD demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretation standards for use in clinical trials. What is already known about this topic? A description of the development of the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) has been published previously. What does this study add? The current study validates the vIGA-AD by demonstrating appropriate test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness across three baricitinib clinical studies. In addition, a 1-point change was identified as a clinically meaningful patient-perceived change minimal clinically important difference in the vIGA-AD. What are the clinical implications of the work? The vIGA-AD is a measure for investigator assessment of atopic dermatitis suitable for use in clinical research.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of siponimod in the treatment of secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Siponimod is an effective treatment for patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS), with active disease evidenced by relapses or imaging features characteristic of multiple sclerosis inflammatory activity, however there is a need to evaluate its economic value and sustainability compared to other disease modifying-therapies (DMTs). OBJECTIVE: To estimate the siponimod cost-effectiveness profile and its relative budget impact compared with other DMTs, by using the Italian National Healthcare System perspective. METHODS: We performed: 1) a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) vs interferon beta-1b using an analytical Markov model and a life time-horizon, and 2) a budget impact analysis by using 3-years time-horizon. The results were reported as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and net-monetary benefit (NMB) for CEA, using a willingness to pay threshold of €40,000 per QALY gained, and as difference in the overall budget (Euro) between the scenario with and without siponimod for budget impact. RESULTS: In the base case scenario siponimod resulted cost-effective compared with interferon beta-1b 28,891€ per QALY. Overall, the market access of siponimod was associated to an increased budget of about 3€ millions (+0.9%) in the next 3 years simulated. CONCLUSION: Compared to interferon beta-1b, siponimod seems to be cost-effective in SPMS patients and sustainable, with less than 1% overall budget increased in the next 3 years. Future studies need to confirm our results in the real word setting and in other countries.

Cost-Effectiveness of Combination of Baricitinib and Remdesivir in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in the United States: A Modelling Study.

INTRODUCTION: Baricitinib-remdesivir (BARI-REM) combination is superior to remdesivir (REM) in reducing recovery time and accelerating clinical improvement among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), specifically those receiving high-flow oxygen/noninvasive ventilation. Here we assessed the cost-effectiveness of BARI-REM versus REM in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the USA. METHODS: A three-state model was developed addressing costs and patient utility associated with COVID-19 hospitalization, immediate post hospital care, and subsequent lifetime medical care. Analysis was performed from the perspective of a payer and a hospital. Both perspectives evaluated two subgroups: all patients and patients who required oxygen. The primary measures of benefit in the model were patient quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) accrued during and after hospitalization, cost per life years gained, cost per death avoided, and cost per use of mechanical ventilation avoided. RESULTS: In the base-case payer perspective with a lifetime horizon, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM resulted in an incremental total cost of $7962, a gain of 0.446 life years and gain of 0.3565 QALYs over REM. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of using BARI-REM were estimated as $22,334 per QALY and $17,858 per life year. The base-case and sensitivity analyses showed that the total incremental cost per QALY falls within the reduced willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY applied under health emergencies. In all hospitalized patients, treatment with BARI-REM versus REM reduced total hospital expenditures per patient by $1778 and total reimbursement payments by $1526, resulting in a $252 reduction in net costs per patient; it also resulted in a net gain of 0.0018 QALYs and increased survival of COVID-19 hospitalizations by 2.7%. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that BARI-REM is cost-effective compared to using REM for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The base-case results of this cost-effectiveness model were most sensitive to average annual medical costs for recovered patients.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Cobimetinib and Vemurafenib for Treatment of BRAF V600 Variation Metastatic Melanoma.

Importance: In the IMspire150 trial, triplet treatment with atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone for treatment of BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma. However, considering high cost of this combination, it is unclear if the incremental cost is worth the additional survival benefit. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone in patients with newly diagnosed unresectable BRAF V600 variation metastatic melanoma from the US health care perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation study used a 3-state partitioned survival model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib vs vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone. The observed Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival and PFS were digitized from the IMspire150 trial (January 2017-April 2018) and the long-term survivals (over a lifetime horizon) beyond the end of the trial were extrapolated using 7 different survival models. The cost and health preference data were collected from a literature review. This study was performed from March 2021 through June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes of interest were expected life-years (LYs) gained and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per LYs and per QALYs saved. Results: Adding atezolizumab to vemurafenib and cobimetinib provided an additional 3.267 QALYs compared with the doublet regimen of vemurafenib plus cobimetinib, at an ICER of $271 669 per QALY, which is not considered cost-effective at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. However, the scenario analyses found that atezolizumab combined with vemurafenib plus cobimetinib could be cost-effective at 20-year (ICER, $121 432 per QALY) and 30-year ($98 092 per QALY) time horizons when both strategies were stopped after 2 years of treatments, and over a lifetime horizon ($122 220 per QALY) when only immunotherapy with atezolizumab was stopped after 2 years of treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the atezolizumab and vemurafenib plus cobimetinib regimen provides significant survival benefits over vemurafenib plus cobimetinib alone, and a price reduction would be encouraged to maximize the value of its survival gain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Baricitinib Compared With Standard of Care: A Modeling Study in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in the United States.

PURPOSE: In the Phase III COV-BARRIER (Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib for the Treatment of Hospitalised Adults With COVID-19) trial, treatment with baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, in addition to standard of care (SOC), was associated with significantly reduced mortality over 28 days in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), with a safety profile similar to that of SOC alone. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib + SOC versus SOC alone (which included systemic corticosteroids and remdesivir) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States. METHODS: An economic model was developed to simulate inpatients' stay, discharge to postacute care, and recovery. Costs modeled included payor costs, hospital costs, and indirect costs. Benefits modeled included life-years (LYs) gained, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, deaths avoided, and use of mechanical ventilation avoided. The primary analysis was performed from a payor perspective over a lifetime horizon; a secondary analysis was performed from a hospital perspective. The base-case analysis modeled the numeric differences in treatment effectiveness observed in the COV-BARRIER trial. Scenario analyses were also performed in which the clinical benefit of baricitinib was limited to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the trial. FINDINGS: In the base-case payor perspective model, an incremental total cost of 17,276 US dollars (USD), total QALYs gained of 0.6703, and total LYs gained of 0.837 were found with baricitinib + SOC compared with SOC alone. With the addition of baricitinib, survival was increased by 5.1% and the use of mechanical ventilation was reduced by 1.6%. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 25,774 USD/QALY gained and 20,638 USD/LY gained; a "mortality-only" scenario analysis yielded similar results of 26,862 USD/QALY gained and 21,433 USD/LY gained. From the hospital perspective, combination treatment with baricitinib + SOC was more effective and less costly than was SOC alone in the base case, with an incremental cost of 38,964 USD per death avoided in the mortality-only scenario. IMPLICATIONS: In hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the United States, the addition of baricitinib to SOC was cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness was demonstrated from both the payor and the hospital perspectives. These findings were robust to sensitivity analysis and to conservative assumptions limiting the clinical benefits of baricitinib to the statistically significant reduction in mortality demonstrated in the COV-BARRIER trial.

Novel quantitative digital image analysis methodology for assessment of inflammatory changes in MRI data in a post-hoc analysis of data acquired from a phase IIb study of baricitinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate a novel quantitative methodology to assess inflammatory changes in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the impact of image quality on imaging outcomes compared to the RA Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (RAMRIS). METHODS: Three-dimensional, T1-weighted, fat-suppressed MRI sequences of the hand/wrist before and after intravenous Gadolinium contrast from patients with RA in a placebo-controlled clinical trial (NCT01185353) were re-evaluated post hoc. The methodology was integrated into proprietary software (DYNAMIKA®) and assessed inflammation through pixelated measurements of the contrast-enhancing (inflammatory) volume. A semi-automatic approach outlined contrast-enhancing synovial tissue in the wrist and second to fifth metacarpophalangeal joints with a rough region of interest (ROI); quantitative imaging biomarkers were generated by means of quantitative total volume of inflammation and quantitative degree of inflammation relative to the signal in a 1 cm in diameter ROI in the center of the thenar or lumbrical muscle for internal reference. The time from Gadolinium injection to finalization of the post-contrast images was calculated from the images' Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine header. An experienced reader graded image quality as poor, acceptable, or good. RESULTS: Results from this quantitative methodology, especially when excluding images with poor quality scores (14-32%), provided a more pronounced and monotonically increasing dose-response than the original RAMRIS results on synovitis and osteitis. CONCLUSIONS: This computer-aided quantitative scoring method provided continuous measures of inflammatory changes relative to muscle and may be more sensitive and interpretable concerning dose/response separation between RA treatment groups.

Cost Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Siponimod Compared to Interferon Beta-1a in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis with Active Disease in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: The study aim was to evaluate the cost effectiveness and budget impact of siponimod compared to interferon beta-1a for adult patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (SPMS) with active disease, from a Swiss health insurance perspective. METHODS: We conducted an analysis using a Markov cohort model with a cycle length of 1 year, life-long time horizon, and discount rate of 3% for cost and health outcomes. We used a matching-adjusted indirect comparison to estimate clinical outcomes using data from the EXPAND randomised controlled trial of siponimod vs placebo and the Nordic SPMS randomised controlled trial of interferon beta-1a vs placebo as the basis for estimates of disability progression and relapse outcomes. We used 6-month confirmed disability progression results to estimate disability progression in the base-case analysis. We calculated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) based on an external study that administered the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire to European patients with multiple sclerosis. We included costs (Swiss Franc (CHF), year 2020) of drug acquisition/administration, adverse events and disease management. We also performed a budget impact analysis to estimate the cost over the first 3 years of introducing siponimod. RESULTS: For the base case, siponimod resulted in mean incremental costs of CHF 84,901 (siponimod: CHF 567,838, interferon beta-1a: CHF 482,937) and mean incremental QALYs of 1.591 (siponimod: 7.495, interferon beta-1a: 5.905), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 53,364 per QALY gained. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability of the cost effectiveness of siponimod assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CHF 100,000 per QALY gained was 90%. Siponimod was projected to result in drug administration costs for siponimod of CHF 23,817,856 in the first 3 years after introduction, accompanied by large cost offsets in drug acquisition of other multiple sclerosis drugs. Considering drug administration, monitoring and adverse event management costs, it was estimated to result in additional healthcare costs in Switzerland of CHF 2,177,021. CONCLUSIONS: In the base-case analysis, we found that siponimod may be cost effective for treating Swiss adult patients with SPMS with active disease. The results of the cost-effectiveness analyses are valid under the assumption that the efficacy of siponimod and the comparators on disability progression for the overall SPMS population would be the same in the active SPMS population. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER: NCT01665144. This economic evaluation was based on the EXPAND trial.

Conversion of Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Fatigue Scores in Two Phase III Baricitinib Rheumatoid Arthritis Trials.

OBJECTIVE: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is validated for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, 10 of 13 FACIT-F items are identified as relevant to patients with RA. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses an item response theory-calibrated T score metric. The PROMIS Fatigue item bank includes the FACIT-F items, enabling score conversion. The performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores has not been evaluated in RA populations or clinical trials. Our objective was to assess the performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores in 2 RA clinical trials of baricitinib. METHODS: Crosswalk tables and pattern-scoring methods converted FACIT-F scores to PROMIS Fatigue for both the 13-item FACIT-F and the 10-item RA-optimized FACIT-F instrument, in 2 RA clinical trials evaluating baricitinib, RA-BEAM, and RA-BEACON. RA-BEAM patients had an inadequate response to methotrexate. RA-BEACON patients had an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Baricitinib was compared to all treatment arms via analysis of covariance on PROMIS Fatigue score conversions. RESULTS: Baseline FACIT-F-derived PROMIS Fatigue scores reflected severe fatigue across treatment groups and were similar using different scoring methods. At week 24 in both studies, baricitinib was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in PROMIS Fatigue scores. PROMIS Fatigue scores were consistent for conversion methods and for the 13-item or 10-item FACIT-F. CONCLUSION: All 4 conversion methods showed differentiation of active treatment compared with placebo from week 12, supporting the use of the PROMIS Fatigue and converting the 10-item FACIT-F to assess fatigue and demonstrate treatment benefit in RA clinical trials on a standardized metric.

Assessment of acute kidney injury related to small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors using the FDA adverse event reporting system.

PURPOSE: Small-molecule protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) have substantially improved clinical outcomes of various diseases. However, some studies suggested these agents might induce acute kidney injury (AKI). This study was designed to comprehensively assess the adverse events of AKI in real-world patients receiving small-molecule PKIs using the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: The FAERS data between 2004 and 2019 were extracted to describe the characteristics of AKI cases after the use of small-molecule PKIs approved by the FDA. The reporting odds ratio (ROR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for AKI was calculated for each small-molecule PKI agent. A disproportionality signal was defined when the lower limit of 95% CI > 1. RESULTS: Among the 462,020 adverse event reports for small-molecule PKIs, 9970 (2.16%) were identified as AKI cases. The median AKI onset time was 32 (interquartile range 11-124) days after the initiation of small-molecule PKI treatment. A total of 61.38% and 26.04% of AKI cases resulted in hospitalization and death, respectively. Based on RORs, 14 of 52 small-molecule PKIs yielded disproportionality signals for AKI, including six VEGFR inhibitors, three mTOR inhibitors and five small-molecule PKIs with other targets. The agents with the highest AKI RORs were entrectinib (ROR 6.40, 95% CI 2.23, 18.34), sirolimus (ROR 3.76, 95% CI 3.45, 4.09), and cobimetinib (ROR 3.40, 95% CI 2.69, 4.28). CONCLUSION: Analysis of the FAERS data helped identify the small-molecule PKIs that were most frequently reported for AKI. Further investigations are needed to confirm these potential risks.

Assessment of the association of baseline anti-CarbV and anti-MCV antibodies with response to treatment and radiographic progression in an RA population treated with either methotrexate or baricitinib: post-hoc analyses from RA-BEGIN.

BACKGROUND: The development of autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has potential as a marker of treatment response. This analysis assessed the association of an autoantibody response to carbamylated vimentin (anti-CarbV) and to vimentin modified by citrullination (anti-MCV) with response to treatment and structural damage progression in the phase III study RA-BEGIN. METHODS: Data from patients in the modified intent-to-treat population of RA-BEGIN were included for analysis; these patients received methotrexate (MTX), baricitinib 4 mg once daily, or baricitinib plus MTX during the 52-week study period. Endpoints analyzed were clinical response to treatment, assessed using change from baseline (CFB) in Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint count with serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-hsCRP), and structural damage progression, assessed using CFB greater than the smallest detectable change in the van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score. The anti-CarbV and anti-MCV isotypes assessed were immunoglobulin (Ig) A, IgG, and IgM. Multivariable mixed-effect models for repeated measures (MMRMs) were used for the longitudinal analysis of treatment response, and multivariable logistic regression models were used for the analysis of structural damage progression at week 52. RESULTS: Analysis of the association between autoantibodies and treatment response showed that high titers of anti-CarbV (IgA and IgG) were associated with a greater clinical response as measured by SDAI and DAS28-hsCRP. Anti-CarbV IgA and IgG, but not IgM, demonstrated an association after adjustment for other factors included in the MMRMs. High titers of anti-CarbV IgM were associated with a poor response to MTX monotherapy, whereas a nonsignificant trend toward a better response to baricitinib and baricitinib plus MTX was observed. There was no association between anti-MCV antibodies and treatment response. High titers of anti-CarbV IgA were associated with a greater probability of radiographic progression, but no association between anti-MCV antibodies and radiographic progression was observed. CONCLUSIONS: High titers of anti-CarbV IgA and IgG isotypes, but not anti-MCV isotypes, may be useful prognostic biomarkers for identifying the likelihood of the response to treatment and structural damage progression in patients with RA.

Critical Assessment of Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Potential of Tofacitinib, Baricitinib and Upadacitinib, the Three Approved Janus Kinase Inhibitors for Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment.

The introduction of novel, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitors namely tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib has provided an alternative treatment option for patients with rheumatoid arthritis outside of traditional drugs and expensive biologics. This review aimed to critically assess the drug-drug interaction potential of tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib and provide a balanced perspective for choosing the most appropriate Janus kinase inhibitor based on the needs of patients with rheumatoid arthritis including co-medications and renal/hepatic impairment status. Based on the critical assessment, all three approved Janus kinase inhibitors generally provide a favourable opportunity for co-prescription with a plethora of drugs. While cytochrome P450 3A4-related inhibition or induction altered the exposures (area under the curve) of tofacitinib and upadacitinib, it did not impact the exposure of baricitinib. Transporter drug-drug interaction studies revealed that the disposition of baricitinib was altered with certain transporter inhibitors as compared with either tofacitinib or upadacitinib. Adjustment of tofacitinib or baricitinib dosages but not that of upadacitinib is required with the progression of renal impairment from a mild to a severe condition. While the dosage of tofacitinib needs to be adjusted for patients with moderate hepatic impairment status, it is not the case for either baricitinib or upadacitinib. Assessment of the drug-drug interaction potential suggests that tofacitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib generally show a favourable disposition with no perpetrator activity; however, as victim drugs, they show subtle pharmacokinetic differences that may be considered during polypharmacy. Moreover, careful choice of the three drugs could be made in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with varying degrees of renal/hepatic impairments.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

The Effectiveness and Value of Siponimod for Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, Commonwealth Fund, California Health Care Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management (NIHCM), New England States Consortium Systems Organization, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and Partners HealthCare to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, 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, and United Healthcare. Synnott and Pearson are employed by ICER. Bloudek and Carlson report a research agreement between the University of Washington and ICER; Bloudek reports consulting fees from Allergan, Seattle Genetics, Dermira, Sunovion, TerSera Therapeutics, Cook Regentech, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals; and Carlson reports personal fees from Bayer, unrelated to this report. Sharaf reports consulting fees from ICER.

Importance of Patient-Centered Outcomes When Evaluating Treatments for Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this commentary. The author has nothing to disclose.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. RESULTS: Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Custo-utilidade de terapias-alvo comparadas à dacarbazina para o tratamento de primeira linha do melanoma avançado não-cirúrgico e metastático no Sistema Único de Saúde do Brazil.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of isolated and combined targeted therapy regimens compared to dacarbazine for first-line treatment of advanced and metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600 mutation. METHODS: A Markov model with three health states (no progression, progression and death), monthly duration cycle and 10-year time horizon was constructed to compare targeted therapy regimens (vemurafenib, dabrafenib, vemurafenib/cobimetinib and dabrafenib/trametinib) with dacarbazine chemotherapy under the Brazilian public health perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean cost was R$5662.50 ($1490.13) for dacarbazine, R$175 937.18 (46 299.26) for vemurafenib, R$167 461.70 ($44 068.87) for dabrafenib, R$425 901 ($112 079.21) for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and R$411 799.81 ($108 368.37) for dabrafenib/trametinib, whereas QALY was 0.91 for dacarbazine, 1.08 for vemurafenib, 1.12 for dabrafenib, 1.64 for vemurafenib/cobimetinib and 1.56 for dabrafenib/trametinib. The ICUR was estimated from R$572 165.76 ($150 569.94) to R$1 012 524.56 ($266 453.83) per patient, and the most impactful parameters were risk of progression and death, and treatment cost. CONCLUSION: The incorporation of targeted therapies in the Brazilian public health system would produce an additional expenditure of at least 19 times the national GDP per capita to increase in one year the quality-adjusted survival of each patient with advanced/metastatic BRAF-mutant melanoma.