Real-World Treatment Patterns and Healthcare Resource Use for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world data are used to inform decision-makers and optimise therapeutic management for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD). We analysed data on the epidemiology (by using proxies of prevalence and incidence), patient characteristics, treatment patterns and associated healthcare direct costs for the management of patients with UC and patients with CD in Italy. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used administrative databases from eight Local Health Units geographically distributed across Italy. Adult patients with a hospitalisation and/or an exemption for UC or CD were included. Study outcomes were summarised descriptively, and limited statistical tests were performed. RESULTS: At baseline, 9255 adults with UC and 4747 adults with CD were included. Mean (standard deviation) age at inclusion was 54.0 (18.4)/48.6 (18.1) years, for UC/CD. The estimated average incidence of UC and CD for the period 2013-2020 was 36.5 and 18.7 per 100,000, respectively. The most frequently prescribed drug category for patients with UC/CD was conventional treatment [mesalazine and topical corticosteroids (67.4%/61.1%), immunomodulators and systemic corticosteroids (43.2%/47.7%)], followed by biologic treatments (2.1%/5.1%). The mean annual total direct cost per patient was 7678 euro (€), for UC and €6925 for CD. CONCLUSION: This analysis, carried-out in an Italian clinical setting, may help to optimise therapy for patients with UC and CD and provide relevant clinical practice data to inform decision-makers.

Data from clinical practice can be used to guide healthcare decisions and optimise treatment for patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This study used anonymised patient information from almost four million individuals across Italy to describe the epidemiology, patient characteristics, treatment patterns and healthcare costs of patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. Adults with an Italian National Health System code in their records associated with the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups and rates of perceived incidence were numerically similar to the results reported in similar Italian studies. This study found that patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease were most often prescribed conventional treatments, and biological treatments were least-commonly prescribed. More than half of patients with ulcerative colitis and nearly half of those with Crohn's disease were persistent with first (index) treatment of mesalazine and topical corticosteroids and with biologic index treatment during the follow-up period. Switch occurred in up to approximately a quarter of patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. The main factors that predicted switch were index biologic for ulcerative colitis and baseline comorbidities for Crohn's disease. The average direct cost per patient in 1 year was 7678 euro (€) for ulcerative colitis and €6925 for Crohn's disease. The results of this analysis may help to optimise therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, and to inform decision-makers in healthcare systems on which treatment options provide value for money and benefit patients.

Clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with inflammatory bowel disease receiving standard and escalated doses of targeted therapies: findings from a global real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Although dosing regimens of targeted therapies (TT) for ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) are guided by market authorizations and clinical guidelines, little is known about clinical guideline adherence or outcomes in patients receiving escalated doses of TT due to lack of response. This real-world study explored the prevalence of dose escalation and compared outcomes between patients receiving standard and escalated TT doses. METHODS: Data were from the 2020-2021 Adelphi Disease Specific Programme for inflammatory bowel disease, a cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists and their UC and CD patients across five European countries and the US. Physicians provided retrospective data collection of patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, and satisfaction; patients reported quality-of-life and work productivity. Patients were grouped by TT maintenance dose; standard and escalated dose groups were compared. Outcomes were adjusted for time on current TT and severity at current TT initiation using regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 1,241 UC and 1,477 CD patients, 19.1% and 24.1%, respectively, received escalated TT doses. Despite escalation, a substantial proportion of patients had not achieved remission, had moderate or severe disease activity, or were flaring. Most physicians were not fully satisfied with treatment in the escalated dose group and were more likely to switch patients to another treatment regimen than patients on standard dose. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation is not always an effective approach to resolve inadequate or loss of response in UC and CD, highlighting a need for more therapeutic options or alternative treatment strategies in patients unresponsive to TT.

Clinical profiles and outcomes in patients with ulcerative colitis receiving standard and higher-than-standard doses of vedolizumab: findings from a real-world study in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: Vedolizumab is an antibody targeting α4ß7 integrin used in the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). Patients are commonly prescribed higher-than-standard doses if treatment response is inadequate, but little is known about the drivers and impact of increased dosing. Our objective was to use real-world data to describe vedolizumab dosages in current clinical practice, patient characteristics, physicians' reasons for prescribing vedolizumab, and physician treatment satisfaction. METHODS: Data were derived from the Adelphi Real World UC vedolizumab Chart Review, a cross-sectional survey of gastroenterologists and their UC patients, conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom between December 2022 and March 2023. Gastroenterologists provided data on patient demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment and vedolizumab dosage history, reasons for dose choice, and treatment satisfaction. RESULTS: Data were returned on 448 patients by 112 gastroenterologists. Overall, 83.5% of patients were on a standard vedolizumab dose and 10.3% were on a higher-than-standard dose. The worsening of symptoms was the most cited reason for higher doses. Most reported symptoms at survey were fatigue, abdominal distention or pain, diarrhea, and bowel urgency, with the latter particularly in higher-than-standard dose patients. Patients on higher-than-standard dose had high rates of mild (37.0%) or moderate (26.1%) disease, and low rates of remission (33.8%). Physicians were dissatisfied with treatment control for 2.7% of standard and 26.1% of higher-than-standard dose patients. CONCLUSIONS: Over 10% of patients were receiving a higher-than-standard dose of vedolizumab, but despite this were found to have suboptimal clinical outcomes and low physician satisfaction.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ixekizumab versus secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis and concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS) comparing ixekizumab versus secukinumab. DESIGN: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon and monthly cycles was developed based on the York model. Four health states were included: a biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD) induction period of 12 or 16 weeks, maintenance therapy, best supportive care (BSC) and death. Treatment response was assessed based on both Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and ≥90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area Severity Index score (PASI90). At the end of the induction period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy. Non-responders and patients who discontinued maintenance therapy transitioned to BSC. Clinical efficacy data were derived from a network meta-analysis. Health utilities were generated by applying a regression analysis to Psoriasis Area Severity Index and Health Assessment Questionnaire‒Disability Index scores collected in the ixekizumab SPIRIT studies. Results were subject to extensive sensitivity and scenario analysis. SETTING: Spanish NHS. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of bDMARD-naïve patients with psoriatic arthritis and concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis was modelled. INTERVENTIONS: Ixekizumab and secukinumab. RESULTS: Ixekizumab performed favourably over secukinumab in the base-case analysis, although cost savings and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains were modest. Total costs were €153 901 compared with €156 559 for secukinumab (difference -€2658). Total QALYs were 9.175 vs 9.082 (difference 0.093). Base-case results were most sensitive to the annual bDMARD discontinuation rate and the modification of PsARC and PASI90 response to ixekizumab or secukinumab. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab provided more QALYs at a lower cost than secukinumab, with differences being on a relatively small scale. Sensitivity analysis showed that base-case results were generally robust to changes in most input parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: SPIRIT-P1: NCT01695239; Post-results, SPIRIT-P2: NCT02349295; Post-results.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Biologic Therapy with Ixekizumab Versus Secukinumab in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis with Concomitant Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) antagonists are a recent innovation for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). There are currently no cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing the IL-17A antagonists ixekizumab and secukinumab in PsA from a UK perspective. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a CEA from the UK National Health Service perspective to compare ixekizumab versus secukinumab in patients with PsA and concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: A Markov model was developed based on the widely accepted York model. In biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve patients, ixekizumab → ustekinumab → best supportive care (BSC) was compared with secukinumab → ustekinumab → BSC. For bDMARD-experienced patients, ixekizumab → BSC was compared with secukinumab → BSC. At the end of the bDMARD trial period, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) responders continued to receive the bDMARD in the continuous treatment period. PsARC nonresponders and patients who ceased continuous treatment transitioned to the trial period of the next treatment. RESULTS: Ixekizumab was less costly and provided more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than secukinumab in bDMARD-naïve and -experienced patients based on list prices, although cost savings and QALY gains were small to modest. In bDMARD-naïve patients, total costs were £155,455 compared with £155,530 for secukinumab (year 2017 values). Total QALYs were 8.127 versus 7.989. In bDMARD-experienced patients, the corresponding values were £140,051 versus £140,264 for total costs and 3.996 versus 3.875 for total QALYs. CONCLUSION: Ixekizumab provided more QALYs at a marginally lower cost than secukinumab, and the results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs. Other factors, such as patient preferences for the number of injections and confidential price discounts, may be important considerations in clinical decision-making.

Efficacy and safety of biologics in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs are used in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but few studies directly compare their clinical efficacy. In such situations, network meta-analysis (NMA) can inform evidence-based decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of approved bDMARDs in patients with PsA. METHODS: Bayesian NMA was conducted to compare the clinical efficacy of bDMARDs at weeks 12‒16 in bDMARD-naïve patients with PsA in terms of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Safety end points were evaluated in the overall mixed population of bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-experienced patients. RESULTS: For ACR, all treatments except abatacept were statistically superior to placebo. Infliximab was most effective, followed by golimumab and etanercept, which were statistically superior to most other treatments. Ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was statistically superior to abatacept subcutaneous, apremilast and both regimens of ustekinumab; similar findings were observed for ixekizumab 80 mg Q4W. For PsARC response, ixekizumab did not significantly differ from other therapies, except for golimumab, infliximab and etanercept, which were superior to most other agents including ixekizumab. For PASI response, infliximab was numerically most effective, but was not statistically superior to ixekizumab, which was the next best performing agent. Analysis of safety end points identified few differences between treatments. CONCLUSION: Our NMA confirms the efficacy and acceptable safety profile of bDMARDs in patients with active PsA. There were generally few statistically significant differences between most treatments.

Cost effectiveness of ixekizumab versus secukinumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several biologic agents are available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, including newer agents with similar mechanisms of action and efficacy; therefore, there is a need to evaluate their efficiency in terms of cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of recently approved interleukin (IL)-17A antagonists, ixekizumab and secukinumab, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of ixekizumab vs. secukinumab in a hypothetical cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The model used monthly cycles and included four health states: a 12-week induction period, treatment maintenance, best supportive care (BSC), and death. Patients meeting response criteria at the end of the induction period transitioned to maintenance therapy, whereas non-responders transitioned to BSC. It was assumed that, each year, 20% of patients receiving maintenance therapy would discontinue treatment. The model incorporated data from various sources, including published literature, a network meta-analysis, and expert opinion for some variables. RESULTS: Ixekizumab was dominant over secukinumab in that it gained 0.037 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved €1951 in total costs over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 96.6% likelihood that ixekizumab would be cost effective at a threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Spain, ixekizumab provided additional QALYs and potential savings for the Spanish NHS compared with secukinumab. Since the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs was modest, other factors such as patient preferences (eg, for number of injections) and long-term safety (eg, related to time on the market) may also be important for guiding clinical decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK.

AIMS: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.

Cost per additional responder for ixekizumab and other FDA-approved biologics in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO. METHODS: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs. RESULTS: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80 mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45 mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300 mg and ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.

EQ-5D health utilities: exploring ways to improve upon responsiveness in psoriasis.

AIMS: To determine if EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D) health utility scores were able to discriminate among different levels of improvement in psoriasis severity following therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were from three placebo-controlled phase 3 ixekizumab studies (UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3) with patients who had baseline Dermatology Life Quality Index scores >10 (DLQI >10). Psoriasis severity (Psoriasis Area and Severity Index [PASI]), general health utility (EQ-5D), and psoriasis-specific utility (EQ-PSO, UNCOVER-3 only) were assessed. EQ-5D-5L utility scores were generated using the England EQ-5D-5L value set, a crosswalk applied to the EQ-5D-3L United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) value sets, and a regression-based exploratory scoring function for the EQ-PSO (UK). Analysis of variance was used to estimate change in EQ-5D-5L from baseline to Week 12 per PASI improvement level: PASI <50, PASI 50 to <75, PASI 75 to <90, PASI 90 to <100, and PASI 100. Missing data were imputed using the last observation carried forward method. Value sets for the UK, England, and the US were applied. RESULTS: In total, 2085 patients across UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3 had baseline DLQI >10 and available utility scores. At Week 12, mean EQ-5D utility scores increased with increasing PASI improvement levels (p < 0.001, all analyses). Mean health utilities for PASI 90 to <100 and PASI 100 were similar when based on the generic classifier, whereas a clear differentiation between PASI 90 to <100 and PASI 100 was observed for EQ-PSO mean scores (UNCOVER-3 only, n = 645; PASI 90 to <100: 0.141, PASI 100: 0.200; adjusted p = 0.043). LIMITATIONS: EQ-5D-5L index-based scores have limited ability to differentiate among psoriasis patients at the highest PASI improvement levels. ConclusionsL Adding psoriasis-specific EQ-PSO dimensions to the EQ-5D may enhance responsiveness to improvement in skin clarity at the highest PASI levels, and, therefore, generate utility scores that better reflect treatment benefit in cost-utility models.

Evaluating the cost effectiveness of donepezil in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease in Germany using discrete event simulation.

BACKGROUND: Previous cost-effectiveness studies of cholinesterase inhibitors have modeled Alzheimer's disease (AD) progression and treatment effects through single or global severity measures, or progression to "Full Time Care". This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of donepezil versus memantine or no treatment in Germany by considering correlated changes in cognition, behavior and function. METHODS: Rates of change were modeled using trial and registry-based patient level data. A discrete event simulation projected outcomes for three identical patient groups: donepezil 10 mg, memantine 20 mg and no therapy. Patient mix, mortality and costs were developed using Germany-specific sources. RESULTS: Treatment of patients with mild to moderately severe AD with donepezil compared to no treatment was associated with 0.13 QALYs gained per patient, and 0.01 QALYs gained per caregiver and resulted in average savings of €7,007 and €9,893 per patient from the healthcare system and societal perspectives, respectively. In patients with moderate to moderately-severe AD, donepezil compared to memantine resulted in QALY gains averaging 0.01 per patient, and savings averaging €1,960 and €2,825 from the healthcare system and societal perspective, respectively.In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, donepezil dominated no treatment in most replications and memantine in over 70% of the replications. Donepezil leads to savings in 95% of replications versus memantine. CONCLUSIONS: Donepezil is highly cost-effective in patients with AD in Germany, leading to improvements in health outcomes and substantial savings compared to no treatment. This holds across a variety of sensitivity analyses.

Public health policy decisions on medical innovations: what role can early economic evaluation play?

OBJECTIVES: Our contribution aims to explore the different ways in which early economic data can inform public health policy decisions on new medical technologies. METHODS: A literature research was conducted to detect methodological contributions covering the health policy perspective. RESULTS: Early economic data on new technologies can support public health policy decisions in several ways. Embedded in horizon scanning and HTA activities, it adds to monitoring and assessment of innovations. It can play a role in the control of technology diffusion by informing coverage and reimbursement decisions as well as the direct public promotion of healthcare technologies, leading to increased efficiency. Major problems include the uncertainty related to economic data at early stages as well as the timing of the evaluation of an innovation. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-makers can benefit from the information supplied by early economic data, but the actual use in practice is difficult to determine. Further empirical evidence should be gathered, while the use could be promoted by further standardization.

Contribution of economic evaluation to decision making in early phases of product development: a methodological and empirical review.

BACKGROUND: Economic evaluation as an integral part of health technology assessment is today mostly applied to established technologies. Evaluating healthcare innovations in their early states of development has recently attracted attention. Although it offers several benefits, it also holds methodological challenges. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to investigate the possible contributions of economic evaluation to industry's decision making early in product development and to confront the results with the actual use of early data in economic assessments. METHODS: We conducted a literature research to detect methodological contributions as well as economic evaluations that used data from early phases of product development. RESULTS: Economic analysis can be beneficially used in early phases of product development for various purposes including early market assessment, R&D portfolio management, and first estimations of pricing and reimbursement scenarios. Analytical tools available for these purposes have been identified. Numerous empirical works were detected, but most do not disclose any concrete decision context and could not be directly matched with the suggested applications. CONCLUSIONS: Industry can benefit from starting economic evaluation early in product development in several ways. Empirical evidence suggests that there is still potential left unused.

Clearing up the hazy road from bench to bedside: a framework for integrating the fourth hurdle into translational medicine.

BACKGROUND: New products evolving from research and development can only be translated to medical practice on a large scale if they are reimbursed by third-party payers. Yet the decision processes regarding reimbursement are highly complex and internationally heterogeneous. This study develops a process-oriented framework for monitoring these so-called fourth hurdle procedures in the context of product development from bench to bedside. The framework is suitable both for new drugs and other medical technologies. METHODS: The study is based on expert interviews and literature searches, as well as an analysis of 47 websites of coverage decision-makers in England, Germany and the USA. RESULTS: Eight key steps for monitoring fourth hurdle procedures from a company perspective were determined: entering the scope of a healthcare payer; trigger of decision process; assessment; appraisal; setting level of reimbursement; establishing rules for service provision; formal and informal participation; and publication of the decision and supplementary information. Details are given for the English National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the German Federal Joint Committee, Medicare's National and Local Coverage Determinations, and for Blue Cross Blue Shield companies. CONCLUSION: Coverage determination decisions for new procedures tend to be less formalized than for novel drugs. The analysis of coverage procedures and requirements shows that the proof of patient benefit is essential. Cost-effectiveness is likely to gain importance in future.