Cost-effectiveness analysis of abemaciclib with endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone for HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer in Italy.

Background: Abemaciclib was recently approved by the European Medicines Agency in combination with adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for adult patients with hormone receptor positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-), node-positive early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abemaciclib plus ET vs. ET alone in patients with HR+, HER2-, node-positive EBC at high risk of disease recurrence, from the Italian healthcare system perspective. Methods: A cohort state transition model was developed with five states: invasive disease-free survival (IDFS), nonmetastatic recurrence, remission, metastatic recurrence, and death. The analysis had a time horizon of 30 years. Individual patient-level data from the monarchE trial (NCT03155997) were used to generate IDFS estimates. Resource use included drug acquisition/administration, best supportive care, terminal care, adverse events, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and associated resource use in the metastatic disease health state. Health state utilities were derived from monarchE patient-level data and other sources, applying Italian tariffs where feasible. Results: The estimated total discounted costs (€39,249 vs. €16,806; difference: €22,443) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (11.49 vs. 10.50; difference: 0.99) were higher for abemaciclib plus ET compared with ET alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €22,651 per QALY gained. The likelihood of abemaciclib plus ET being cost-effective vs. ET alone was 99% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: Abemaciclib plus ET is a cost-effective treatment option vs. ET alone for those with HR+, HER2- node-positive EBC at high risk of recurrence in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus dupilumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: an Italian healthcare system perspective.

AIMS: To assess, within the Italian healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are eligible for but have failed, have contraindications to, or cannot tolerate ciclosporin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the perspective of the Italian healthcare payer, direct medical costs associated with each intervention were estimated over a lifetime horizon. A Markov cohort model utilized the proportions of patients with ≥75% improvement Eczema Area and Severity Index obtained from clinical trials. Health outcomes were evaluated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost effectiveness of baricitinib against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base case, with secondary censoring applied, patients treated with dupilumab or baricitinib, in combination with TCS, accumulated total costs of €135,780 or €129,586, and total QALYs of 18.172 or 18.133, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus baricitinib was estimated at €160,905/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Core assumptions were needed to extrapolate available short-term clinical trial data to lifelong data, adding uncertainty. Benefits of baricitinib seen in clinical trials and not assessed in dupilumab clinical trials were not included. Discontinuation rates for each treatment were derived from different sources potentially introducing bias. Results may not be generalizable to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis shows that, from the Italian healthcare payer perspective, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD who have experienced failure on, are intolerant to, or have contraindication to ciclosporin, dupilumab cannot be considered cost-effective when compared with baricitinib. Given its oral administration, favorable risk/benefit profile and lower acquisition cost compared with dupilumab, baricitinib may offer a valuable, cost-effective treatment option-after failure on conventional systemic agents-for patients with moderate to severe AD in Italy.

Baricitinib is the first oral systemic treatment for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The drug was effective for treating patients with AD in clinical trials, producing improvements in skin inflammation, itch, sleep disturbances due to itch and skin pain, as well as the quality of life of patients. However, it is important to ensure that healthcare funds are well spent. We therefore compared the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib, with another new systemic treatment for AD, dupilumab, (both in combination with topical corticosteroids) in patients with moderate to severe AD who are eligible for but have failed or are unable to take ciclosporin, in Italy. We found that using dupilumab to treat these patients with AD cost more than using baricitinib, although dupilumab was more effective. Combining these considerations showed that the cost of obtaining the additional benefit from dupilumab over baricitinib was not cost-effective for the Italian healthcare system. Baricitinib may be a better treatment option because it is given orally, has a favorable balance between the risks and benefits of treatment, and costs less than dupilumab.

Description of characteristics, management of care and healthcare direct costs of patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer in Italy: a real-world study involving administrative and pathological anatomy databases.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare administrative and pathological anatomy data were used to identify Italian patients with early breast cancer (EBC) with HR+/HER2- status at high risk of recurrence, evaluating drug utilization and other healthcare resource use in clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective analysis, based on 9.4 million of Italian National Health Service beneficiaries, included adult patients with hospitalization discharge diagnosis for EBC in 01/2015-12/2020. Those with HR+/HER2- status were selected; among them, patients that underwent removal of lymph nodes (LN) were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 24,137 patients with EBC and HR+/HER2- status, 3619 patients (15%) had documented LN removal. Overall, 4.7% of HR+/HER2- patients and 9.9% of patients with LN removal experienced distant relapse over a median follow-up of 33.2 months (Q1-Q3: 17.0-50.6). Local relapse occurred in approximately 9.1-9.3% of patients in each group. Among the 1,175 patients with LN removal that had available pathological anatomy data, 399 (34.0%) had pathological high-risk characteristics and 13.3% experienced distant relapse. CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients with EBC who underwent LN removal experienced a relapse, highlighting the strong need to prevent early recurrence.

Analysis of the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis and treatment patterns and drug utilization among affected patients: an Italian real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and associated treatment patterns and drug utilization in real-world clinical practice in Italy. METHODS: This observational study used data from administrative databases of selected Italian entities and included patients with AS diagnosis identified by ICD-9-CM and/or exemption codes. Patients without biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) prescriptions prior to inclusion were defined bio-naïve. A cross-sectional analysis identified treatment patterns from 2016 to 2018. A longitudinal analysis investigated bDMARD utilization (persistence, switch, discontinuing treatment) among bio-naïve patients, with 2014 and 2017 as inclusion periods. Follow-up extended from first bDMARD prescription (index date) to end of data availability. RESULTS: The prevalence of AS was 75.5 per 100,000 (88.3 per 100,000 in adults) in 2018. In total, 5,942 AS patients were identified in 2016, 6,554 in 2017, and 7,146 in 2018. bDMARDs were prescribed to 21.4% (2016), 22.0% (2017), and 16.9% (2018) of the patients. Among the 349 patients included in 2014, 9.5% switched therapies, 13.8% discontinued treatment. In 2017, 12.2% of the 262 patients included switched therapies, 27.1% discontinued treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an up-to-date prevalence of AS diagnosis in Italy. Bio-naïve patients showed an increasing tendency toward switch of therapy and discontinuation.

Treatment Patterns and Pharmacoutilization in Patients Affected by Psoriasis: An Observational Study in an Italian Real-World Setting.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data can inform the use of biologics for psoriasis (PSO). OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate treatment patterns and analyze pharmacoutilization in PSO patients in a real-world Italian setting, with a focus on the biologics most recently introduced. METHODS: An observational study based on administrative databases was conducted. Patients were included based on PSO diagnosis identified by either discharge diagnosis or exemption code or prescription of anti-psoriatic topical drugs (proxy of diagnosis). To describe patient characteristics and treatment patterns using the most up-to-date data, two different approaches were used: a cross-sectional study performed during 2016-2018, and a longitudinal study conducted with patients who received their first biological/targeted synthetic drugs (naïve patients) in 2014 and 2017 (the inclusion periods). RESULTS: During 2016-2018, the number of prevalent patients diagnosed with PSO was 194,054 (2016), 210,830 (2017), and 225,171 (2018). The percentage of patients receiving biologics or targeted synthetic agents ranged from 1.5 to 2.1%. Among them, naïve patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors increased from 37.5% (2016) to 69.4% (2018), while those receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) decreased from 62.5% (2016) to 30.6% (2018). The longitudinal analysis included 894 and 1218 naïve patients in 2014 and 2017, respectively, of whom 7.2% (2014) and 6.9% (2017) switched therapy after a mean of 7.1 (2014) and 6.9 (2017) months. Overall, 259 patients were prescribed ixekizumab starting in 2017, of whom 73% were naïve. Ixekizumab was prescribed as monotherapy to 52.5%. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients receiving biologics appeared constant over the years, with an increasing number of naïve patients being prescribed IL-17 inhibitors. Ixekizumab patients were mostly naïve.

Treatment Patterns and Pharmacoutilization in Patients Affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italian Settings.

This study aimed to evaluate the treatment patterns and pharmacoutilization of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in real-world settings in Italy. This retrospective observational analysis was based on administrative databases of selected Italian entities. All adult patients with RA diagnosis confirmed by ≥1 discharge diagnosis of RA (ICD-9-CM code = 714.0) or an active exemption code (006.714.0) were enrolled in 2019. Two cohorts were created: one included patients prescribed baricitinib, the other those prescribed biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs). Overall, 47,711 RA patients were identified, most of them without DMARD prescription. As a first-line prescription, 43.2% of patients were prescribed conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs), 5.2% bDMARDs and 0.3% baricitinib. In 2019, 82.6% of csDMARD users continued with the same DMARD category, 15.9% had a bDMARD, while 1.5% had baricitinib as second-line therapy. Overall, 445 patients used baricitinib during 2019. During follow-up, baricitinib was prescribed as monotherapy to 31% of patients, as cotreatment with csDMARDs and corticosteroids to 27% of patients, with corticosteroids to 28% of patients and with csDMARDs to 14% of patients. In line with previous findings, a trend of bDMARD undertreatment was observed. The treatment patterns of baricitinib patients could help to better characterize patients eligible for new therapeutic options that will be available in the future.

Real-World Analysis of Therapeutic Patterns in Patients Affected by Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy: A Focus on Baricitinib.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate treatment patterns in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with a focus on the utilization of baricitinib, an oral highly selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, in an Italian real-world setting. METHODS: This observational retrospective analysis was based on data collected in selected Italian administrative databases. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of RA defined by hospitalization discharge diagnosis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 714.0) or by disease exemption code 006 for RA in 2018 were included. The index date (ID) was defined as the date of first prescription for a drug indicated for RA during the inclusion period. Patients without a prescription for biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) before the ID were considered to be b/tsDMARD naïve. A further analysis was performed on patients only receiving baricitinib. RESULTS: A total of 41,290 RA patients were enrolled, of whom 55.6% were not treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) or b/tsDMARDs, 39.4% were receiving therapy with csDMARDs, and 5.0% were using b/tsDMARDs. In the latter group, 2.7% (n = 56) were receiving therapy with baricitinib. In 2018, 13.2% of csDMARD-treated patients switched to b/tsDMARDs, of whom 4.3% (n = 93) of these switched to baricitinib. In total, 149 patients (mean age ± standard deviation 57.6 ± 12.1; 12.8% male) had a baricitinib prescription, of whom 51% were b/tsDMARD naïve. At baseline, 61.7% of baricitinib users were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, 26.2% were receiving combination therapy with corticosteroids, and 8.1% were receiving combination therapy with csDMARDs; 4% were receiving baricitinib monotherapy. During follow-up, the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib monotherapy increased to 38.9%, while 26.9, 18.8, and 15.4% of baricitinib users received combination therapy with corticosteroids, csDMARDs plus corticosteroids, and csDMARDs, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study provides a current view of the treatment patterns in Italian patients with RA in a real-world setting of daily clinical practice, with a focus on baricitinib utilization.