Model parameters influencing the cost-effectiveness of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: evidence from a systematic literature review.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize cost-effectiveness (CE) evidence of sacubitril/valsartan for the treatment of heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The impact of different modeling approaches and parameters on the CE results is also described. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using multiple databases: Embase®; MEDLINE®; MEDLINE®-In Process; NIHR CRD database including DARE, NHS EED, and HTA databases; and the Cost Effectiveness Analysis registry. We also reviewed HTA countries' websites to identify CE reports of sacubitril/valsartan, published up to 25-July-2021. Articles published in English as full-texts, conference-abstracts, or HTA reports were included. RESULTS: We included 44 CE models [39 from 37 publications (22 full-texts; 15 conference-abstracts) and 5 HTAs; Europe, n = 20; North and South Americas, n = 14; Asia and Australia, n = 10]. Most models adopted a Markov structure with constant transition probabilities of events (n = 27) or a mix of Markov and regression-based models (n = 16), with variations in structural assumptions and chosen parameters. Study authors concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be a cost-effective therapy in 37/41 models in chronic HFrEF patients and 2/3 models in hospitalized patients stabilized after an acute decompensation for HF. CE models showing sacubitril/valsartan not to be a cost-effective treatment generally modeled a shorter time horizon. Effect of sacubitril/valsartan on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, cost, duration of effect and time horizon was the main model drivers. CONCLUSIONS: Most evidence indicated sacubitril/valsartan is cost-effective in HFrEF. The use of a lifetime horizon is recommended in future models as HF is a chronic disease. Data on the CE of sacubitril/valsartan in the inpatient setting were limited and further research is warranted.

Recurrent heart failure hospitalizations increase the risk of mortality in heart failure patients with atrial fibrillation and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United Kingdom: a retrospective analysis of Clinical Practice Research Datalink database.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a global illness and is a leading cause of hospitalizations. Recurrent HF hospitalization (HFH) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality, thereby burdening the health system. Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are two important comorbidities in patients living with HF. This study aims to assess the association between recurrent HFHs with CV and all-cause mortality in patients living with HF and having AF and/or T2DM. METHODS: This study was conducted using primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink database with linkage to hospital data and mortality data. Adults living with HF and with at least 1 HFH were identified from January 2010 to December 2014. Patients were grouped based on the number of recurrent HFHs. During follow-up, all-cause mortality or CV mortality for the HF population with AF and T2DM was recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 32.9% of 2344 T2DM patients and 28.2% of 4585 AF patients had at least 1 recurrent HFH. The patients were relatively elderly and were predominantly male. The mean number of all-cause hospitalizations in HF patients having T2DM and AF, with ≥ 1 recurrent HFH were significantly higher than patients without recurrent HFH. The annualized mortality rates in CV mortality as the primary cause and for all-cause mortality and increased with recurrent HFHs, in T2DM and AF patients. The risk of CV mortality as primary cause and all cause morality were 5.39 and 3.19 times higher in T2DM patients with 3 recurrent HFHs versus no recurrent HFH. Similarly, the risk of CV mortality as primary cause and all cause morality was 5.98 and 4.3 times higher in AF patients with 3 recurrent HFHs versus those with no recurrent HFH. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent HFHs are strongly associated with CV mortality and all-cause mortality in HF patients with TD2M or AF. The hospitalization rate highlights the need for treatment and disease management, which will improve the course of the disease and help patients stay out of hospital.

Hospitalization Rates in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction Initiating Sacubitril/Valsartan or Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) sacubitril/valsartan (SAC/VAL) has shown benefit in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF), including those naïve to renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor (RAASi) therapy, and is considered the preferred RAASi for chronic HF. Real-world data on ARNI, specifically in RAASi-naïve patients, are limited. This study compared real-world outcomes of ARNI (SAC/VAL) vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy in RAASi-naïve patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included de-identified data on RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40%) who had newly initiated SAC/VAL or ACEi/ARB between July 1, 2015, and March 31, 2019, from the Optum® Electronic Health Records database in the US. New SAC/VAL users were propensity score matched 1:2 with new ACEi/ARB users by pre-selected characteristics. One-year post-index rates of all-cause, HF, and cardiovascular hospitalizations and the composite of HF hospitalization or emergency room (ER) visits were measured using negative binomial regression. Time to first all-cause hospitalization, HF hospitalization, and composite of HF hospitalization or ER visits was measured using a subdistribution hazards model. RESULTS: The matched sample included 3059 new SAC/VAL and 6118 new ACEi/ARB users. Rates of all-cause hospitalization and composite of HF hospitalization or ER visits were significantly lower with SAC/VAL compared with ACEi/ARB (incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.81-0.93] and 0.87 [0.81-0.94], respectively), whereas rates of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations were similar (1.00 [0.91-1.11] and 0.94 [0.87-1.02], respectively). Time-to-event analyses also showed a similar trend. CONCLUSIONS: In real-world clinical practice, RAASi-naïve patients with HFrEF initiating SAC/VAL were less likely to be hospitalized than those initiating ACEi/ARB, suggesting a potential for a reduced clinical and economic burden in these patients.

Burden and Quality of Life Among Female and Male Patients with Heart Failure in Europe: A Real-World Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: To characterize symptoms, clinical burden, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among women and men with heart failure (HF) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤60% in Europe. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A real-world cross-sectional study was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom from June to November 2019. Patient record forms were completed by 257 cardiologists and 158 general practitioners for consecutive patients with HF. The same patients were invited to complete a questionnaire comprising patient-reported outcomes: the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), five-level five-dimension EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean age of 804 patients (men, n=517; women, n=287) was 68.6 years (men, 67.8 years; women, 70.2 years; p=0.0022). The mean LVEF was 44.7% (men, 43.6%; women, 46.8%; p<0.0001). Patients reported dyspnoea when active (overall, 55.7%; men, 56.0%; women, 55.3%), fatigue/weakness/faintness (34.5%; men, 32.9%; women, 37.2%), and oedema (20.3%; men, 18.7%; women, 23.1%) as the most troublesome HF symptoms. Overall, 54.1% of patients reported low mood/depression (men, 50.8%; women, 60.1%). The overall MLHFQ mean score was higher (ie, poorer HRQoL) among women vs men (37.9 vs 34.6; p=0.0481). MLHFQ was consistently higher (ie, poorer HRQoL) for women vs men across the physical (18.6 vs 16.6; p=0.0041) and emotional (9.4 vs 7.9; p=0.0021) scoring domains. Mean EQ-5D utility (0.69 vs 0.75; p=0.0046) and VAS scores (55.4 vs 61.3; p<0.0001) were lower among women compared with men. Overall, 23.4% of patients were hospitalized owing to HF in the previous year (men, 22.7%; women, 24.6%). Patients reported 43.2% activity impairment due to HF (men, 41.6%; women, 46.4%; p=0.01). CONCLUSION: HF causes a substantial burden on patients, with a greater burden among women vs men. This gender-related difference is consistent with other HF studies, warranting further research to understand the underlying reasons.

Caregivers of Patients with Heart Failure: Burden and the Determinants of Health-Related Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: To assess the burden among caregivers of patients with heart failure (HF) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤60%. The burden by New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was also characterized. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and UK from June to November 2019. Patient record forms were completed by 257 cardiologists and 158 general practitioners for consecutive HF patients. Caregivers who accompanied the patient to their consultation completed a caregiver self-completion survey voluntarily, which included the Family Caregiver Quality of Life Questionnaire (FAMQOL) and 5-level 5-dimension EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). RESULTS: We analyzed 361 caregivers of patients with HF (NYHA class I, n=41; II, n=212; III IV, n=108). Mean age of caregivers was 58.8 years (NYHA I/II/III-IV: 59.1/60.8/54.6 years; p=0.0029), with majority being females (73.1%). Caregivers spent on average 19.8 hours/week caring for a HF patient, which increased with increase in NYHA class (I/II/III-IV: 11.8/18.1/25.9 hours/week; p=0.0094). Caregivers (24.1%) reported providing emotional support/encouragement to patients as the most troublesome/inconvenient caregiving activity (no significant difference across NYHA class). Nearly one-third of caregivers experienced stress (NYHA I/II/III-IV: 17.1%/28.8%/40.7%; p=0.0111) and anxiety (26.8%/24.1%/39.8%; p=0.0127) due to caregiving burden. The overall FAMQOL mean score decreased significantly (poorer QoL) with increase in NYHA class (I/II/III-IV: 58.1/56.3/52.2; p=0.0069). A trend of decreasing scores with increasing NYHA class was observed across physical, emotional, and social domains (each p≤0.012). CONCLUSION: Caregivers of HF patients with LVEF ≤60% experienced a significant burden, which was higher among caregivers of patients with more severe and symptomatic disease.

Recurrent heart failure hospitalizations increase the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in patients with heart failure in Sweden: a real-world study.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of recurrent HF hospitalizations (HFHs) on cardiovascular (CV) mortality among patients with HF in Sweden. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adults with incident HF were identified from linked national health registers and electronic medical records from 01 January 2005 to 31 December 2013 for Uppsala and until 31 December 2014 for Västerbotten. CV mortality and all-cause mortality were evaluated. A time-dependent Cox regression model was used to estimate relative CV mortality rates for recurrent HFHs. Assessment was also done for ejection fraction-based HF phenotypes and for comorbid atrial fibrillation, diabetes, or chronic renal impairment. Overall, 3878 patients with HF having an index hospitalization were included, providing 9691.9 patient-years of follow-up. Patients were relatively old (median age: 80 years) and were more frequently male (55.5%). Compared with patients without recurrent HFHs, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR [95% confidence interval; CI]) for CV mortality and all-cause mortality were statistically significant for patients with one, two, three, and four or more recurrent HFHs. The risk of CV mortality and all-cause mortality increased approximately six-fold in patients with four or more recurrent HFHs vs. those without any HFHs (HR [95% CI]: 6.26 [5.24-7.48] and 5.59 [4.70-6.64], respectively). Similar patterns were observed across the HF phenotypes and patients with comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between recurrent HFHs and CV and all-cause mortality, with the risk increasing progressively with each recurrent HFH.

Real-world effectiveness and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: PARADIGM-HF demonstrated superiority of sacubitril/valsartan (sac/val) over enalapril in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, patients in clinical practice may differ in their characteristics and overall risk compared with patients in clinical trials, and additional outcomes can be observed in real world (RW). Hence, a systematic review was conducted to identify and describe RW data on sac/val. METHODS: RW studies evaluating the effects of sac/val in adult patients with HFrEF with a sample size ≥100 were identified via MEDLINE® and Embase® from 2015 to January 2020. Citations were screened, critically appraised and relevant data were extracted. RESULTS: A total of 68 unique studies were identified. Nearly half of the studies were conducted in Europe (n = 34), followed by the US (n = 15) and Asia (n = 11). Median follow-up period varied from 1 to 19 months. Mean age ranged between 48.7 and 79.0 years; patients were mostly male and in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II/III, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction varied between 23%and 38%. Of studies performing comparisons, most reported superior efficacy of sac/val in reducing the risk of HF hospitalisations, all-cause hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality as compared to standard-of-care. Many studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class and reduction in biomarker levels post sac/val. Hypotension and hyperkalaemia were the most frequently reported adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive overview of currently available RW evidence on sac/val complements the evidence from randomised controlled trials, substantiating its effectiveness in heterogeneous real-world HF populations.

Recurrent hospitalizations are associated with increased mortality across the ejection fraction range in heart failure.

AIMS: The proportion of patients hospitalized for heart failure (HF) with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is rising, but no approved treatment exists, in part owing to incomplete characterization of this particular HF phenotype. In order to better define the characteristics of HF phenotypes in Finland, a large cohort with 12 years' follow-up time was analysed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2017 at the Hospital District of Southwest Finland were stratified according to LVEF measure and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. For this retrospective registry study, previously diagnosed HF patients were defined as follows: patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF; LVEF ≤ 40%; n = 4042), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF; LVEF > 40-50% and NT-proBNP ≥ 125 pg/mL; n = 1468), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF; LVEF > 50% and NT-proBNP ≥ 125 pg/mL; n = 3122) and followed up for 15 022, 4962, and 10 097 patient-years, respectively. Cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality, influence of pre-selected covariates on hospitalization and mortality, and the proportion of HFpEF and HFmrEF patients with a drop in LVEF to HFrEF phenotype were analysed. All data were extracted from the electronic patient register. HFrEF patients were rehospitalized slightly earlier than HFpEF/HFmrEF patients, but the second, third, and fourth rehospitalization rates did not differ between the subgroups. Female gender and better kidney function were associated with reduced rehospitalizations in HFmrEF and HFrEF, with a non-significant trend in HFpEF. Each additional hospitalization was associated with a two-fold increased risk of death and 2.2- to 2.3-fold increased risk of CV death. All-cause mortality was higher in patients with HFpEF. Although CV mortality was less frequent in HFpEF patients, it was associated with increased NT-proBNP concentrations at index in all patient groups. During the 10 years following the index date, 26% of HFmrEF patients and 10% of HFpEF patients progressed to an HFrEF phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that disease progression, in terms of increased frequency of hospitalizations, and the relationship between increased number of hospitalizations and mortality are similar by LVEF phenotypes. These data highlight the importance of effective treatments that can reduce hospitalizations and suggest a role for monitoring NT-proBNP levels in the management of HFpEF patients in particular.

Recurrent heart failure hospitalizations are associated with increased cardiovascular mortality in patients with heart failure in Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

AIMS: Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospitalization and is associated with high morbidity and mortality post-diagnosis. Here, we examined the impact of recurrent HF hospitalization (HFH) on cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality among HF patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Adult HF patients identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with a first (index) hospitalization due to HF recorded in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set from January 2010 to December 2014 were included. Patients were followed up until death or end of study (December 2017). CV mortality as primary and as any reported cause and all-cause mortality were evaluated. An extended Cox regression model was used for reporting adjusted relative CV mortality rates for time-dependent recurrent HFHs. Overall, 8603 HF patients with an index hospitalization were included, providing 15 964 patient-years of follow-up. Patients were relatively old (median age: 80 years) and were mostly male (54.6%), with main co-morbidities being hypertension and atrial fibrillation. Recurrent HFHs occurred one, two, three, and more than four times in 1561 (18.2%), 518 (6.02%), 206 (2.4%), and 153 (1.8%) patients, respectively. The median time to mortality was 215 (38-664) days for 50.8% of patients who died for any cause during the study period and 139 (27-531) days for 31.3% who died with CV reasons as primary cause. Compared with those of patients without recurrent HFHs, the adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for CV mortality as primary cause were 2.65 (2.35-2.99), 3.69 (3.06-4.43), 5.82 (4.48-7.58), and 5.95 (4.40-8.05) for those with one, two, three, and more than four recurrent HFHs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between recurrent HFH and CV mortality, with the risk increasing progressively with each recurrent HFH.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sarilumab Added to Methotrexate in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately to Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response or Intolerance to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Despite a substantial number of treatment options in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) following tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) inadequate response or intolerance (TNF-IR), a lack of clarity on the optimal approach remains. Sarilumab, a human monoclonal anti-interleukin-6 receptor alpha antibody, can be used as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate or other conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in TNF-IR patients. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a cost-utility analysis from a U.S. health care system perspective for sarilumab subcutaneous 200 mg + methotrexate versus abatacept + methotrexate or a bundle of TNFi + methotrexate for treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active RA and TNF-IR. METHODS: Analysis was conducted via individual patient simulation based on patient profiles from the TARGET trial (NCT01709578); a 6-month decision tree was followed by lifetime semi-Markov model with 6-month cycles. Treatment response at 6 months, informed by network meta-analysis, was based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria; patients achieving ≥ ACR20 continued with current therapy, and other patients moved to the next line of biologic DMARD therapy or conventional synthetic DMARD palliative treatment. Direct costs included wholesale acquisition drug costs and administration and routine care costs. Routine care costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by predicting the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score based on treatment response and were imputed from published equations. RESULTS: Sarilumab + methotrexate dominated the TNFi bundle + methotrexate, achieving lower costs ($319,324 vs. $356,096) and greater effectiveness (4.27 vs. 4.15 QALYs), and was on the cost-efficiency frontier with abatacept + methotrexate ($360,211 and 4.29 QALYs). Abatacept + methotrexate was not cost-effective versus sarilumab + methotrexate. Scenario analyses indicated the results were robust; sarilumab + methotrexate became dominant against abatacept + methotrexate after reduced model horizon, minimum response based on ACR50 or ACR70, or time to discontinuation per treatment class. Sarilumab + methotrexate was also dominant versus the TNFi bundle; when class-specific time to treatment discontinuation was specified, sarilumab remained cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36,894. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab + methotrexate can be considered an economically dominant (more effective, less costly) option versus a second TNFi + methotrexate; compared with abatacept + methotrexate, it is a less costly but less effective option for patients with moderately to severely active RA who have previously failed TNFi. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Kiss and Gal are employees of Evidera, which received consulting fees from Sanofi/Regeneron for conducting this study. Muszbek was employed by Evidera at the time of this study. Kuznik and Chen are current employees of and stockholders in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Fournier is an employee of and stockholder in Sanofi. Proudfoot is a former employee of and current stockholder in Sanofi and current employee and stockholder in ViiV Healthcare/GlaxoSmithKline. Michaud has received grant funding from Pfizer and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. The sponsors were involved in the study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data as well as data checking of information provided in the manuscript. The authors had unrestricted access to study data, were responsible for all content and editorial decisions, and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Economic Evaluation of Sarilumab in the Treatment of Adult Patients with Moderately-to-Severely Active Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have an Inadequate Response to Conventional Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate. METHODS: Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care. RESULTS: Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Indirect Treatment Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Sarilumab Monotherapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Inadequate Response to Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR). METHODS: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28) < 2.6. In addition, serious infections and serious adverse events (SI/SAE) were examined at 24 weeks. RESULTS: Nine trials were selected for the NMA. Sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority versus adalimumab monotherapy on all efficacy outcomes and versus tofacitinib monotherapy on ACR20. Compared with csDMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed superiority on ACR 20/50/70 criteria and DAS28 < 2.6 but had similar efficacy on HAQ-DI. Efficacy of sarilumab 200 mg was similar versus certolizumab, etanercept, tofacitinib and tocilizumab 8 mg/kg monotherapy across all efficacy outcomes. SI/SAE appeared similar for sarilumab 200 mg versus all comparators. CONCLUSION: In csDMARD-IR patients, sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy has superior efficacy and similar safety versus csDMARDs, superior efficacy and similar safety versus adalimumab, and similar efficacy and safety versus bDMARDs and tsDMARDs. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of sarilumab combination therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors: systematic literature review and network meta-analyses.

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg and 150 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARDs) versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs and placebo+csDMARDs, in inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR) or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi-IR). Methods: Systematic literature review and network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted on 24 week efficacy and safety outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, modified total sharp score (mTSS, including 52 weeks), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)<2.6; serious infections/serious adverse events (including 52 weeks). Results: 53 trials were selected for NMA. csDMARD-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg+csDMARDs and 150 mg+csDMARDs were superior versus placebo+csDMARDs on all outcomes. Against most targeted DMARDs, sarilumab 200 mg showed no statistically significant differences, except superiority to baricitinib 2 mg, tofacitinib and certolizumab on 24 week mTSS. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to all targeted DMARDs. TNFi-IR: Sarilumab 200 mg was similar to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg and 8 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on ACR20/50/70, superior to baricitinib 2 mg on ACR50 and DAS28<2.6 and to abatacept, golimumab, tocilizumab 4 mg/kg intravenously and rituximab on DAS28<2.6. Sarilumab 150 mg was similar to targeted DMARDs but superior to baricitinib 2 mg and rituximab on DAS28<2.6 and inferior to tocilizumab 8 mg on ACR20 and DAS28<2.6. Serious adverse events, including serious infections, appeared similar for sarilumab versus comparators. Conclusions: Results suggest that in csDMARD-IR and TNFi-IR (a smaller network), sarilumab+csDMARD had superior efficacy and similar safety versus placebo+csDMARDs and at least similar efficacy and safety versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs.

Effects of Sarilumab on Rheumatoid Arthritis as Reported by Patients Using the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease Scale.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the effect of sarilumab on patient-perceived impact of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using the 7-domain RA Impact of Disease (RAID) scale. METHODS: Two phase III, randomized, controlled trials of sarilumab in patients with active, longstanding RA were analyzed: (1) sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARD) versus placebo + csDMARD [TARGET (NCT01709578)]; and (2) sarilumab 200 mg versus adalimumab (ADA) 40 mg monotherapy [MONARCH (NCT02332590)]. Least-squares mean (LSM) differences in RAID total score (range 0-10) and 7 key RA symptoms, including pain and fatigue (baseline to Weeks 12 and 24), were compared. "Responders" by RAID total score were defined by improvements from baseline ≥ minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and ≥ patient-acceptable symptom-state (PASS) at endpoint. RESULTS: Sarilumab 150 mg and 200 mg + csDMARD were nominally superior (p < 0.05) versus placebo + csDMARD and 200 mg sarilumab versus ADA 40 mg in LSM differences for RAID total score at weeks 12 (-0.93 and -1.13; -0.49, respectively) and 24 (-0.75 and -1.01; -0.78), and all effects of RA (except functional impairment in MONARCH Week 12). Effects were greater in physical domains (e.g., pain) than mental domains (e.g., emotional well-being). More patients receiving sarilumab versus placebo or ADA reported improvements ≥ MCID and PASS in total RAID scores at both assessments. CONCLUSION: Based on the RAID, sarilumab + csDMARD or as monotherapy reduced the effect of RA on patients' lives to a greater extent than placebo + csDMARD or ADA monotherapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01709578 and NCT02332590).

Sarilumab monotherapy compared with adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis of incremental cost per effectively treated patient.

PURPOSE: Treatment outcomes and direct medical costs were examined, from a US health payer perspective, of monotherapy with sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneous (SC) every 2 weeks (Q2W) vs adalimumab 40 mg SC Q2W/QW in adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis who are intolerant of, inadequate responders to, or considered inappropriate candidates for continued methotrexate treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Short-term analysis was based on 24-week wholesale acquisition costs of drugs and treatment response observed in the MONARCH Phase III trial (NCT02332590) per American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50 criteria and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) Moderate/Good Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate. Long-term analysis, which also considered drug administration and routine care costs, was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and a 1- to 10-year Markov model with microsimulation of patient profiles from the MOBILITY Phase III trial (NCT01061736). Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated by mapping 6-month ACR levels to a relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire - Disability Index score and via published algorithms. RESULTS: For sarilumab and adalimumab, respectively, 24-week drug costs were $18,954 and $29,232, and costs per responder were $26,435 vs $50,055 on ACR20; $41,475 vs $98,425 on ACR50; and $22,511 vs $41,230 on EULAR Moderate/Good. Base case results at 10 years for total costs and QALYs were $176,977 and 2.75 for sarilumab and $212,136 and 2.61 for adalimumab, respectively. Sarilumab was consistently the more effective and cost-saving treatment across all short-term and long-term incremental analyses. CONCLUSION: Sarilumab monotherapy was the economically dominant treatment on incremental cost per responder and incremental cost per QALY compared with adalimumab monotherapy. These results were maintained within the sensitivity analyses.

Budget impact analysis of sarilumab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARD or TNF inhibitor therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the 5-year budget impact (BI) on a US health plan of introducing sarilumab - a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-IL-6 receptor α monoclonal antibody - as combination treatment with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or monotherapy in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: BI analysis was conducted from a commercial payer perspective. Treatment-eligible populations included adult patients with moderate-to-severe RA and inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs or tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitors-IR. All licensed biologic treatments recommended by the American College of Rheumatology guidelines were included. RESULTS: For a hypothetical plan of one million members, 409 csDMARD-IR and 345 TNF-IR patients were annually eligible for combination therapy and 226 csDMARD and TNF-IR patients for monotherapy with sarilumab. Based on 2018 US direct treatment costs, the introduction of sarilumab was estimated to save $526,424, $322,637 and $264,306 over 5 years for csDMARD-IR combination therapy patients, TNF-IR combination therapy patients, and csDMARD-IR/TNF-IR monotherapy patients, respectively. As sarilumab absorbed a greater market share over the horizon, annual savings increased from years 1 to 5, $28,610 (-0.14%) to $194,646 (-0.83%) in csDMARD-IR, $16,986 (-0.11%) to $120,893 (-0.67%) in TNF-IR, and $14,256 (-0.13%) to $98,040 (-0.79%) in monotherapy. One-way sensitivity analyses revealed that the model was most sensitive to variations in sarilumab adherence. CONCLUSION: Total cost savings of introducing sarilumab to a health-care plan accrued from years 1 to 5, attributable to the lower treatment cost, stable dosing paradigm, and price parity for the two available doses (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) compared with alternative biologic DMARDs that have substantial variability in dose titration/schedules.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis After a Change in Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeted disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab) or alternative mechanisms of action (MOAs), such as a T-cell co-stimulation modulator (abatacept), Janus kinase inhibitor (tofacitinib), or interleukin-6 inhibitor (tocilizumab). OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment persistence and healthcare costs in patients with RA who changed therapy by cycling therapy (ie, switching within the same drug class), or switching between, the TNF inhibitors and alternative MOA medication classes. METHODS: We analyzed medical and pharmacy claims for commercially insured patients who cycled or switched between targeted DMARD agents between January 1, 2010, and September 30, 2014 (ie, the index date), to determine treatment patterns (ie, treatment switching, discontinuation, restarting after a gap ≥60 days, or persistence) and costs (plan- and patient-paid) for 1 year postindex. The cost per persistent patient was the total healthcare cost divided by the number of treatment-persistent patients. RESULTS: The analysis included 6203 patients who cycled between TNF inhibitors, 2640 patients who switched from TNF inhibitors to alternative MOA agents, 699 patients who cycled between alternative MOA agents, and 687 patients who switched from alternative MOA agents to TNF inhibitors. The 1-year treatment persistence rates (with P values vs TNF inhibitor cyclers) were 45.2% for TNF inhibitor cyclers, 50.3% for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (P <.001), 51.4% for alternative MOA agent cyclers (P = .002), and 46.1% for alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor switchers (P = .63). Compared with TNF inhibitor cyclers, the cost per persistent patient was lower for TNF inhibitor-alternative MOA switchers (-$16,853 RA-related; -$19,280 targeted DMARDs), alternative MOA agent cyclers (-$21,662 RA-related; -$25,153 targeted DMARDs), and alternative MOA-TNF inhibitor cyclers (-$7206 RA-related; -$7919 targeted DMARDs). CONCLUSION: Among patients with RA, patients who switched from a TNF inhibitor to an alternative MOA agent and those who cycled between alternative MOA agents had significantly higher treatment persistence rates and a substantially lower cost per persistent patient than those who cycled between TNF inhibitors. These findings support the evaluation of switching medication classes for patients with RA when a targeted therapy fails.

Patient-reported outcomes from a randomized phase III trial of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The phase III MONARCH randomized controlled trial (NCT02332590) demonstrated that in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), sarilumab (anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody) monotherapy is superior to adalimumab monotherapy in reducing disease activity and signs and symptoms of RA, as well as in improving physical function, with similar rates of adverse and serious adverse events. We report the effects of sarilumab versus adalimumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: Patients with active RA intolerant of, or inadequate responders to, methotrexate were randomized to sarilumab 200 mg plus placebo every 2 weeks (q2w; n = 184) or adalimumab 40 mg plus placebo q2w (n = 185). Dose escalation to weekly administration of adalimumab or matching placebo was permitted at week 16. PROs assessed at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales (VASs), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID), and rheumatoid arthritis-specific Work Productivity Survey (WPS-RA). Between-group differences in least-squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline were analyzed. p < 0.05 was considered significant for PROs in a predefined hierarchy. For PROs not in the hierarchy, nominal p values are provided. Proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and achieving normative values were assessed. RESULTS: At week 24, sarilumab treatment resulted in significantly greater LSM changes from baseline than adalimumab monotherapy in HAQ-DI (p < 0.005), PtGA (p < 0.001), pain VAS (p < 0.001), and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (p < 0.001). Greater LSM changes were reported for sarilumab than for adalimumab in RAID (nominal p < 0.001), morning stiffness VAS (nominal p < 0.05), and WPS-RA (nominal p < 0.005). Between-group differences in FACIT-F and SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) were not significant. More patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the MCID in HAQ-DI (nominal p < 0.01), RAID (nominal p < 0.01), SF-36 PCS (nominal p < 0.005), and morning stiffness (nominal p < 0.05), as well as greater than or equal to the normative values in HAQ-DI (p < 0.05), with sarilumab versus adalimumab. CONCLUSIONS: In parallel with the clinical efficacy profile previously reported, sarilumab monotherapy resulted in greater improvements across multiple PROs than adalimumab monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02332590 . Registered on 5 January 2015.

Treatment Persistence and Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Changing Biologics in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers. METHODS: This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies. RESULTS: There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs. CONCLUSION: MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Sarilumab improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients with inadequate response/intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of the anti-interleukin-6 receptor monoclonal antibody sarilumab administered with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the TARGET trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNF-IR). METHODS: 546 patients (81.9% female, mean age 52.9 years) were randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 or 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks + csDMARDs. PROs included patient global assessment (PtGA); pain and morning stiffness visual analogue scales; Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI); Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36); FACIT-Fatigue (FACIT-F); Work Productivity Survey-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPS-RA) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Changes from baseline at weeks 12 and 24 were analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures; post hoc analyses included percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values. RESULTS: Sarilumab + csDMARDs doses resulted in improvements from baseline at week 12 vs placebo + csDMARDs in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and FACIT-F that were maintained at week 24. Sarilumab improved morning stiffness and reduced the impact of RA on work, family, social/leisure activities participation (WPS-RA) and on patients' lives (RAID). Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥MCID and ≥ normative scores were greater with sarilumab than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TNF-IR RA, 150 and 200 mg sarilumab + csDMARDs resulted in clinically meaningful patient-reported benefits on pain, fatigue, function, participation and health status at 12 and 24 weeks that exceeded placebo + csDMARDs, and were consistent with the clinical profile previously reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01709578; Results.