Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions. METHODS: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market. RESULTS: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

Outcomes after anti-tumour necrosis factor originator to biosimilar switching in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For cost-saving purposes, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) are being switched (for non-medical reasons) from biological originators to biosimilars. Here, we aimed to investigate those who switched from an anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) originator to a biosimilar, regarding drug survival and disease activity, compared with a matched cohort who continued the originator. METHODS: This analysis included all patients in the UK JIA Biologics Register switching directly from an anti-TNF originator to a biosimilar of the same product. All patients were matched (age, sex, disease duration, calendar year of when patients started originator therapy, line of therapy, and International League of Associations for Rheumatology [ILAR] category) to patients continuing the originator. For those matched successfully, a Cox proportional hazard model assessed whether drug persistence differed between those who switched compared with those who continued the originator. Overall change in the 71-joint juvenile arthritis disease activity score and the proportion of patients with a clinically important worsening score (by ≥1·7 units) after 6 months was compared between cohorts. This analysis was designed to address a priority research area set by our patient partners. FINDINGS: There were 224 children and young people with non-systemic JIA (139 [62%] were female, and 85 [38%] were male) identified as switching from a biological originator to a biosimilar of the same product from Jan 1, 2017, to July 7, 2023. 143 (64%) patients were originally on adalimumab, 56 (25%) on etanercept, and 25 (11%) on infliximab. Of these, 164 patients were matched successfully to those continuing the originator. There was no evidence that patients switching were more likely to stop treatment compared with those continuing the originator, with a hazard ratio of 1·46 (95% CI 0·93-2·30). Of the 51 patients in the biosimilar group who stopped treatment, 18 (35%) switched back to the originator (14 in the first year), 28 (55%) started a different biological drug, and five (10%) discontinued all treatment by the last follow-up. Of the 87 matched patients with available disease activity, there was no evidence that JADAS-71 worsened more after 6 months, with an odds ratio of 0·71 (95% CI 0·34-1·51; p=0·38). INTERPRETATION: In this matched comparative effectiveness analysis, children and young people with JIA switched from originators to biosimilars. Disease activity was similar between patients switching compared with those continuing the originator. Three quarters of patients were still receiving their biosimilar after 1 year, with switching back to originator uncommon, at only 9% after 1 year, suggesting good tolerability of non-medical switching in this patient population. This information is reassuring to clinicians and patients regarding the effect of non-medical biological switching. FUNDING: British Society for Rheumatology, Versus Arthritis, and National Institutes for Health Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.

Charting the Etanercept Journey: Tracing Cost Dynamics in Poland's Off-Patent Market from Reference Drug Rivalry to Biosimilar Monopoly.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive, retrospective analysis of ETN market competition, specifically changes in tender price based on shifts in market monopoly, including the effects on cost evolution, in the off-patent market in Poland. We included a total of 473 tenders for ETN purchase in dedicated biologic drug reimbursement programs, covering both pre-filled syringes and automatic injectors. This study covers the timeframe from November 2017 to December 2023, throughout which we evaluated a unique setting of ETN market re-monopolization from the perspective of payer, hospital and patient benefits resulting from changing cost calculations. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2022, Erelzi was recorded as having the largest total tender volume (59%), with a mean price [per ETN daily defined dose (DDD)] of €7.28, followed by Enbrel (31%, €8.34) and Benepali (10%, €9.45), respectively. Over the last 6 months of waning market competition, the mean price for winning bids was estimated at €5.69. After market re-monopolization by an ETN biosimilar, the mean price of winning bids increased to €8.09, and continued to increase (€9.71) in the last 6 months of available follow-up. In contrast to the competitive era, no significant relationship between tender volume and winning price was recorded after re-monopolization. In the most recent tenders, mean ETN prices increased up to €15.82, nearly tripling the lowest prices of the competitive market period. In the early re-monopolization market, mean annual treatment cost per patient is estimated at over €3800, which exceeds therapy costs in the prior competitive market years, and is expected to increase to over €6200 based on the most recent tenders. On a healthcare system level, this corresponds to over €3.42 million excess costs due to market monopoly. Higher ETN prices resulted in downstream failure of regulatory incentives to promote affordable biologics. Due to higher pricing, hospitals lost over an estimated €2.52 million, with possible risk of treatment restrictions. For the same reason, the public payer achieved comparable savings, allowing for partial coverage of higher reimbursement expenses. CONCLUSIONS: This nation-level scenario of market re-monopolization by a biosimilar drug confirms net loss and excess costs for the healthcare payer, as can be expected from economic theory. The upwards drug repricing and restriction of treatment availability occurs much more rapidly than the decrement in a period of market competition.

Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis.

Importance: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. Objective: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Design and Setting: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. Main Outcome Measures: EFs were constructed based on each biologic's efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. Conclusions and Relevance: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical benefits. US policymakers might consider using EFs to achieve prices commensurate with comparative clinical benefits, particularly for drug classes with multiple therapeutic alternatives for which differences can be adequately summarized by a single outcome measurement.

Access to biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors for treatment of rheumatic diseases in the biosimilars era in Poland: a nation-level study.

INTRODUCTION: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars provide an opportunity to improve accessibility to highly effective drugs. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate access to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a 10 year timeframe in Poland. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database. RESULTS: By 2022, 11 102, 6602, and 4400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs or JAKis. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab, followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased from 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.8% to 3.2%, 8.7%, and 3.5% for RA, PsA, and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) still predominate among innovative therapeutics, but their market share declined from 87% to 46%. The number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from 7315 EUR to 2886 EUR. Despite recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding the COVID­19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: In Poland, biosimilars­related savings improved availability of higher­priced innovative drugs rather than less costly TNFis. Data­driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

Anti-tumor necrosis factor α: originators versus biosimilars, comparison in clinical response assessment in a multicenter cohort of patients with inflammatory arthropathies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare etanercept and adalimumab biosimilars (SB4 and ABP501) and respective bioriginators in terms of safety and efficacy in a real-life contest. METHODS: We consequently enrolled patients affected by rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis, treated with SB4, and ABP501, or with corresponding originators, belonging to the main biological prescribing centers in the Lazio region (Italy), from 2017 to 2020. Data were collected at recruitment and after 4, 8, 12, and 24 months of therapy. RESULTS: The multicenter cohort was composed by 455 patients treated with biosimilars [SB4/ABP501 276/179; female/male 307/146; biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b-DMARD) naïve 56%, median age/ interquartile range 55/46-65 years] and 436 treated with originators (etanercept/adalimumab 186/259, female/ male 279/157, b-DMARD naïve 67,2%, median age/interquartile range 53/43-62 years). No differences were found about safety, but the biosimilar group presented more discontinuations due to inefficacy (p<0.001). Female gender, being a smoker, and being b-DMARD naïve were predictive factors of reduced drug survival (p=0.05, p=0.046, p=0.001 respectively). The retention rate at 24 months was 81.1% for bioriginators and 76.5% for biosimilars (median retention time of 20.7 and 18.9 months, respectively) (p=0.002). Patients with remission/low disease activity achievement at 4 months showed a cumulative survival of 90% to biosimilar therapy until 24 months (p=0.001); early adverse reactions instead represented a cause of subsequent drug discontinuation (p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Real-life data demonstrated a similar safety profile between biosimilars and originators, but a reduced biosimilar retention rate at 24 months. Biosimilars could be considered a valid, safe, and less expensive alternative to originators, allowing access to treatments for a wider patient population.

ADA_ETA_BIO2021: real-world evaluation of adherence, persistence, and cost-effectiveness of originator and biosimilar biologic drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a multicenter study in Italy.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to assess the adherence, persistence, and costs of bDMARDs through a multicentre study of nine Italian hospital pharmacies. METHODS: The drugs analysed were Abatacept, Adalimumab, Certolizumab, Etanercept, Golimumab and Tocilizumab.Adult subjects with Rheumatoid Arthritis were considered in the analysis.In this study, we calculated the following metrics: Adherence to treatment was evaluated as dose-intensity, which is the ratio between the amount of medication received and probably taken by the patient at home (Received Daily Dose, RDD) and the amount prescribed by the clinician (Prescribed Daily Dose, PDD). Persistence was calculated as the number of days between the first and last dispensing of the same drug. Lastly, costs were assessed based on persistence to treatment and normalized for adherence. RESULTS: Adherence to treatment was found to be above 0.8 for all drugs studied. The median persistence for a 5-year treatment period was 1.4 years for Abatacept, 1.7 years for Adalimumab, 1.8 years for Certolizumab, 1.4 years for Etanercept, 1.3 years for Golimumab, and 1.6 years for Tocilizumab. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentre retrospective observational study of bDMARDs used in the treatment of RA showed that, for all the drugs studied, there was no problem with adherence to treatment but rather a difficulty in maintaining treatment with the same drug over time.

Expenditure of biological drugs for rheumatoid arthritis treatment in the Brazilian public health system.

OBJECTIVE: This work aims to analyze the quantity and expenses related to biological drugs used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in outpatient public care within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS). METHODS: It is a cross-sectional descriptive study based on secondary data from a historical series, referring to the purchase, volume, and the number of patients treated with different biological drugs (infliximabe, etanercept, adalimumab, rituximab, abatacept, tocilizumab, golimumab, and certolizumab pegol) for RA treatment in outpatient care from 2012 to 2017. The data were extracted from the SUS Outpatient Information System database-SIA/SUS and included ten drugs used for RA treatment. The study assessed the quantity and expenditure of these drugs, the number of RA patients treated, and the expenditure by RA subtypes. The National Broad Consumer Price Index was used to adjust the expenditures for December 2017. RESULTS: The Ministry of Health allocated approximately $500 million to provide about 2 million units of biological drugs for RA patients from 2012 to 2017. The supply of adalimumab 40 mg and etanercept 50 mg accounted for 68.3% of the total expenditure. The subtypes "other rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor" (ICD-10 M05.8), "rheumatoid arthritis without rheumatoid factor" (ICD-10 M06.0), and "Felty's syndrome" (M05. 0) represented 84.5% of the total expenditures. The proportion of patients treated with biological drugs increased by 33.0%. There was a significant 83.0% increase in the number of patients using biological drugs compared to the overall number of RA patients treated during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained allow us to draw a more recent profile of expenditure on RA treatment and indicate trends in the use of biological drugs for this condition, generating data that can support management decisions in public health policies.

What About Offering a Financial Incentive Directly to Clinical Units to Encourage the Use of Biosimilars? Results of a Two-Year National Experiment in France.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the low penetration of biosimilars in the French market, in 2018, the government introduced two mutually exclusive financial incentives to increase biosimilar use. They redirect 20% (general case) or 30% (experimental case) of the price difference between the reference product and its biosimilar to hospitals for every biosimilar delivered in retail pharmacies from these hospital prescriptions. The experimental case specifically targets prescribing clinical units. OBJECTIVES: Our study aimed to assess whether the new payment scheme closer to physicians (experimental case) improved etanercept biosimilar penetration after 25 months. METHOD: We evaluated hospital prescriptions using IQVIA Xponent data. The monthly number of etanercept boxes delivered in retail pharmacies was linked to the corresponding hospital prescription. The impact of the experimental case on the etanercept biosimilar rate was assessed by a difference-in-difference method. RESULTS: Among the 39 hospitals studied in the experimental case compared with the 169 belonging to the general case, a similar growing trend of etanercept biosimilar use was observed before October 2018. At the start of the experiment, there was an acceleration of biosimilar penetration in the experimental group, until both groups reached a plateau. A significant double difference estimator of 9.72 percentage points in favor of the experiment confirmed this (p < 2.2.10-16). CONCLUSION: The French experimental incentive appeared to be more effective at increasing biosimilar use. As it is expected to be implemented in all hospitals, the knowledge gained during this testing phase should allow adjustment of some of its terms and increase physician engagement.

Eficacia y seguridad de adalimumab en pacientes adultos con artritis reumatoide activa moderada a grave con intolerancia y/o falla a terapia convencional e infliximab / Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis with intolerance and/or failure to conventional therapy and infliximab

ANTECEDENTES: El presente dictamen expone la evaluación de la eficacia y seguridad de adalimumab en pacientes adultos con artritis reumatoide activa moderada a grave con intolerancia y/o falla a terapia convencional e infliximab. Esta evaluación se realiza en respuesta a la solicitud de la médica especialista en reumatología Ana Karina La Madrid Barreto del Hospital III José Cayetano Heredia de Piura, quien siguiendo la Directiva N° 003-IETSIESSALUD-2016, envió al Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación - IETSI la solicitud de autorización de uso del producto farmacéutico adalimumab no incluido en el Petitorio Farmacológico de EsSalud. ASPECTOS GENERALES: La artritis reumatoide (AR) es una enfermedad crónica inflamatoria de etiología desconocida, que inicialmente afecta las articulaciones sinoviales (England 2022; SSR 2021). La AR es una enfermedad típicamente simétrica y, usualmente, si no es ontrolada, ocasiona la destrucción de las articulaciones debido a la erosión del cartílago el hueso, causando deformaciones en

Assessment of the influence of Fc-γ receptor polymorphisms on biologics' pharmacokinetics in Tunisian rheumatoid arthritis patients.

AIMS: This study aims to determine whether a modification in Fc-γ receptors' (FcgRs) affinity to Fc portion, caused by single nucleotide polymorphisms such as rs1801274-R131H FcgRIIa, rs396991-F158V FcgRIIIa and NA1/NA2-FcgRIIIb, might impact clearance of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and thus serum drug levels and the development of anti-drug antibodies. METHODS: A cross sectional, multicentral and noninterventional study was conducted in Tunisian RA patients treated with rituximab (RTX), etanercept (ETA), infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL). Serum drug level (SDL) of the different biologics and ADA against them were measured. All patients were genotyped for the 3 FcgR single nucleotide polymorphisms. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients were included: 47 were under tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (18 ETA, 13 ADL and 16 IFX), and 34 were under RTX. Regardless of the type of biotherapy, SDL was in therapeutic range, in 35 patients (43.2%), of whom only 1 was treated with RTX. Fourteen patients (22.2%) developed ADA, but none of the patients treated with ETA had detectable ADA levels. There was no association between SDL positivity and FcgR polymorphisms. However, the high affinity FcgR2A 131 H/H receptor was statistically more prevalent in patients with detectable ADA treated with ADL, IFX and RTX (P = .018). The same result was obtained in the monoclonal antibody tumour necrosis factor inhibitor subgroup (n = 29, P = .022) as well as in patients treated only with IFX (n = 16, P = .029). CONCLUSION: Our work supports the hypothesis of an impact of FcgR single nucleotide polymorphisms on biologics' immunogenicity, particularly FcgR R131H polymorphism, but further studies with larger cohorts need to be undertaken to confirm these results.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic diseases in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: Three approaches with a cohort simulation and real-world data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We conducted three analyses: a lifetime analysis with a cohort model (Study A) and two short-term analyses (Studies B and C). Study A evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from costs of standard treatments. Study B evaluated yearly costs per person achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70), and Study C evaluated costs per person achieving previously defined claims-based effectiveness (equivalent to 28-joint Disease Activity Score ≤ 3.2). The proportion of ACR responders to the drugs of interest were determined by mixed treatment comparisons. Studies B and C estimated costs using a claims database. RESULTS: In Study A, ICERs of all b/tsDMARDs were lower than 5.0 million Japanese yen (JPY) per QALY. In Study B, yearly costs per person with ACR50 response were lower for subcutaneous tocilizumab (TCZ-SC; 1.9 million JPY) and SC abatacept (2.3 million JPY). In Study C, costs per person were lower for TCZ-SC (1.3 million JPY) and intravenous TCZ (1.6 million JPY) and effectiveness rates were higher for intravenous TCZ (45.3%) and infliximab (43.0%). CONCLUSION: The b/tsDMARDs with lower prices showed higher cost-effectiveness.

The Influence of US Drug Price Dynamics on Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Biologics.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the influence of drug price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: We evaluated scenarios involving typical US drug price increases during the exclusivity period and price decreases after the loss of exclusivity (LOE). Worked examples are presented using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessments of tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma and targeted immune modulators for rheumatoid arthritis. RESULTS: Tezepelumab case: yearly 2% price increases during the period of exclusivity and a post-LOE price decrease of 25% yielded an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained that increased over the base case from $430 300 to $444 600 (+3.2%). Yearly 2% price increases followed by a steeper post-LOE price reduction of 40% resulted in a cost per QALY gained of $401 400 (6.8% reduction vs the base case). Rheumatoid arthritis case: incorporating post-LOE price reductions for etanercept (intervention) and adalimumab (comparator) ranging from 25% to 40% yielded an incremental cost per QALY of $121 000 and $122 300, respectively (< 3% increase from the base case of $119 200/QALY). Including a 2% yearly price increase during the projected exclusivity periods of both intervention and comparator increased the cost per QALY gained by > 60%. CONCLUSION: Two biologic treatment cases incorporating price dynamics in cost-effectiveness analyses had varied impacts on the cost-effectiveness ratio depending on the magnitude of pre-LOE price increase and post-LOE price decrease and whether the LOE also affected the comparator. Yearly price increase magnitude during the period of exclusivity, among other factors, may counterbalance the effects of lower post-LOE intervention prices.

Real-world dose adjustments of biologic treatments in psoriasis and their economic impact: a Swedish national population study.

BACKGROUND: To date, evidence on the dose adjustments of biologics in the real-world treatment of psoriasis is limited. However, dose adjustments may have important clinical and economic implications. AIMS: To study the dose adjustments of individual biologics over time in real-world practice in Sweden. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis was conducted based on Swedish national registry data from 2010 to 2018. Treatment episodes were identified for individual patients from the date of drug dispensation to the end of the supply of the drug. Dosing data were expressed as the proportion of treatment episodes with accumulated syringes/vials equal to, above or below the recommended guidelines. Real-world costs were calculated and compared with costs predicted from dosing guidelines. RESULTS: The mean dose was above recommended levels for all biologics investigated. Weighted mean dose adjustments for adalimumab, etanercept, secukinumab and ustekinumab were 13%, 23%, 8% and 3%, respectively, over the entire treatment period. Higher doses translate to higher costs, including notable increases over time vs. expected costs for secukinumab. CONCLUSIONS: Dose adjustments of biologics are frequent in clinical practice but differ for the various biologics. The mean observed increases in dose above guideline recommendations might indicate perceptions of suboptimal efficacy for biologics, with implications for the cost and cost-effectiveness of these treatments. Further research is warranted to understand the reasons for dose adjustments in clinical practice.

Economic evaluation of adalimumab versus etanercept for psoriatic arthritis in a Brazilian real-world model.

BACKGROUND: TNF inhibitors are costly drugs supplied generally on health systems or private insurances. Performance analysis is essential to verify the results achieved by health technologies in these systems. The objective of the study was to compare the two most used biological drugs for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in Brazil. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was built using a Markov model, with a five-year time horizon, a discount rate of 5%, and from the perspective of the Unified Health System. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Etanercept was the most cost-effective drug. Adalimumab became the most cost-effective drug in one of the four analysis scenarios with a willingness to pay from one gross domestic product per capita. The deterministic sensitivity analysis identified that the cost parameters had the greatest impact on the most effective drug. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that etanercept is the drug most likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSION: The difference between the drugs in terms of utility was minimal and the costs were the main factor that impacted the cost-utility ratio, which points to the benefits of price renegotiation for the efficient allocation of resources in the health system.

Health-Care and Societal Costs Associated with Non-Persistence with Subcutaneous TNF-α Inhibitors in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis (IA): A Retrospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: A few studies have suggested that patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) who remain persistent with subcutaneous TNF-α inhibitors (SC-TNFi) incur lower health care costs than patients who discontinue treatment, whereas data on the impact of non-persistence on indirect costs are largely lacking. Furthermore, existing estimates are based on fixed follow-ups, in relation to treatment initiation, and therefore do not measure costs in direct relation to treatment discontinuation. Therefore, by capturing costs in direct relation to treatment discontinuation, this study aimed to estimate direct and indirect costs associated with non-persistence with SC-TNFis in IA. METHODS: Adult Swedish biologic-naïve IA patients initiating biologic treatment with a SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab or golimumab) between May 6, 2010, and December 31, 2017, were identified in population-based registers with almost complete coverage. IA was defined as a diagnosis of rheumatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis/unspecified spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis. Non-persistent patients were matched on propensity score to patients persistent with treatment by at least an additional 12 months. This enabled comparisons of direct healthcare costs and indirect costs for sick leave and disability pension, respectively, 12 months before and 12 months after treatment discontinuation. RESULTS: A balanced cohort of 486 matched pairs was generated. The total direct and indirect costs were significantly higher among non-persistent patients already during the 12 months before index ($20,802 [18,335-23,429] vs. $16,600 [14,331-18,696]). However, while non-persistent patients increased their total direct and indirect costs, persistent patients significantly decreased the same, further widening the difference in costs during the 12-month period after index date ($22,161 [19,754-24,556] vs. $13,465 [11,415-15,729]). CONCLUSIONS: Among biologic-naïve Swedish IA patients treated with SC-TNFis, persistent patients incurred about 40% lower aggregated direct and indirect costs compared to non-persistent patients the year following SC-TNFi discontinuation. This highlights the impact of treatment persistence from an economic viewpoint, adding further aspects to the clinical perspective.

Not the same, but is it the same? Cycling of biologic agents in rheumatoid arthritis. Experience in the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social.

INTRODUCTION: Available data for biocomparable drugs are not enough to make clear decisions with respect to the potential consequences of a change for non-medical reasons in efficacy, security and inmunogenicity in patients. In the near future, options on biological treatments, biocomparable drugs, non biocomparable drugs and new chemical synthesis options will grow. Therefore, it is important to know how patients behave in persistence of treatment after a change for non- medical reasons, which already happens on a regular basis in social security institutions in Mexico. This information will help us to better understand the standard of treatment for patients with chronic immunomediated conditions. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to measure the impact of change for non-medical reasons in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with an innovative biological on persistence of treatment after changing to a biocomparable drug or a non-biocomparable drug, compared with those patients staying with the innovative biological. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational study (non-interventionist) of paired cohorts, where an historic cohort obtained by review of clinical records of stable patients in which no modifications to treatment were made for at least six months is compared with two cohorts of patients whose treatments were switched to another treatment with the same therapeutic mechanism for-non-medical reasons (cycling). RESULTS: We included 264 RA patients (ACR/EULAR, 2010); 132 were switched for non-medical reasons, and 132 were not switched. Two-hundred and thirty (87.1%) were female. Average age was 53.9 years, ranging from 16 to 84 years. Two-hundred and sixty-three patients were Latino (99.6%); one was Caucasian. Persistence of treatment 12 months after the change was 84.8% (85.8% in Enbrel/Infinitam, 78.9% for Remicade/Remsima). No statistical difference was found with respect to RA clinical activity measured by DAS28 12 months after the switch (P > .05). In the 134 switched patients, 20 discontinued the new treatment due to lack of efficacy of the new drug and were changed to a different drug with a different biologic target. Although no differences were found in the cohorts of switched patients with respect to DAS 28 after 12 months of use, we did find differences in the frequency of adverse events. Forty-two patients had an adverse event in the drug switch cohorts: 33 in the Enbrel-Infinitam group and 9 in the Remicade-Remsima group. CONCLUSIONS: The persistence of treatment after switching from an innovative drug to a biocomparable or a non- biocomparable in RA patients did not show statistically significative differences in our cohorts, but we did find a higher number of adverse events when comparing those who were changed with those who continued on an innovative drug. Twenty patients in the switch groups had to receive a new drug with a different biological target due to lack of efficacy of the switched drug.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etanercept 25 mg Maintenance Therapy After Treatment With Etanercept 50 mg for Moderate Rheumatoid Arthritis in the PRESERVE Trial in Japan.

OBJECTIVES: To use Markov modeling to estimate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with etanercept 25 mg once weekly plus methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had achieved remission or low disease activity with etanercept 50 mg once weekly plus MTX. METHODS: Effectiveness data were estimated based on results from a clinical trial (PRESERVE) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had achieved remission or low disease activity and who were then randomized to receive etanercept 25 mg plus MTX or placebo plus MTX. A Markov model was established and included flare rates of 21% and 62% in the etanercept 25 mg and placebo groups, respectively. EQ-5D was calculated using an ordinary least-squares model that included the health assessment questionnaire disability index and pain visual analog scale. Worsening of the health assessment questionnaire score over 1 year was estimated to be 0.047 for patients with flare, and when associated with radiographic progression it was estimated to increase by 0.006 and 0.025 in the etanercept 25 mg and placebo groups, respectively. A cycle length of 1 year was applied to calculate the cumulative cost and effectiveness for a 10-year time span. RESULTS: Compared with the placebo group, the quality-adjusted life-years for the etanercept 25 mg group was increased by 0.841. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was ¥6 173 772. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that maintenance treatment with etanercept 25 mg is cost-effective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. RESULTS: The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

Effectiveness, safety and economic analysis of Benepali in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness, safety and cost of Etanercept biosimilar in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) compared to the standard drug in real clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study. Case series of 138 patients with RA, SpA or PsA treated with at least one dose of Benepali® (n = 79) or Enbrel® (n = 59). Drug retention time was the primary efficacy endpoint compared to the biosimilar and the original. The proportion of patients achieving low disease activity or remission after 52 weeks was used as the secondary outcome. Safety was assessed by means of the adverse effects incidence rate. A cost minimization analysis was performed. RESULTS: No differences were observed regarding treatment retention time between drugs (median [95% confidence interval, 95% CI] at 12.0 months [10.2-12.0] for the biosimilar and 12.0 months [12.0-12.0] for the original). Similar improvements, in terms of inflammatory activity and physical function, were obtained after 52 weeks except for patients with SpA and PsA who, in general, experienced improvements of BASDAI and ASDAS with the original compared with the biosimilar. No significant differences were observed in the total number of adverse effects (.43 events/patient-years versus the biosimilar and .53 versus the original). Using the biosimilar in place of the original drug resulted in a net savings of 118,383.55 € (1,747.20 €/patient-years) for the hospital. CONCLUSION: The biosimilar Benepali is as effective and safe as the original and much more cost-effective.