Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of the 52-Week Efficacy of Bimekizumab Versus Secukinumab and Ixekizumab for the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.

INTRODUCTION: A previous network meta-analysis established 16-week relative efficacy with bimekizumab, an inhibitor of interleukin (IL)-17F in addition to IL-17A, versus other treatments for patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA; i.e., ankylosing spondylitis), including the IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab and ixekizumab. This matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) assessed 52-week relative efficacy of bimekizumab versus secukinumab and ixekizumab. METHODS: Individual patient data from BE MOBILE 2 (bimekizumab 160 mg; N = 220) were matched to pooled summary data from MEASURE 1/2/3/4 (secukinumab 150 mg), MEASURE 3 (secukinumab 300 mg; escalated dose for inadequate responders), COAST-V (ixekizumab) and COAST-V/-W (ixekizumab). BE MOBILE 2 patients were reweighted using propensity score weights based on age, sex, ethnicity, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) exposure, weight, baseline ASDAS and BASFI (secukinumab) and baseline BASDAI (ixekizumab), and 52-week efficacy outcomes from the trial recalculated. Odds ratios (OR) or mean difference for unanchored comparisons are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: At week 52, MAIC demonstrated that patients may have higher likelihood of improvement in key efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus secukinumab 150 mg (e.g., ASAS40: [OR (95% CI): 1.48 (1.05, 2.10); p = 0.026]; effective sample size [ESS] = 177). Differences in 52-week efficacy outcomes between bimekizumab and secukinumab 300 mg dose escalation were non-significant (ESS = 120). Bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg comparisons (COAST-V only; ESS = 84) also suggested that differences were non-significant for most key efficacy outcomes. Other ixekizumab comparisons (COAST-V/-W; ESS = 45) suggested bimekizumab may have higher comparative efficacy for many of the same efficacy outcomes, however ixekizumab analyses were limited by poor population overlap, likely due to the greater proportion of patients with previous TNFi exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with bimekizumab may have a higher likelihood of achieving improved longer-term efficacy versus secukinumab 150 mg, suggesting bimekizumab may be a favorable therapeutic option for r-axSpA. Differences in efficacy outcomes with bimekizumab versus ixekizumab 80 mg were mostly non-significant, depending on the populations considered.

Improved physical functioning, sleep, work productivity and overall health-related quality of life with bimekizumab in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: results from two phase 3 studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of bimekizumab on physical functioning, sleep, work productivity and overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with non-radiographic (nr-) and radiographic (r-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in the phase 3 studies BE MOBILE 1 and 2. METHODS: Patients were randomised to subcutaneous bimekizumab 160 mg or placebo every 4 weeks; from Week 16, all patients received bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks. We report the following outcomes to Week 52: Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale Revised (MOS-Sleep-R) Index II, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: axSpA (WPAI:axSpA), Short Form-36 Physical and Mental Component Summary (SF-36 PCS/MCS) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). RESULTS: At Week 16, bimekizumab-randomised patients demonstrated significantly greater improvement from baseline versus placebo in BASFI, SF-36 PCS and ASQoL (p<0.001), and numerically greater improvements in MOS-Sleep-R Index II and WPAI:axSpA scores. Higher proportions of bimekizumab-randomised versus placebo-randomised patients at Week 16 achieved increasingly stringent thresholds for improvements in BASFI (0 to ≤4), and thresholds for meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS (≥5-point increase from baseline) and ASQoL (≥4-point decrease from baseline). Responses were sustained or further improved to Week 52, where 60%-70% of bimekizumab-treated patients achieved BASFI ≤4 and meaningful improvements in SF-36 PCS and ASQoL, regardless of whether originally randomised to bimekizumab or placebo. CONCLUSION: Bimekizumab treatment led to early improvements in physical function, sleep, work productivity and overall HRQoL at Week 16 in patients across the full axSpA disease spectrum. Improvements were sustained to Week 52. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03928704; NCT03928743.

The cost-effectiveness of a bimekizumab versus IL-17A inhibitors treatment-pathway in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a treatment-pathway initiated with bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared with IL-17Ai's, ixekizumab, and secukinumab, from the NHS Scotland perspective. METHODS: The axSpA treatment-pathway was modeled using a decision tree followed by a lifetime Markov model. The pathway included first- and second-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), followed by best supportive care (bDMARD, nonbiologic). Bimekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("BKZ") was compared with IL-17Ai's: secukinumab 150 mg followed by a blend ("SEC") of dose up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg and any bDMARD, or ixekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("IXE"). Transition to the next therapy was triggered by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index-50% (BASDAI50) non-response or any-cause discontinuation. A published network meta-analysis provided efficacy data. EuroQoL-5-dimensions utilities were derived by mapping from Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score. Costs included disease management (linked to functional limitations), biologics acquisition (list prices), administration and monitoring (NHS 2021/22). Discounting was 3.5%/year. Probabilistic results from patients with non-radiographic axSpA and ankylosing spondylitis were averaged to reflect the axSpA disease spectrum. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BKZ was £24,801/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs. SEC (95% credible interval £24,163-£25,895). BKZ had similar costs (Δ -£385 [-£15,239-£14,468]) and QALYs (Δ 0.039 [-0.748-0.825]) to IXE, with £1,523 (£862-£2,222) net monetary benefit. Conclusions remained unchanged in most scenarios. Results' drivers included BASDAI50 response rate and disease management cost. LIMITATIONS: Results were based on list prices. Data concerning up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: The bimekizumab treatment-pathway represents a cost-effective option across the axSpA disease spectrum in Scotland. Bimekizumab is cost-effective compared to a secukinumab-pathway that includes dose up-titration, and has similar costs and QALYs to an ixekizumab-pathway.

Association of clinical response criteria and disease activity levels with axial spondyloarthritis core domains: results from two phase 3 randomised studies, BE MOBILE 1 and 2.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how achievement of increasingly stringent clinical response criteria and disease activity states at week 52 translate into changes in core domains in patients with non-radiographic (nr-) and radiographic (r-) axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). METHODS: Patients in BE MOBILE 1 and 2 achieving different levels of response or disease activity (Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS) response criteria, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI50)) at week 52 were pooled, regardless of treatment arm. Associations between achievement of these endpoints and change from baseline (CfB) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring core axSpA domains, including pain, fatigue, physical function, overall functioning and health, and work and employment, were assessed. RESULTS: Achievement of increasingly stringent clinical efficacy endpoints at week 52 was generally associated with sequentially greater improvements from baseline in all PROs. Patients with nr-axSpA achieving ASAS40 demonstrated greater improvements (CfB) than patients who did not achieve ASAS40 but did achieve ASAS20, in total spinal pain (-5.3 vs -2.8, respectively), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness-Fatigue subscale (12.7 vs 6.7), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Function Index (-3.9 vs -1.8), European Quality of Life 5-Dimension 3-Level Version (0.30 vs 0.16), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-axSpA presenteeism (-35.4 vs -15.9), overall work impairment (-36.5 vs -12.9), activity impairment (-39.0 vs -21.0) and sleep (9.0 vs 3.9). Results were similar for ASDAS and BASDAI50. Similar amplitudes of improvement were observed between patients with nr-axSpA and r-axSpA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with bimekizumab across the full axSpA disease spectrum, who achieved increasingly stringent clinical response criteria and lower disease activity at week 52, reported larger improvements in core axSpA domains.

Comparative efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, a selective inhibitor of interleukin­17F and 17A, with biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified randomised controlled trials until January 2023 for inclusion in Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMAs), including three b/tsDMARDs exposure networks: predominantly-naïve, naïve, and experienced. Outcomes were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)20, ASAS40, and ASAS partial remission (PR) response rates at 12-16 weeks. A safety NMA investigated discontinuations due to any reason and serious adverse events at 12-16 weeks. RESULTS: The NMA included 36 trials. The predominantly-naïve network provided the most comprehensive results. In the predominantly-naïve nr-axSpA analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS20 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (with loading dose [LD]/without LD), and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. In the predominantly-naïve AS analysis, bimekizumab had significantly higher ASAS40 response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (without LD), significantly higher ASAS-PR response rates vs secukinumab 150 mg (with LD), and comparable response rates vs other active comparators. Bimekizumab demonstrated similar safety to other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Across ASAS outcomes, bimekizumab was comparable to most b/tsDMARDs, including ixekizumab, TNF inhibitors and upadacitinib, and achieved higher response rates vs secukinumab for some ASAS outcomes in predominantly b/tsDMARD-naïve nr-axSpA and AS patients at 12-16 weeks. In a pooled axSpA network, bimekizumab demonstrated comparable safety vs other b/tsDMARDs.

Work productivity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis initiating biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) can limit work participation. Our objective was to characterise productivity in patients with axSpA, including changes after 12-16 weeks of treatment with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies published from 1 January 2010 to 21 October 2021 reporting work productivity using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire in patients with axSpA initiating b/tsDMARDs. Baseline and Week 12-16 overall work productivity, absenteeism, presenteeism and activity impairment scores were used in a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate absolute mean change from baseline for each WPAI-domain. RESULTS: Eleven studies in patients with axSpA who received either placebo (n=727) or treatment with adalimumab, bimekizumab, etanercept, ixekizumab, secukinumab or tofacitinib (n=994) were included. In working patients initiating a b/tsDMARD, mean baseline overall work productivity impairment, absenteeism and presenteeism scores were 52.1% (N=7 studies), 11.0% and 48.8% (N=6 studies), respectively. At Week 12-16, the pooled mean change from baseline in overall work impairment for b/tsDMARDs or placebo was -21.6% and -12.3%. When results were extrapolated to 1 year, the potential annual reductions in cost of paid and unpaid productivity loss per patient ranged from €11 962.88 to €14 293.54. CONCLUSIONS: Over 50% of employed patients with active axSpA experienced work impairment, primarily due to presenteeism. Overall work productivity improved at Weeks 12-16 to a greater extent for patients who received b/tsDMARDs than placebo. Work productivity loss was associated with a substantial cost burden, which was reduced with improvements in impairment.

Effects of adjunctive brexpiprazole on calmness and life engagement in major depressive disorder: post hoc analysis of patient-reported outcomes from clinical trial exit interviews.

BACKGROUND: Though often overlooked, calming patients and increasing their life engagement are key factors in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that adjunctive brexpiprazole increases calmness and life engagement among patients with MDD, based on clinical trial exit interviews. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of exit interview data from three exploratory, open-label studies of adjunctive brexpiprazole 1-3 mg/day. The studies enrolled 105 outpatients with MDD (DSM-IV-TR criteria), a current depressive episode, and inadequate response to antidepressant treatment during the current episode. Patients were interviewed if they completed the end-of-treatment visit (Week 6 or Week 12, depending on the study). Exit interviews took the form of semi-structured telephone interviews in which patients were asked mostly qualitative questions about their symptoms prior to the start of the study, and about improvements they had noted during treatment. Interview transcripts were reviewed and codes were assigned to calmness and life engagement vocabulary, allowing aggregation of the frequency of improvement in various domains. RESULTS: 79.8% (83/104) of patients described improvements consistent with at least one calmness term, most commonly feeling less anxious (46.2%) or less irritable (44.2%). A four-domain concept of patient life engagement was developed in which 88.6% (93/105) of patients described improvements consistent with at least one domain, specifically, emotional (77.1%), physical (75.2%), social (41.9%), and/or cognitive (36.2%). Of the patients who described improvement in calmness, 96.4% (80/83) also described improvement in life engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of exit interview data suggests that patients were calmer and more engaged with life following treatment with adjunctive brexpiprazole. Thus, adjunctive brexpiprazole may provide a benefit on subjective patient outcomes in addition to the improvement in depressive symptoms shown by clinical rating scale data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Data used in this post hoc analysis came from ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT02012218, NCT02013531, NCT02013609.

Health state utility values in major depressive disorder treated with pharmacological interventions: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is associated with decreased patient well-being and symptoms that can cause substantial impairments in patient functioning and even lead to suicide. Worldwide, MDD currently causes the second-most years lived with disability and is predicted to become the leading cause of disability by 2030. Utility values, capturing patient quality of life, are required in economic evaluations for new treatments undergoing reimbursement submissions. We aimed to identify health state utility values (HSUVs) and disutilities in MDD for use in future economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments. METHODS: Embase, PubMed, Econlit, and Cochrane databases, plus gray literature, were searched from January 1998 to December 21, 2018, with no language or geographical restrictions, for relevant studies that reported HSUVs and disutilities for patients with MDD receiving pharmacological interventions. RESULTS: 443 studies were identified; 79 met the inclusion criteria. We focused on a subgroup of 28 articles that reported primary utility data from 16 unique studies of MDD treated with pharmacological interventions. HSUVs were elicited using EQ-5D (13/16, 81%; EQ-5D-3L: 11/16, 69%; EQ-5D-3L or EQ-5D-5L not specified: 2/16), EQ-VAS (5/16, 31%), and standard gamble (1/16, 6%). Most studies reported baseline HSUVs defined by study entry criteria. HSUVs for a first or recurrent major depressive episode (MDE) ranged from 0.33 to 0.544 and expanded from 0.2 to 0.61 for patients with and without painful physical symptoms, respectively. HSUVs for an MDE with inadequate treatment response ranged from 0.337 to 0.449. Three studies reported HSUVs defined by MADRS or HAMD-17 clinical thresholds. There was a large amount of heterogeneity in patient characteristics between the studies. One study reported disutility estimates associated with treatment side effects. CONCLUSIONS: Published HSUVs in MDD, elicited using methods accepted by health technology assessment bodies, are available for future economic evaluations. However, the evidence base is limited, and it is important to select appropriate HSUVs for the intervention being evaluated and that align with clinical health state definitions used within an economic model. Future studies are recommended to elicit HSUVs for new treatments and their side effects and add to the existing evidence where data are lacking.

A modelling approach to estimate the prevalence of treatment-resistant schizophrenia in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Schizophrenia is a condition that places a significant burden on individuals with the condition, their family, and society. A large proportion of those treated for schizophrenia do not experience treatment response and are referred to as having "treatment-resistant schizophrenia" (TRS). Expert opinion has long held that the prevalence of TRS among individuals with schizophrenia is 30%, but the basis of this estimate is unclear. This article presents a model developed for estimating the prevalence of TRS in the United States 2014. METHODS: An incidence-prevalence-mortality model was developed to estimate the prevalence of TRS in the United States. The model was populated with data from public health agencies and published literature. Prevalence in 2014 was modelled using a Markov cohort simulation for each birth cohort between 1930 to 2014. RESULTS: Using different scenarios for baseline incidence, relative risks of mortality, it was estimated that approximately 22% of individuals with schizophrenia would be considered treatment-resistant in 2014. DISCUSSION: The results suggests that prevalence of TRS may be somewhat lower than the 30% often reported, however this is highly dependent on the definition of treatment resistance. Methods such as this may help answer epidemiological and health policy questions as well as test the influence of key underlying assumptions.