Clinical outcomes and cost savings of a nonmedical switch to a biosimilar in children/young adults with inflammatory bowel disease.

OBJECTIVES: The safety, efficacy, and cost savings associated with biosimilar medications are well established. However, a lack of pediatric data exists surrounding clinical outcomes when switching from an originator to a biosimilar. Our primary aim is to evaluate clinical outcomes following a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to a biosimilar in children and young adults with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Our secondary aim is to estimate cost savings associated with this switch. METHODS: A quality improvement project was implemented to establish safe switching protocols, then those patients who underwent a nonmedical switch from the infliximab originator to the biosimilar were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, physician global assessments (PGAs), and laboratory values were recorded 1 year pre- and post-switch. Continuation rates on the biosimilar were reported at 6 and 12 months. Cost savings were estimated using two different pricing models. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients underwent a nonmedical switch. Laboratory values including inflammatory markers, infliximab levels, and PGA scores remained similar when assessed pre- and post-switch. No infusion reactions or antidrug antibody development occurred. Two patients reported psoriasis-like rashes. Five patients switched back to the originator during the study period. There were 379 biosimilar infusions completed with an estimated total cost savings of $11,260 (average sales price) and $566,223 (wholesale acquisition cost). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical remission rates, inflammatory laboratory markers, serious adverse events, infliximab levels, and antidrug antibodies remained similar after a one-time nonmedical switch to an infliximab biosimilar. Nonmedical switching to biosimilars resulted in significant cost savings.

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.

Switching from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab and vedolizumab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: impact on trough levels, day hospital visits, and medical expenses.

OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous (SC) infliximab (IFX) and vedolizumab (VDZ) have recently become available. We aimed to examine the impact of switching from intravenous (IV) to SC IFX and VDZ in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on costs, the day hospital burden, trough levels, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Our study comprised the cohort of IBD patients receiving IV IFX or VDZ at our hospital in 2022. We evaluated costs, day hospital visits, trough levels, biochemical markers, relapse rates, and self-report outcomes until Jun 30th 2023. RESULTS: Of 114 patients, 18 continued IV therapy, 80 were switched to SC therapy, and 16 were inductions. Eighty-eight (90%) remained in steroid-free remission with no difference between the IV or SC groups. The mean IFX trough level changed from 8.2 ± 4.5 µg/ml to 14.5 ± 5.9 µg/ml, p < 0.001, and the VDZ trough level from 14.7 ± 7.1 mg/ml to 26.5 ± 13.8 mg/ml, p < 0.001. The average yearly costs of infusions and injections per patient were 2 580 € and 7 482 € for IFX and 15 990 € and 13 101 € for VDZ. The annual reduction of day hospital visits was 6,9 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: IV and SC IFX and VDZ are equally effective in maintaining remission in IBD, but SC administration reduces day hospital visits and results in higher trough levels. SC VDZ is less and SC IFX more expensive than IV therapy. Further studies are needed to assess optimal dosing and separate trough levels for SC therapy.

Comparison between washed microbiota transplantation and infliximab: Medical cost during long-term management in patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: Both infliximab (IFX) and fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have shown the efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, there has no head-to-head study on the cost-value of the such treatments on IBD. This study aimed to compare the medical costs using IFX and the new method of FMT (washed microbiota transplantation [WMT]) in the long-term management for IBD under the current health economic condition in China. METHODS: Patients with IBD who underwent initial WMT via upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, mid-gut tube, or colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing at a university hospital between April 2013 and August 2021 and achieved the long-term sustainment with WMT or WMT combined with mesalazine until August 2022 were recruited in the real-world. The costs and hospitalizations were analyzed among two therapies mentioned above and IFX standard therapy. The charge of WMT was stable in the long term at our center, and the charge of IFX came from virtual statistics publicized by China Healthcare Security. RESULTS: Sixty eligible patients with IBD were included in the study. The long-term costs of patients using WMT monotherapy annually or per hospitalization were lower than those on WMT combined with mesalazine, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). The cumulative costs of IFX at the time of 0.52 and 0.85 years exceeded that of the above WMT, respectively ( p < 0.001, respectively). Besides, patients on WMT monotherapy paid 51.1 k CNY annually in the nonsustain phase but cut down the costs by 7.2 k CNY and duration of hospitalization by 5.1 days per hospitalization when reaching the goal of sustainment. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that WMT could dramatically reduce the cost and duration of hospitalizations in the long-term sustainment in the current Chinese IBD cohort. Compared with IFX, WMT could be a good way for the patients with IBD achieving long-term sustainment and saving medical costs.

Delay in prior authorization of biologic therapy: Another possible cause of healthcare disparity in IBD patients.

BACKGROUND: Biologics, a mainstay in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment, typically require prior authorization from insurance companies. Multiple studies show that African Americans are less likely to be prescribed biologics. The prior authorization process may perpetuate disparities in healthcare. This study evaluated the approval time for biologics in IBD. METHODS: A chart review of IBD patients seen in a university gastroenterology clinic over 5 years was performed. Patient gender, race, IBD subtype, biologic use, and insurance type were recorded. Insurance type was classified as private or public (Medicaid or Medicare). Biologic agents evaluated included infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab and ustekinumab. Length of time to approval (TTA) and length of time to first infusion or administration (TFI) were recorded. Analysis was performed using t-testing, Fisher's exact testing, and ANOVA with significance set at p<0.05. The study was IRB approved. RESULTS: 458 charts were analyzed. 66 patients were being treated with a biologic. 42 had private insurance, 16 Medicaid and 8 Medicare. 37 patients had ulcerative colitis, 27 Crohn's disease, and 2 indeterminate colitis. There were 38 men and 28 women. 32 patients were white, 26 African American, 1 Asian, 5 other, and 2 declined identification. Average TTA was 30.5 days (range 1-145) and average TFI was 45.3 days (range 2-166). African Americans were more often on public insurance compared to whites (p=0.0001). Crohn's disease compared to ulcerative colitis patients were more often on public insurance (p=0.017). Significantly more private compared to public insurance patients were on infliximab (p=0.001). Medicaid and Medicare patients had significantly longer mean TTAs than private insurance patients (49.1 and 52.7 vs 19.4 days, p=0.007). African Americans had significantly longer mean TTA compared to whites (45.9 vs 24.8 days, p=0.044). Crohn's disease compared to ulcerative colitis patients had significantly longer mean TTA (39.7 vs 21.8 days, p=0.050). DISCUSSION: This study shows that prior authorization for biologic therapy was longer for African Americans. Patients on public insurance also tend to have a longer TTA, and more African Americans were on public insurance compared to White patients in this study which may explain the difference in biologic access for African Americans.

Filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake in Medicare Advantage compared with Traditional Medicare, 2016-2019.

BACKGROUND: Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare face different financing structures and incentives and may implement different strategies to encourage biosimilar uptake. Strategies used by health insurers can influence biosimilar uptake, which can in turn promote savings to insurers and patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake between MA and Traditional Medicare from 2016 to 2019 and examine biosimilar uptake by different MA carriers and plan types (Health Maintenance Organization [HMO] or Preferred Provider Organization). METHODS: We use a 2016-2019 nationally representative random 20% sample of the carrier (physician) and outpatient paid claims for Traditional Medicare data and final-action carrier and outpatient records for MA data. We compare quarterly biosimilar uptake from 2016 to 2019 for the first 2 drugs with biosimilar competition: (1) filgrastim, (Neupogen, originator), and biosimilars tbo-filgrastim (GRANIX) and filgrastim-sndz (ZARXIO), and (2) infliximab (Remicade, originator), and biosimilars infliximab-dyyb (Inflectra) and infliximab-abda (Renflexis). RESULTS: From their introduction, there was consistently greater uptake of filgrastim and infliximab biosimilars in MA compared with Traditional Medicare. By Q4 2019, filgrastim biosimilar uptake was 7.6 percentage points higher in MA (80.3%) than Traditional Medicare (72.7%). By Q4 2019, infliximab biosimilar uptake was 28.7% and 15.4% in MA and Traditional Medicare, respectively. Kaiser HMO plans were primarily responsible for the higher uptake of biosimilars in MA; in Q4 2019, filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake was 98.8% and 78.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake is greater in MA compared with Traditional Medicare, which is driven in part by particularly high uptake of biosimilars in MA Kaiser HMO plans. This highlights the need for future work to examine specific strategies and levers employed by MA Kaiser HMO plans and other insurers to increase biosimilar uptake, which can lead to cost savings for physician-administered drugs.

Uptake of Biosimilar Among Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Infliximab Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has found rapid uptake of short-acting filgrastim biosimilars but slower uptake of other biosimilars, such as infliximab, in both Medicare and privately insured enrollees. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient, provider, and health plan characteristics associated with a switch to biosimilar among existing infliximab patients. RESEARCH DESIGN: We constructed a retrospective panel dataset of patients undergoing active infliximab treatments and the choice of infliximab drug for each infusion. We used mixed logit regression controlling for patient, provider, and health plan characteristics as well as time-fixed effects. SUBJECTS: Medicare Advantage and privately insured enrollees with evidence of active infliximab treatments between 2016 and 2020 (n=357,430). MEASURES: Our primary outcome of interest was to switch from infliximab originator to one of the infliximab biosimilars. Exposure variables of interest variables such as out-of-pocket, site of care, and in-network deductible. RESULTS: Our study found nominally low switching among existing infliximab originator users (3.4%). We found that patients who previously received 1 infliximab originator infusion were 63.7% more likely to switch to biosimilar compared with patients who previously received administration of 20 infliximab originators. We found that biosimilar's placement as health's plan preferred drug was attributed to higher likelihood of biosimilar use (odds ratio: 1.666; P -value=0.001). We did not observe any statistically significant effect among out-of-pocket amount or deductible with respect to switch to infliximab biosimilar. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage uptake and switch to biosimilar, policymakers should consider targeted policies that include leveraging health plan tools such as placement of biosimilar as preferred drug and aim to educate patients on the clinical equivalence between infliximab biosimilar and originator.

Assessment of Reported Adverse Events After Interchanging Between TNF-α Inhibitor Biosimilars in the WHO Pharmacovigilance Database.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Observational studies have shown that a significant proportion of patients interchanging between tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitor biosimilars withdraws from the new treatment because of adverse effects. We aim to analyze adverse events related to interchanging from tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) inhibitor reference products to biosimilars and between biosimilars reported in the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database. METHODS: We extracted all cases reporting the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities term "Product substitution issue (PT)" for TNF-α inhibitors. Then, we analyzed and categorized all adverse events reported in more than 1% of cases. We compared the adverse events reported according to reporter qualification, type of switch, and type of TNF-α inhibitor using Chi2 tests. We conducted a network analysis coupled with a clustering approach to identify syndromes of co-reported adverse events. RESULTS: In the World Health Organization pharmacovigilance database, 2543 cases and 6807 adverse events related to TNF-α inhibitor interchangeability have been reported up to October 2022. Injection-site reactions were the most reported adverse events with 940 cases (37.0%), followed by modifications in drug effect in 607 cases (23.9%). Musculoskeletal, cutaneous, and gastrointestinal disorders linked to the underlying disease were reported in 505 (20.0%), 145 (5.7%), and 207 (8.1%) cases, respectively. Adverse events non-related to the underlying disease were nonspecific (n = 458, 18.0%), neurologic (n = 224, 8.8%), respiratory (n = 132, 5.2%), and psychological disorders (n = 64, 2.5%). Injection-site reactions and infection-related symptoms (e.g., nasopharyngitis, urinary tract infection, lower respiratory tract infection) were more reported by non-healthcare professionals while adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., drug ineffective, arthralgia, psoriasis) were more reported by healthcare professionals. The proportions of injection-site reactions were higher when switching between biosimilars of the same reference product, but the proportions of adverse events related to reduced clinical efficacy (e.g., psoriasis, arthritis, psoriatic arthropathy) were more reported when switching from a reference product. The main differences in the proportions of reported cases between adalimumab, infliximab, and etanercept were driven by symptoms related to the underlying targeted diseases, except for a higher reporting rate of injection-site pain with adalimumab. Adverse events evocative of hypersensitivity reactions were reported in 192 (7.6%) cases. Most of the network clusters concerned non-specific adverse events or were related to reduced clinical efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis highlights the burden of patient-reported adverse events when interchanging between TNF-α inhibitor biosimilars, notably injection-site reactions, non-specific adverse events, and symptoms related to reduced clinical efficacy. Our study also highlights differences in reporting patterns between patients and healthcare professionals and depending on the type of switch. The results are limited by missing data, the lack of precision of the coded Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities terms, and by the variability of reporting rate of adverse events. Thus, incidence rates of adverse events cannot be inferred from these results.

Budget impact analysis and treatment availability with biosimilar TNF inhibitors in rheumatic diseases in Poland: real-world evidence using a nationwide database.

OBJECTIVES: Although several years have passed since biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs were introduced to the market, considerable disparities in access still remain. Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) have proven to be highly effective and safe for treating patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The emergence of biosimilars is promising for cost reduction and more equitable, widespread access. METHODS: A retrospective budget impact analysis based on final drug prices was conducted using 12 687 treatment courses for infliximab, etanercept and adalimumab. Estimated and real-life savings for public payer were calculated from an 8-year perspective of TNFi use. Data on the treatment cost and on the evolution in the number of patients treated was provided. RESULTS: From a public payer perspective, the estimated total savings amount to over €243 million for TNFi, with over €166 million attributed to treatment cost reduction in RMDs. Real-life savings were calculated as €133 million and €107 million, respectively. The rheumatology sector generated between 68% and 92% of total savings across models, depending on the adopted scenario. The overall decrease in mean annual cost of treatment ranged between 75% and 89% in the study frame. If all budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional TNFi, a hypothetical total of almost 45 000 patients with RMDs could be treated in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first nation-level analysis that shows estimated and real-life direct cost-savings for TNFi biosimilars. Transparent criteria for reinvesting savings should be developed on both a local and an international levels.

Cost per responder of biologic drugs used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in France and Germany.

OBJECTIVE: The treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has seen significant improvements in recent years with the advent of biologic drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-IL17 drugs and other biologic therapies used to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in France and Germany over a one-year time horizon. METHODS: We developed a cost per responder model for biologic drugs used in psoriasis treatment. The model included anti-IL17s (brodalumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab and bimekizumab), anti-TNFs (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and infliximab), an anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), and anti-IL23s (risankizumab, guselkumab and tildrakizumab). Efficacy estimates were collected through a systematic literature review of network meta-analyses on long-term Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures. Dose recommendations and country-specific prices were used to calculate drug costs. Biosimilar drug prices were used when available as a substitute for the originator drugs. RESULTS: After one year, brodalumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder in both France (€20,220) and Germany (€26,807) across all available biologic treatments. Among the anti-IL17s, brodalumab had a 23% lower cost per PASI100-responder vs. the nearest comparator in France (bimekizumab, €26,369), and 30% lower vs. nearest comparator in Germany (ixekizumab, €38,027). Brodalumab also had the lowest cost per PASI75- and PASI90-responder among the anti-IL17s in both France and Germany after one year. Adalimumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder among the anti-TNFs in both France (€23,418) and Germany (€38,264). Among the anti-IL-23s, risankizumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder in both France (€20,969) and Germany (€26,994). CONCLUSION: Driven by its lower costs and high response rates, brodalumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis over a one-year time-horizon within the anti-IL17 class and when compared to all other biologics in France and Germany.

A retrospective analysis of treatment patterns, drug discontinuation and healthcare costs in Crohn's disease patients treated with biologics.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This real-world analysis evaluated the persistence and direct healthcare costs of Crohn's Disease (CD) patients treated with biologics in Italy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis on administrative databases of Italian healthcare entities, covering 10.4 million residents, was performed. Adult CD patients under biologics between 2015 and 2020 were included and attributed to first/second treatment line based on absence/presence of biologic prescriptions 5-years before index-date (first biologic prescription). RESULTS: Of 16,374 CD patients identified, 1,398 (8.5%) were biologic-treated: 1,256 (89.8%) in first line and 135 (9.7%) in second line. Kaplan-Meier curves estimated a higher persistence for ustekinumab-treated patients followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab, in both lines. Considering baseline variables and adalimumab as reference, infliximab in first line (HR: 0.537) and ustekinumab in first (HR: 0.057) and second line (HR: 0.213) were associated with significantly reduced risk of drug-discontinuation. First line total/average healthcare direct-costs were €13,637, €11,201, €17,104 and €18,340 in patients persistent on adalimumab, infliximab, ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world analysis showed differences in persistence over 12-months between biologic treatments, being higher in ustekinumab-treated group, followed by vedolizumab, infliximab and adalimumab. Patients' management was associated with comparable direct healthcare costs among treatment lines, mainly driven by drug-related expenses.

Impact of Introducing Infliximab Biosimilars on Total Infliximab Consumption and Originator Infliximab Prices in Eight Regions: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether the introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was associated with changes in overall infliximab consumption (originator and biosimilars) and price changes to the originator infliximab. METHODS: An interrupted time series analysis using infliximab sales data from 2010 to 2020 from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System for eight selected regions: Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Korea, India, Japan, the UK, and the USA. Quarterly measures of infliximab consumption and list prices were respectively defined as the number of standard units (SU)/1000 inhabitants and as 2020 USA dollars (USD)/SU. RESULTS: Following the introduction of infliximab biosimilars, overall infliximab consumption increased in Australia [immediate change: 0.145 SU/1000 inhabitants (P = 0.014); long-term change: 0.022 SU/1000 inhabitants per quarter (P < 0.001)], Canada [immediate change 0.415 (P = 0.008)], the UK [long-term change 0.024 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [immediate change: 0.042 (P < 0.001)]. The list price of originator infliximab also decreased following biosimilar introduction in Australia [immediate change: - 187.84 USD/SU (P < 0.001); long-term change - 6.46 USD/SU per quarter (P = 0.043)], Canada [immediate change: - 145.58 (P < 0.001)], the UK [immediate change: - 34.95 (P = 0.010); long-term change: - 4.77 (P < 0.001)], and Hong Kong [long-term change: - 4.065 (P = 0.046)]. Consumption and price changes were inconsistent in India, Japan, Korea, and the USA. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of the first infliximab biosimilar was not consistently associated with increased consumption across regions. Additional policy and healthcare system interventions to support biosimilar infliximab adoption are needed.

Estimate of the cost per responder for treatment with biological therapies of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Colombia for first-year and maintenance periods.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease manifesting as erythematous and desquamative dermatoses. OBJECTIVES: This study estimated the cost per responder (CPR) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis with biologic therapies approved by the Colombian regulatory agency. METHODS: This secondary study used a modeling based CPR estimation to evaluate psoriasis therapies in Colombia. We calculated CPR of achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores of 75, 90, and 100 for biological treatments based on the number needed to treat (NNT), reported in previously published network meta-analyses. We calculated CPR for the first year and for the maintenance period. We ranked alternatives using the estimated CPR from each literature source using the Borda count method. RESULTS: Adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept were the least expensive alternatives. Ixekizumab, guselkumab and secukinumab were the treatments with the lowest NNT for PASI 75, 90, and 100. For both first year and maintenance periods, adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR. Sensitivity analyzes showed consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: The application of CPR analysis of biologics to treat plaque psoriasis demonstrated that adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR in the first year of treatment and during the maintenance period.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tofacitinib Compared with Biologics in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer's perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient's lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results. RESULTS: In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib-infliximab and infliximab-tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab-tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib-infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was -12,741,342 yen (-96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab-tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib-infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern. CONCLUSION: The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer's perspective.

[Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonist therapy for paediatric inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review]. / Antagonistas del factor de necrosis tumoral (TNF) en la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal pediátrica: Una revisión sistemática.

Inflammatory bowel disease includes two chronic inflammatory diseases, ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The burden of disease is increasing worldwide. A few reviews evaluating the paediatric use of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists have been published, although these mostly include observational studies and do not consider economic evaluations. This systematic review evaluated the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of TNF antagonist therapy for paediatric inflammatory bowel disease. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central (up to May 2022). Nine randomized clinical trials and four economic evaluations that examined any anti-TNF drugs (e.g., infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and certolizumab) against different alternatives were included. In studies evaluating the efficacy of anti-TNF drugs in Crohn's disease, most assessed the efficacy of maintenance regimen in patients who had previously responded to induction (response=28%-63%, and clinical remission=17%-83% depending on dose, drug, and follow-up). In ulcerative colitis, maintenance treatment with anti-TNF drugs reported clinical remission rates between 17% and 44%. Nine studies reported information on adverse events. No clinical trials comparing different anti-TNF drugs were found. The findings from this review suggest that maintenance treatment with anti-TNF drugs (such as infliximab and adalimumab) in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease is probably effective and safe. However, the economic evaluations reported contradictory results of the cost-effectiveness ratios. Protocol registry: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/wjmvf.

The Evolving Effectiveness of Biologics in Avoiding Surgery in Children With Ulcerative Colitis: At what Nutritional Cost?

BACKGROUND: Pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment has changed dramatically with the introduction of multiple biologics. The goal of this study was to determine the effectiveness of these new biologics on achieving remission, nutritional impact, and eventual need for surgery in children. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed hospital records of UC patients (ages 1-19) seen at a pediatric gastroenterology clinic between January 2012 andAugust 2020. Patients were divided into groups: 1) medically without biologics or surgery; 2) patients treated with one biologic; and 3) patients treated with multiple biologics 4)patients that underwent colectomy. RESULTS: There were 115 UC patients with a mean follow-up of 5.9 ± 3.7 years (1 month-15.3 years). PUCAI score at diagnosis was mild in 52 patients (45%), moderate in 25 (21%), and severe in 5 (4.3%). PUCAI score for 33 patients (29%) could not be calculated. There were 48 (41.3%) in group 1 with 58% remission, 34 (29.6%) in group 2 with 71% remission, 24 (20.8%) in group 3 with 29% remission, and only 9 (7.8%) in group 4 with 100% remission. The majority (55%) of surgical patients had colectomy within the first year of diagnosis. BMI improved after surgery (P = 0.001). The change from one biologic to others did not improve nutrition over time. DISCUSSION: New biologics are changing the landscape in maintaining remission from UC. The current need for surgery is much lower than previously published studies. In medically refractive UC, nutritional status only improved after surgery. Addition of another biologic for medically refractory ulcerative colitis in order to avoid surgery must take into account the positive impact surgery has on nutrition and disease remission.

Infliximab versus ciclosporin in steroid resistant acute severe ulcerative colitis: a model-based cost-utility analysis of data from CONSTRUCT pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence in the literature on the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatments for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis (ASUC). The study aimed to perform decision analytic model-based long-term cost-utility analysis (CUA) of infliximab versus ciclosporin for steroid-resistant ASUC investigated in CONSTRUCT pragmatic trial. METHODS: A decision tree (DT) model was developed using two-year health effect, resource use and costs data from CONSTRUCT trial to estimate relative cost-effectiveness of two competing drugs from the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Services (NHS) perspective. Using short-term trial data, a Markov model (MM) was then developed and evaluated over further 18 years. Both DT and MM were combined to investigate cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus ciclosporin for ASUC patients over 20-year time horizon, with a rigorous multiple deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to address uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The decision tree mirrored trial-based results. Beyond 2-year trial follow-up, Markov model predicted a decrease in colectomy rate, but it remained slightly higher for ciclosporin. NHS costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over base-case 20 year time horizon were £26,793 and 9.816 for ciclosporin and £34,185 and 9.106 for infliximab, suggesting ciclosporin dominates infliximab. Ciclosporin had 95% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold value up to £20,000. CONCLUSION: Using data from a pragmatic RCT, the cost-effectiveness models produced incremental net health benefit in favour of ciclosporin relative to infliximab. Results from long-term modelling indicated that ciclosporin remains dominant compared with infliximab for the treatment of NHS ASUC patients, however, these need to be interpreted cautiously. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CONSTRUCT Trial registration number ISRCTN22663589; EudraCT number: 2008- 001968-36 (Date 27/08/2008).

Impact on direct and indirect costs of switching patients with inflammatory bowel disease from intravenous to subcutaneous infliximab (CT-P13).

BACKGROUND: We aim to compare the real-life direct and indirect costs of switching patients from intravenous to subcutaneous (SC) CT-P13, an infliximab biosimilar, in a tertiary UK Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) centre. METHODS: All adult patients with IBD on standard dosing CT-P13 (5 mg/kg 8 weekly) were eligible to switch. Of 169 patients eligible to switch to SC CT-P13, 98 (58%) switched within 3 months and one moved out of area. RESULTS: Total annual intravenous cost for 168 patients was £689 507.04 (direct=£653 671.20, indirect=£35 835.84). After the switch, as-treated analysis demonstrated total annual cost for 168 patients (70 intravenous and 98 SC) was £674 922.83 (direct = £654 563, indirect = £20 359.83) resulting in £891.80 higher cost to healthcare providers. Intention to treat analysis showed a total annual cost of £665 961.01 (direct = £655 200, indirect = £10 761.01) resulting in £1528.80 higher cost to healthcare providers. However, in each scenario, the significant decrease in indirect costs resulted in lower total costs after switching to SC CT-P13. CONCLUSIONS: Our real-world analysis demonstrates switching from intravenous to SC CT-P13 is broadly cost neutral to healthcare providers. SC preparations have marginally higher direct costs, switching allows for efficient use of intravenous infusion units and reduces costs to patients.

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 Analysis of Subcutaneous Infliximab for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases in Sequential Biologic Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) guidelines recommend tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFis) for patients who have not responded to conventional therapy, and vedolizumab in case of inadequate response to conventional therapy and/or TNFis. Recent studies have shown that vedolizumab may also be effective in the earlier treatment lines. Therefore, we conducted cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the optimal treatment sequence in patients with IBD. METHODS: A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon compared the cost-effectiveness of different biologic treatment sequences in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) from the UK and French perspectives. Subcutaneous formulations of infliximab, vedolizumab, and adalimumab were evaluated. Comparative effectiveness was based on a network meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world evidence. Costs included pharmacotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and disease management. RESULTS: The results indicated that treatment sequences starting with infliximab were less costly and more effective than those starting with vedolizumab for patients with UC in the United Kingdom and France, and patients with just CD in France. For patients with CD in the United Kingdom, treatment sequences starting with infliximab resulted in better health outcomes with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) near the threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the ICERs, treatment sequences starting with infliximab are the dominant option for patients with UC in the United Kingdom, and patients with UC and CD in France. In UK patients with CD, ICERs were near the assumed "willingness to pay" threshold. These results reinforce the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations for using infliximab prior to using vedolizumab in biologics-naïve patients.

A Markov model compared the cost-effectiveness of biologic treatment sequences in patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel diseases from a European perspective. The results indicated that treatment sequences starting with infliximab are the dominant option than those starting with vedolizumab.