[Anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies for the preventive treatment of migraine: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the Italian scenario.] / Anticorpi monoclonali anti-CGRP per il trattamento preventivo degli attacchi di emicrania: un'analisi costo-efficacia nello scenario italiano.

Migraine is a neurological disease with a high frequency of incidence. The new monoclonal antibodies anti the calcitonin gene-related peptide ligand (anti-Cgrp mAbs) have demonstrated a good effectiveness in the prevention of migraine. This review was carried out with the aim of collecting evidence of anti-Cgrp mAbs efficacy assessing the cost-effectiveness between these medicines distributed in the Italian market. The literature review was performed on the PubMed database; the cost of the unitary dose of anti-Cgrp mAbs has been extracted consulting two Italian national databases. Our study confirms efficacy and good tolerability of anti-Cgrp mAbs, determining a difference in the purchase price. With equal efficacy and safety, anti-Cgrp mAbs should be prescribed also regard to the cost established at the negotiation, making sure to guarantee the best treatment to the patients, but at the same time impacting as little as possible to the national healthcare service resources. Therefore, Ssn pharmacist's role can be crucial to the proper management of pharmaceutical expenditure governance in support of treatment effectiveness and economic sustainability.

Budget impact analysis of daratumumab for light-chain amyloidosis in Cyprus.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the budget impact of daratumumab for light-chain amyloidosis in Cyprus. METHODS: A budget impact model assessed the cost prior and after the introduction of daratumumab for light-chain amyloidosis. All related costs were set from the perspective of Cyprus NHS. Clinical data were extracted from the published trials. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted. We reported incremental budget impact, per member per month, per year, and per treated member per month. RESULTS: The introduction of D-VCd led to a net budget impact of €254,264 in the first year, which escalated to €497,007 by fifth year. The PMPY was estimated at €0.2893 in the first year, reaching €0.5246 at fifth year, the PMPM were at €0.0241 at the first year escalating to €0.0437 at the fifth year, and the PTMPM costs were €2,379 at the first year and gauged to €4,435 by fifth year. Our results were sensitive to incidence of the disease, percentage of patients without cardiac involvement and daratumumab cost. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of daratumumab for AL amyloidosis, with a 90% annual uptake over 5 years, leads to a substantial budget impact. Managed entry agreement schemes can be considered in order to mitigate the impact.

JAK inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: effectiveness and value.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

The ICER review is in: hope amidst uncertainty.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Smith Begolka, Butler, and Guadalupe are salaried employees of the National Eczema Association, which has received grants and sponsorship awards from a variety of industry partners, including AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Smith Begolka has received grant funding from Pfizer and advisory board honoraria from Pfizer and Incyte. Butler and Guadalupe have received advisory board honoraria from Incyte.

Daratumumab utilization and cost analysis among patients with multiple myeloma in a US community oncology setting.

Background: The introduction of daratumumab into the treatment of multiple myeloma has improved outcomes in patients; however, community oncologists often dose more frequently than the US FDA-approved label. Materials and methods: Integra analyzed its database to elucidate daratumumab treatment patterns and the impact of increased utilization on the cost of care for multiple myeloma. Results: Following week 24, 671 (65%) of 1037 patients remained on daratumumab-containing regimens, with 330 patients continuing more frequent treatments than the expected once-every-4-weeks dosing described in the standard dosing schedule. Patients received an average of 14% more daratumumab doses than the FDA-approved label indicates, increasing the 1-year daratumumab costs by an estimated US$31,353. Conclusion: Daratumumab is utilized more frequently than the FDA-recommended dosing, leading to higher multiple myeloma treatment costs.

Lay abstract Since its first approval in 2015, daratumumab has become the backbone of many multiple myeloma treatment regimens. While its approval has improved outcomes in many patients who undergo treatment, it is expensive and has largely contributed to the increasing costs of care in multiple myeloma. In its most common treatment schedule, patients should transition from weekly and biweekly dosing to treatment once every 4 weeks. However, many providers maintain their patients on a more frequent dosing schedule, which increases Medicare 1-year costs by an estimated US$31,353 and may have unforeseen impacts on adverse events and patient outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy could significantly improve overall survival compared with chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). However, its long-term economic outcomes remain unclear yet. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage SCLC from the perspective of the Chinese health-care system. METHODS: A decision-analytic model with 10-year horizon was developed to estimate the health and economic outcomes of adding durvalumab to first-line treatment for extensive-stage SCLC. The primary outcomes included total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs and utility values were obtained from the published literature. A scenario analysis for a patient assistance program (PAP) was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed to explore the robustness of the model outcomes. RESULTS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy yielded additional 0.25 QALYs, with incremental costs of 76,354 USD, resulting in an ICER of 302,051 USD/QALY compared with chemotherapy alone, when PAP was available, the ICER was 192,591 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adding durvalumab to first-line chemotherapy for extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer is unlikely to be cost-effectiveness in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab plus etoposide: platinum in the first-line therapy of extensive stage small-cell lung cancer from the Chinese payers' perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Results from the CASPIAN trial (Durvalumab ± Tremelimumab in Combination With Platinum Based Chemotherapy in Untreated Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer) trial demonstrated the clinical benefit of durvalumab plus etoposide-platinum (EP) chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). However, considering the high price of durvalumab, it is unclear whether addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy has economic value compared with EP alone. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab plus EP chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for patients with ES-SCLC. METHODS: A Markov model comprising three health states (stable, progressive, and dead) was developed to simulate the process of small-cell lung cancer. Utility and costs were obtained from published resources. Health outcomes were derived from the CASPIAN trial. Costs were calculated based on the standard medical fees in Zhejiang Province from Chinese patients' perspective. Utility values were obtained from published data. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were applied to verify model robustness. RESULTS: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy costs more than $32,220, with a gain of 0.14 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with EP alone. The incremental cost-effective ratio was $230,142.9 per QALY, which exceeds the willingness to pay threshold of $28,527 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the utility values for the progressive state, costs of durvalumab and EP chemotherapy, and costs for the progressive state were considered to be the three most sensitive factors in the model. CONCLUSION: The addition of durvalumab to EP chemotherapy is not a cost-effective strategy in the first-line therapy of ES-SCLC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of adding daratumumab or bortezomib to lenalidomide plus dexamethasone for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES: No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Exclusão do eculizumabe para tratamento da hemoglobinúria paroxística noturna / Exclusion of eculizumab for treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria

INTRODUÇÃO: A Hemoglobinúria Paroxística Noturna (HPN) é uma doença rara das células-tronco hematopoiéticas, com incidência anual estimada de 1,3 novos casos por um milhão de indivíduos. A HPN É causada por mutações somáticas do gene fosfatidilinositolglicana classe-A, que resultam na deficiência parcial ou completa das proteínas ligadas ao GPI na superfície das células afetadas. A falta destas proteínas leva a um aumento da suscetibilidade dos eritrócitos ao complemento ativado e à destruição pelo complexo de ataque à membrana. Como resultado, o paciente apresenta anemia hemolítica intravascular crônica, tromboembolismo e insuficiência da medula óssea. O único tratamento curativo da HPN ainda é o transplante de células-tronco hematopoéticas alogênico. O tratamento varia de acordo com as manifestações da doença, e há vários que podem reduzir as complicações: corticoides, androgênios, transfusão sanguínea, imunossupressores (globulina antilinfocitá

Opportunities and challenges to the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies for COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a substantial global public healthcare crisis, leading to the urgent need for effective therapeutic strategies. Neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) are a potential treatment for COVID-19. This article provides a brief overview of the targets and development of nAbs against COVID-19, and it examines the efficacy of nAbs as part of both outpatient and inpatient treatments based on emerging clinical trial data. Assessment of several promising candidates in clinical trials highlights the potential of nAbs to be an effective therapeutic to treat COVID-19 in outpatient settings. Nevertheless, the efficacy of nAbs treatment for hospitalized patients varies. In addition, this review identifies challenges to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, including concerns over nAbs development and clinical use. Resistant variants significantly threaten the availability of nAb-based therapeutics. This review also discusses other approaches that may improve the clinical benefit of neutralizing mAbs.

Cost-effectiveness of bezlotoxumab and fidaxomicin for initial Clostridioides difficile infection.

OBJECTIVES: Treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has undergone significant change in recent years with the introduction of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab for initial CDI compared with standard therapy with oral vancomycin. METHODS: A Markov model with eight health states was built based on transition probabilities, costs and health utilities derived from literature to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin, and extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus standard oral vancomycin over a lifetime horizon from the US societal perspective. RESULTS: For overall CDI treatment, oral vancomycin had a cost of $39 178 and was associated with a gain of 11.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin had a higher QALY gain of 11.65 at a lower cost of $37 613, and therefore was dominant over vancomycin. Standard fidaxomicin had a QALY gain of 11.94 versus vancomycin at an incremental cost of $495 per QALY. Bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin led to a QALY gain of 11.77 at an incremental cost of $17 746 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY, extended-pulsed fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin and standard fidaxomicin were more cost-effective compared with vancomycin alone, yielding incremental net monetary benefits of $3248, $17 011 and $44 308, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of sustained cure from the initial episode were the most sensitive inputs, and results were overall not particularly sensitive to any drug costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a WTP threshold of $150 000, standard fidaxomicin was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment. Standard-of-care vancomycin was dominated by extended-pulsed fidaxomicin for treating an episode of CDI and preventing further recurrence, and the addition of bezlotoxumab to vancomycin was dominated by standard fidaxomicin.

Cost-Effectiveness of Durvalumab After Chemoradiotherapy in Unresectable Stage III NSCLC: A US Healthcare Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Durvalumab was approved by the FDA in February 2018 for patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC that has not progressed after platinum-based concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT), and this regimen is the current standard of care. The objective of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone in patients with locally advanced, unresectable stage III NSCLC. METHODS: A 3-state semi-Markov model was used. Modeling was performed in a US healthcare setting from Medicare and commercial payer perspectives over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy (progression-free and post progression survival) and utility inputs were based on PACIFIC study data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02125461; data cutoff March 22, 2018). Overall survival extrapolation was validated using overall survival data from a later data cutoff (January 31, 2019). The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of durvalumab following cCRT versus cCRT alone, calculated as the difference in total costs between treatment strategies per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, durvalumab following cCRT was cost-effective versus cCRT alone from Medicare and commercial insurance perspectives, with ICERs of $55,285 and $61,111, respectively, per QALY gained. Durvalumab was thus considered cost-effective at the $100,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Sensitivity analyses revealed the model was particularly affected by variables associated with subsequent treatment, although no tested variable increased the ICER above the WTP threshold. Scenario analyses showed the model was most sensitive to assumptions regarding time horizon, treatment effect duration, choice of fitted progression-free survival curve, subsequent immunotherapy treatment duration, and use of a partitioned survival model structure. CONCLUSIONS: In a US healthcare setting, durvalumab was cost-effective compared with cCRT alone, further supporting the adoption of durvalumab following cCRT as the new standard of care in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC.

Innovative approaches to biologic development on the trail of CT-P13: biosimilars, value-added medicines, and biobetters.

The biosimilar concept is now well established. Clinical data accumulated pre- and post-approval have supported biosimilar uptake, in turn stimulating competition in the biologics market and increasing patient access to biologics. Following technological advances, other innovative biologics, such as "biobetters" or "value-added medicines," are now reaching the market. These innovative biologics differ from the reference product by offering additional clinical or non-clinical benefits. We discuss these innovative biologics with reference to CT-P13, initially available as an intravenous (IV) biosimilar of reference infliximab. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation, CT-P13 SC, has now been developed. Relative to CT-P13 IV, CT-P13 SC offers clinical benefits in terms of pharmacokinetics, with comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, as well as increased convenience for patients and reduced demands on healthcare system resources. As was once the case for biosimilars, nomenclature and regulatory pathways for innovative biologics require clarification to support their uptake and ultimately benefit patients.

The Budget Impact of Monoclonal Antibodies Used to Treat Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Biological medicines have increased the cost of cancer treatments, which also raises concerns about sustainability. In Brazil, three monoclonal antibodies (mAbs)-bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab-are indicated for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but not currently funded by the Unified Health System (SUS). However, successful litigation has led to funding in some cases. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the budgetary impact of including the mAbs bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab in standard chemotherapy for the treatment of mCRC within the SUS of Minas Gerais (MG), Brazil. METHOD: A budget impact analysis of incorporating mAbs as first-line treatment of mCRC in MG was explored. The perspective taken was that of the Brazilian SUS, and a 5-year time horizon was applied. Data were collected from lawsuits undertaken between January 2009 and December 2016, and the model was populated with data from national databases and published sources. Costs are expressed in $US. RESULTS: In total, 351 lawsuits resulted in funding for first-line treatment with mAbs for mCRC. The three alternative scenarios analyzed resulted in cost increases of 348-395% compared with the reference scenario. The use of panitumumab had a budgetary impact of $US103,360,980 compared with the reference scenario over a 5-year time horizon, and bevacizumab and cetuximab had budgetary impacts of $US111,334,890 and 113,772,870, respectively. The use of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mAbs (cetuximab and panitumumab) is restricted to the approximately 41% of patients with KRAS mutations, so the best cost alternative for incorporation would be the combination of panitumumab and bevacizumab, with a cost of approximately $US106 million. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the appreciable costs for incorporating bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab into the SUS. Appreciable discounts are likely to be necessary before incorporation of these mAbs is approved.

Inventive step assessment of top selling monoclonal antibodies in Brazil.

Introduction: The patent system is fundamental for the pharmaceutical industry development, providing a return on the large investment of time and financial resources. Among the patentability requirements, understanding how to comply with the inventive step is especially important for patent applicants. Regarding mAbs, due to the high affinity and specificity for their molecular therapeutic target, minimal structural changes can lead to unexpected properties, being a common issue among Patent Offices.Areas covered: The present research investigated the Brazilian patents covering top-selling mAbs.Expert Opinion: The more complete and detailed the mAb when the patent application is filed, the greater the chance of the patent being granted. It is necessary to disclose, at least, the six CDRs, the complete variable region, and/or the hybridoma. The Applicant shall specify faced obstacles during mAb generation, mainly if it is a common issue and resulted in improved properties. If it is possible, the Applicants shall compare the claimed mAbs to previous ones, focusing on the achieved unexpected or improved properties. After an objection by BRPTO, the Applicant shall submit data with quantitatively data about qualitative information disclosed at the Specification when filed. If applicable, show different epitope-binding and highlight clinical advantages of successful mAbs.

Continuation of Anti-TNF in Patients With Ulcerative Colitis in Remission Is Not Cost-effective Compared With Treatment Withdrawal: A Markov Model.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12-24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. METHODS: We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. RESULTS: At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse.

Economic assessment of continuous processing for manufacturing of biotherapeutics.

Continuous processing offers a promising approach to revolutionize biotherapeutics manufacturing as reflected in recent years. The current study offers a comparative economic assessment of batch and continuous processing for the production of biotherapeutic products. Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (GCSF), a protein expressed in E. coli, and an IgG1 monoclonal antibody, were chosen as representatives of microbial and mammalian derived products for this assessment. Economic indicators-cost of goods (COGs), net present value (NPV), and payback time have been estimated for the assessment. For the case of GCSF, conversion from batch to integrated continuous manufacturing induced a $COGs/g reduction of 83% and 73% at clinical and commercial scales, respectively. For the case of mAb therapeutic, a 68% and 35% reduction in $COGs/g on translation from batch to continuous process was projected for clinical and commercial scales, respectively. Upstream mAb titer was also found to have a significant impact on the process economics. With increasing mAb titer, the $COG/g decreases in both operating modes. With titer increasing from 2 to 8 g/L, the $COG/g of batch process was reduced by 53%, and that of the continuous process was reduced by 63%. Cost savings in both the cases were attributed to increased productivity, efficient equipment and facility utilization, smaller facility footprint, and reduction in utilization of consumables like resin media and buffers actualized by the continuous processing platform. The current study quantifies the economic benefits associated with continuous processing and highlights its potential in reducing the manufacturing cost of biotherapeutics.