Epidemiology, healthcare utilization, and related costs among patients with IPF: results from a German claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive form of fibrosing interstitial pneumonia with poor survival. This study provides insight into the epidemiology, cost, and disease course of IPF in Germany. METHODS: A cohort of incident patients with IPF (n = 1737) was identified from German claims data (2014-2019). Incidence and prevalence rates were calculated and adjusted for age differences compared with the overall German population. All-cause and IPF-related healthcare resource utilization as well as associated costs were evaluated per observed person-year (PY) following the initial IPF diagnosis. Finally, Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to assess time from initial diagnosis to disease deterioration (using three proxy measures: non-elective hospitalization, IPF-related hospitalization, long-term oxygen therapy [LTOT]); antifibrotic therapy initiation; and all-cause death. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of IPF was estimated at 10.7 per 100,000 individuals in 2016, 10.9 in 2017, 10.5 in 2018, and 9.6 in 2019. The point prevalence rates per 100,000 individuals for the respective years were 21.7, 23.5, 24.1, and 24.1. On average, ≥ 14 physician visits and nearly two hospitalizations per PY were observed after the initial IPF diagnosis. Of total all-cause direct costs (€15,721/PY), 55.7% (€8754/PY) were due to hospitalizations and 29.1% (€4572/PY) were due to medication. Medication accounted for 49.4% (€1470/PY) and hospitalizations for 34.8% (€1034/PY) of total IPF-related direct costs (€2973/PY). Within 2 years of the initial IPF diagnosis (23.6 months), 25% of patients died. Within 5 years of diagnosis, 53.1% of patients had initiated LTOT; only 11.6% were treated with antifibrotic agents. The median time from the initial diagnosis to the first non-elective hospitalization was 5.5 months. CONCLUSION: The incidence and prevalence of IPF in Germany are at the higher end of the range reported in the literature. The main driver for all-cause cost was hospitalization. IPF-related costs were mainly driven by medication, with antifibrotic agents accounting for around one-third of the total medication costs even if not frequently prescribed. Most patients with IPF do not receive pharmacological treatment, highlighting the existing unmet medical need for effective and well-tolerated therapies.

Presence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies is associated with better treatment response to abatacept but not to TNF inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate whether anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA) status is associated with clinical responses to abatacept or TNF-α-inhibitors (TNF-α-i) in RA patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed in January 2018 to identify published studies and conference abstracts evaluating biologic DMARD response according to ACPA status. Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis methods were used to pool risk ratios (RRs). In the base-case, treatment response was assessed using EULAR measure, while a scenario analysis assessed response by combining ACR20, DAS28 and EULAR measures. Subgroup analyses were performed for duration of study follow-up. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 30 SLR studies were included in the meta-analysis. The base-case showed a statistically significant positive association between ACPA positivity and EULAR response for patients treated with abatacept (RR: 1.13 [95% CI: 1.00, 1.26]), while ACPA positivity was associated with lower EULAR responses to TNF-α-i (RR: 0.91 [95% CI: 0.84, 0.98]). For the scenario analysis, results were consistent with the base-case for abatacept (RR 1.18 [95% CI 1.03, 1.35]), while for TNFα-i, no significant difference by ACPA status was observed (RR 0.97 [95% CI 0.86, 1.10]). Subgroups analyses showed results similar to the base-case for both abatacept and TNF-α-i. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirms that ACPA-positive RA patients are marginally more likely to achieve EULAR and ACR20 response to abatacept compared to ACPA-negative patients. Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that there is no association between ACPA status and response to TNF-α-i, consistent with findings of previously published studies.

Persistence rates of abatacept and TNF inhibitors used as first or second biologic DMARDs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: 9 years of experience from the Rhumadata® clinical database and registry.

BACKGROUND: Treatment persistence is an important consideration when selecting a therapy for chronic conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We assessed the long-term persistence of abatacept or a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) following (1) inadequate response to a conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (first-line biologic agent) and (2) inadequate response to a first biologic DMARD (second-line biologic agent). METHODS: Data were extracted from the Rhumadata® registry for patients with RA prescribed either abatacept or a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) who met the study selection criteria. The primary outcome was persistence to abatacept and TNFi treatment, as first- or second-line biologics. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy, reasons for discontinuation, and predictors of discontinuation. Persistence was defined as the time from initiation to discontinuation of biologic therapy. Baseline characteristics were compared using descriptive statistics; cumulative persistence rates were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods, compared using the log-rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare the persistence between treatments, controlling for baseline covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 705 patients met the selection criteria for first-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 92; TNFi, n = 613) and 317 patients met the criteria for second-line biologic agent initiation (abatacept, n = 105; TNFi, n = 212). There were no clinically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the treatments with either first- or second-line biologics. Persistence was similar between the first-line biologic treatments (p = 0.7406) but significantly higher for abatacept compared with TNFi as a second-line biologic (p = 0.0001). Mean (SD) times on first-line biologic abatacept and TNFi use were 4.53 (0.41) and 5.35 (0.20) years, and 4.80 (0.45) and 2.82 (0.24) years, respectively, as second-line biologic agents. The proportion of patients discontinuing abatacept and TNFi in first-line was 51.1% vs. 59.5% (p = 0.1404), respectively. In second-line, it was 57.1% vs. 74.1% (p = 0.0031). The main reasons for stopping both treatments were inefficacy and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Abatacept and TNFi use demonstrated similar persistence rates at 9 years as a first-line biologic agent. As a second-line biologic agent, abatacept had better persistence rates over a TNFi.

Cost per response for abatacept versus adalimumab in patients with seropositive, erosive early rheumatoid arthritis in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

BACKGROUND: Effective treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with biologic DMARDs poses a significant economic burden. The AMPLE (Abatacept versus adaliMumab comParison in bioLogic-naïvE RA subjects with background methotrexate) trial was a head-to-head, randomized study comparing abatacept with adalimumab. A post hoc analysis showed improved efficacy for abatacept in patients with versus without seropositive, erosive early RA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the cost per response (ACR20/50/70/90 and HAQ-DI) and patient in remission (DAS28-CRP, CDAI, and SDAI) for abatacept relative to adalimumab, in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada. METHODS: A previously published model was used to compare abatacept and adalimumab in a cohort of 1000 patients over 2 years. Clinical inputs were updated based on two subpopulations from the AMPLE trial. Cohort 1 included patients with early RA (disease duration ≤ 6 months), RF and/or ACPA seropositivity, and > 1 radiographic erosion. Cohort 2 included patients with RA in whom at least one of these criteria was absent. RESULTS: For cohort 1, all incremental costs per additional health gain (patient response or patient in remission) favoured abatacept in all countries, except for DAS28-CRP remission in Canada. Cost savings versus adalimumab were greater when more stringent response criteria were applied and also in cohort 1 patient (versus cohort 2 patients). CONCLUSION: The cost per responder and patient in remission favoured abatacept in patients with seropositive, erosive early RA across all the countries. In this patient population, the use of abatacept instead of adalimumab can lead to lower costs in the US, Germany, Spain, and Canada.

The effectiveness of daclatasvir based therapy in European patients with chronic hepatitis C and advanced liver disease.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of daclatasvir in patients whose hepatitis C threatens their life expectancy. The Named Patient Program in Europe included patients with advanced chronic hepatitis C, a life expectancy of less than 12 months and no other treatment options. METHODS: A retrospective multi-country cohort of patients with chronic hepatitis C who received daclatasvir as part of the Named Patient Program in Austria, Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Treatment response was defined as a sustained virologic response (unquantifiable hepatitis C RNA) at 12 weeks post treatment. We summarised the characteristics of the patients in this cohort and estimated the rate of sustained virologic response for patients receiving daclatasvir and sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin using hierarchical Bayesian modelling. RESULTS: The 249 patients included had a median age of 56 years; most were male (78%), hepatitis C genotype 1 (75%), treatment experienced (65%) and with decompensated cirrhosis (59%). Many had had a liver transplant before receiving daclatasvir (40%). Of the 249 patients, 242 patients received daclatasvir and sofosbuvir and either reached 12 weeks post treatment or died during (n = 9) or after treatment (n = 4) or were lost to follow up during treatment (n = 1). The estimated rate of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post treatment was 87% (95% credible interval 75 to 94%) for previously treated genotype 1 patients with decompensated cirrhosis. CONCLUSIONS: Daclatasvir with sofosbuvir is an effective treatment in clinical practice for hepatitis C genotype 1 patients with decompensated cirrhosis.

Eliciting health state utilities for Dupuytren's contracture using a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An internet-based discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted to elicit preferences for a wide range of Dupuytren's contracture (DC)-related health states. An algorithm was subsequently developed to convert these preferences into health state utilities that can be used to assess DC's impact on quality of life and the value of its treatments. METHODS: Health state preferences for varying levels of DC hand severity were elicited via an internet survey from a sample of the UK adult population. Severity levels were defined using a combination of contractures (0, 45, or 90 degrees) in 8 proximal interphalangeal and metacarpophalangeal joints of the index, middle, ring, and little fingers. Right-handed, left-handed, and ambidextrous respondents indicated which hand was preferable in each of the 10 randomly-selected hand-pairings comparing different DC severity levels. For consistency across comparisons, anatomically precise digital hand drawings were used. To anchor preferences onto the traditional 0-1 utility scale used in health economic evaluations, unaffected hands were assigned a utility of 1.0 whereas the utility for a maximally affected hand (i.e., all 8 joints set at 90 degrees of contracture) was derived by asking respondents to indicate what combination of attributes and levels of the EQ-5D-5L profile most accurately reflects the impact of living with such hand. Conditional logistic models were used to estimate indirect utilities, then rescaled to the anchor points on the EQ-5D-5L. RESULTS: Estimated utilities based on the responses of 1,745 qualified respondents were 0.49, 0.57, and 0.63 for completely affected dominant hands, non-dominant hands, or ambidextrous hands, respectively. Utility for a dominant hand with 90-degree contracture in t h e metacarpophalangeal joints of the ring and little fingers was estimated to be 0.89. Separately, reducing the contracture of metacarpophalangeal joint for a little finger from 50 to 12 degrees would improve utility by 0.02. INTERPRETATION: DC is associated with substantial utility decrements. The algorithms presented herein provide a robust and flexible framework to assess utility for varying degrees of DC severity.

Review of regulatory recommendations for orphan drug submissions in the Netherlands and Scotland: focus on the underlying pharmacoeconomic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new drug therapies are often required for reimbursement or guidance decisions. However, for orphan drugs, country-specific requirements exist. In the Netherlands, orphan drug developers can be exempted from providing a full pharmacoeconomic evaluation, whereas in Scotland, no such exceptions can be made, although additional modifying factors specific to orphan products may be considered. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present work was to identify differences in the outcomes of the recommendations for orphan drugs for rare diseases between 2 European countries: Scotland and the Netherlands. METHODS: All orphan drug reports to the Dutch Committee for Pharmaceutical Assistance (Commissie Farma-ceutische Hulp [CFH]) and orphan drugs guidance issued by the Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) through May 2009 were reviewed from the respective organizations' Web sites. The following were gathered from the pharmacoeconomic analyses and recommendations for reimbursement in the Netherlands or guidance for drug use in Scotland: drug indication, outcome of pharmacoeconomic evaluation, recommendation, and exact date. RESULTS: Dossiers for 38 orphan drugs were submitted to the CFH; 37 were submitted to the SMC. Only 1 submission to the CFH included a full pharmacoeconomic analysis; all other reports included only a cost analysis. Twenty-four submissions to the SMC were accompanied by a full pharmacoeconomic evaluation; no information could be obtained for 4 drugs. The remaining reports either did not include a cost-effectiveness analysis or were deemed insufficient by the SMC. Forty-three percent (10/23) of the cost-utility analyses submitted to the SMC reported an unfavorable outcome of more than £30,000/ quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained; of these, only 2 (20%) reporting incremental cost-utility ratios of £43.717 to £81.000 were granted a restricted positive recommendation. The CFH gave positive recommendations for reimbursement for 36 of 38 submissions (95%). Of the 37 orphan drugs submitted to the SMC, 19 (51%) received a positive recommendation for use. Seventy-three percent (8/11) of submissions to the SMC with an unfavorable cost-effectiveness estimate (ie, more than £30,000 [€34,000 or US $48,000] per QALY gained) received a negative recommendation for reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Ninety-five percent of orphan drug submissions were approved for reimbursement in the Netherlands, compared with 51% in Scotland, during the period of interest. Moreover, cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses were included in 24 of 37 submissions in Scotland, compared with only 1 of 38 in the Netherlands.