Simulated cost-effectiveness of a novel precision-guided dosing strategy in adult patients with Crohn's disease initiating infliximab maintenance therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Crohn's disease (CD) who lose response to biologics experience reduced quality of life (QoL) and costly hospitalizations. Precision-guided dosing (PGD) provides a comprehensive pharmacokinetic (PK) profile that allows for biologic dosing to be personalized. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of infliximab (IFX) PGD relative to two other dose intensification strategies (DIS). METHODS: We developed a hybrid (Markov and decision tree) model of patients with CD who had a clinical response to IFX induction. The analysis had a US payer perspective, a base case time horizon of 5 years, and a 4-week cycle length. There were three IFX dosing comparators: PGD; dose intensification based on symptoms, inflammatory markers, and trough IFX concentration (DIS1); and dose intensification based on symptoms alone (DIS2). Patients that failed IFX initiated ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, and conventional therapy. Transition probabilities for IFX were estimated from real-world clinical PK data and interventional clinical trial patient-level data. All other transition probabilities were derived from published randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness analyses. Utility values were sourced from previous health technology assessments. Direct costs included biologic acquisition and infusion, surgeries and procedures, conventional therapy, and lab testing. The primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). The robustness of results was assessed via one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: PGD was the cost-effective IFX dosing strategy with an ICER of 122,932 $ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) relative to DIS1 and dominating DIS2. PGD had the lowest percentage (1.1%) of patients requiring a new biologic through 5 years (8.9% and 74.4% for DIS1 and DIS2, respectively). One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the cost-effectiveness of PGD was most sensitive to the time between IFX doses. PSA demonstrated that joint parameter uncertainty had moderate impact on some results. CONCLUSIONS: PGD provides clinical and QoL benefits by maintaining remission and avoiding IFX failure; it is the most cost-effective under conservative assumptions.

Cost-effectiveness of intravenous vedolizumab vs subcutaneous adalimumab for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of intravenous (IV) vedolizumab vs subcutaneous (SC) adalimumab for the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) was assessed in the VARSITY clinical trial, which demonstrated for the first time in a head-to-head clinical trial setting the superiority of IV vedolizumab with respect to clinical remission and endoscopic improvement. Both therapies offer better clinical outcomes compared with immunomodulators and corticosteroids but are often more expensive than other pharmacologic treatment options. Thus, payers and decision makers face the task of leveraging finite resources for optimal health benefits, which can be aided by the use of cost-effectiveness models. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab from a US payer perspective using head-to-head data from the VARSITY trial. METHODS: A cohort decision tree was developed to estimate the costs and clinical outcomes associated with IV vedolizumab vs SC adalimumab to treat adults with moderately to severely active UC. Simulated cohorts began the model at treatment induction and continued to maintenance treatment with vedolizumab or adalimumab unless experiencing nonresponse or serious adverse drug reaction (ADR), in which case those patients transitioned to second-line treatment with tofacitinib, infliximab, or golimumab, where they could achieve response and/or remission or not. Those who still did not achieve response or remission or who had a serious ADR transitioned to a state of nonresponse for the remainder of the model or received surgery. The process was modeled for patients who were treatment naive and treatment experienced at baseline separately. Efficacy and safety inputs for vedolizumab and adalimumab were taken from the VARSITY trial, and corresponding inputs for other biologics were derived from a network meta-analysis. All clinical inputs were extrapolated over 2 years. Direct medical costs (expressed in 2019 US dollars) included those related to drug acquisition and administration, ADRs, routine monitoring, and additional treatment procedures. Outcomes were not discounted given the short time horizon. Univariate sensitivity and scenario analysis were applied to evaluate the robustness of the model to underlying parameter and structural uncertainty. RESULTS: Initial treatment with vedolizumab was associated with a higher remission rate at 2 years (73.5% vs 71.5%) and higher persistence (22.0% vs 14.4%) compared with adalimumab. Total direct medical costs were lower for the vedolizumab cohort ($100,022 vs $151,133), primarily driven by the lower annual drug acquisition cost of vedolizumab ($85,953 vs $137,492). When endoscopic improvement was used as the outcome measure, IV vedolizumab was also associated with higher endoscopic remission and lower overall costs. CONCLUSIONS: With better clinical outcomes and lower direct medical costs over a 2-year model horizon, vedolizumab IV was the dominant treatment strategy vs adalimumab SC in adults with moderately to severely active UC. Outcomes were driven primarily by the probability of major ADRs and induction response. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (Lexington, MA). Schultz and Turpin are employees of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Turpin has stock or stock options in Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Diakite, Carter, and Snedecor are employees of OPEN Health (Bethesda, MD), which received payment from Takeda for the design and execution of this study. This study was presented at the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation (ECCO) 2020 Congress and Digestive Disease Week (DDW), 2020 Virtual Congress.

Optimal treatment sequence for targeted immune modulators for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory condition of the large intestine and rectum. Several targeted immune modulators (TIMs) have demonstrated effectiveness for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis and are approved by the FDA. Patients may try multiple TIMs, and currently there are no biomarkers or prognostic factors to guide choice of treatment sequence. In 2020, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) conducted a review of TIMs for the treatment of ulcerative colitis as individual agents relative to conventional treatment but did not address the relative ranking of various treatment sequences to each other. OBJECTIVE: To extend the ICER framework to identify the optimal treatment sequence as informed by metrics such as maximizing incremental net health benefit (NHB), minimizing incremental total cost, or maximizing incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). METHODS: The model was developed as a Markov model with 8-week cycles over a lifetime time horizon from a US payer perspective, including only direct health care costs. Health states consisted of active moderate to severe ulcerative colitis, clinical response without achieving remission, clinical remission, and death. Efficacy of TIMs were informed by the ICER-conducted network meta-analysis. Up to 3 treatments were modeled in a sequence that consisted of 2 different TIMs followed by conventional treatment. Sequences were ranked according to each objective. NHB was calculated using a threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was undertaken to estimate the probability of each sequence having the highest NHB rank under each objective. RESULTS: 21 possible sequences were evaluated in the base case. Two attempts at conventional treatment represented the lowest cost option and, while yielding the fewest QALYs, resulted in the highest NHB. None of the sequences had an incremental cost per QALY below $150,000 relative to 2 attempts with conventional treatment, so the resulting NHB was negative for all sequences. The sequence with the highest NHB was infliximab-dyyb followed by tofacitinib (-0.116). This regimen also had the lowest incremental costs ($37,266). For orally and subcutaneously administered TIMs, the sequence of golimumab-tofacitinib had the highest NHB (-0.344). Ustekinumab-vedolizumab was the top-ranked sequence as measured by QALY maximization (0.172 incremental QALYs) but also had the highest total incremental cost ($166,094). Results of the PSA were consistent with deterministic rankings for the top-ranking sequences but also showed that the top 2 or 3 regimens were often close together. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, the optimal sequence of TIMs as measured by NHB and cost minimization was infliximab or biosimilars as first-line treatment, then moving to tofacitinib, adalimumab, or vedolizumab. Sequences that generated the most QALYs began with ustekinumab, followed by vedolizumab, tofacitinib, and adalimumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was based on an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Pandey and Fazioli are employees of ICER. Bloudek reports grants from ICER during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Astellas, Akcea, Dermira, GlaxoSmithKline, Sunovion, Seattle Genetics, and TerSera Therapeutics, outside the submitted work. Pandey reports grants from California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and the Donoghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithSline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, uniQure, Evolve Pharmacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Fazioli reports grants from Arnold Ventures, California Healthcare Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., and The Donaghue Foundation, during the conduct of the study, and other support from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AbbVie, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, United Healthcare, HealthFirst, Pfizer, Boehringer-lngelheim, uniQure, Evolve Phamacy Solutions, and Humana, outside the submitted work. Ollendorf reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, along with other support from CEA Registry sponsors and personal fees from EMD Serono, Amgen, Analysis Group, Aspen Institute/University of Southern California, GalbraithWight, Cytokinetics, Sunovion, University of Colorado, Center for Global Development, and Neurocrine, outside the submitted work. Carlson reports grants from ICER, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Allergan, outside the submitted work. The inputs and model framework that were leveraged for this analysis were presented as part of the ICER assessment of TIMs for the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis.

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.

Switching Australian patients with moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease from originator to biosimilar infliximab: a multicentre, parallel cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether non-medical switching of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) from originator infliximab to a biosimilar (CT-P13, Inflectra) is safe and clinically non-inferior to continued treatment with originator infliximab. DESIGN: Prospective, open label, multicentre, parallel cohort, non-inferiority study in seven Australian hospitals over 48 weeks, May 2017 - October 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18 years or older) with IBD receiving maintenance originator infliximab (Remicade) who had been in steroid-free clinical remission for at least 12 weeks. INTERVENTION: Managed program for switching patients in four hospitals from originator to biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13); patients in three other hospitals continued to receive originator infliximab (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical disease worsening requiring infliximab dose escalation or change in therapy. RESULTS: The switch group included 204 patients, the control group 141 patients with IBD. Ten patients in the control group (7%) and 16 patients switched to CT-P13 (8%) experienced clinical deterioration; the adjusted risk difference (control v switch group) was -1.1 percentage points (95% CI, -6.1 to 8.2 percentage points), within our pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 15 percentage points. Serious adverse events leading to infliximab discontinuation were infrequent in both the switch (six, 3%) and control (six, 4%) groups. CONCLUSION: Switching patients with IBD from originator to biosimilar infliximab is safe and non-inferior to continuing treatment with originator infliximab. Moreover, the introduction of biosimilar infliximab, by increasing market competition, has resulted in substantial cost savings for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Cost-Effectiveness of 5-Aminosalicylate Therapy in Combination With Biologics or Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

INTRODUCTION: Medications are major cost drivers in the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Recent analyses suggest that there is no added efficacy in continuing nor harm in stopping 5-aminosalicylate (ASA) therapy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease escalated to biological therapies or tofacitinib. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of discontinuing 5-ASA therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis on biological therapies or tofacitinib, compared with continuing 5-ASA therapy. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of 5-ASA with biologic therapy and tofacitinib compared with the same treatment without 5-ASA. Our primary outcome was to determine whether biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy was cost-effective compared with biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA combination therapy using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year. Owing to the uncertainty surrounding outcome probabilities, probabilistic sensitivity analyses with 10,000 simulations were also performed. We conducted a sensitivity analysis comparing biologic/tofacitinib and 5-ASA therapy compared with biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy, whereby vedolizumab was the first biologic used, followed by infliximab and finally tofacitinib. RESULTS: Our model shows that biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominates (cheaper and more effective) combination therapy of biologics/tofacitinib with 5-ASA. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses simulations resulted in biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy dominating 100% of the scenarios, with mean cost savings of $24,483.01 over 2 years. When vedolizumab was the first-line therapy in the sensitivity analysis, biologic/tofacitinib monotherapy continued to dominate the combination of 5-ASA and biologic/tofacitinib therapy. DISCUSSION: This analysis in patients with ulcerative colitis who require treatment with biologics or tofacitinib demonstrates that continuing 5-ASA therapy is not a cost-effective strategy. Discontinuation of 5-ASA therapy in these patients is safe and less expensive and should be recommended.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the biological drugs, the treatment of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis is still a challenge, particularly in resource-limited settings. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of biological drugs and tofacitinib for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in the Spanish context. METHODS: A Markov model was built to simulate the progression of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in a cohort of patients. The model used a time horizon of 10 years. The perspective chosen was the National Health Service, with a discount rate of 3%, and a threshold of €30,000/quality adjusted life-year (QALY). It carried out a one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The comparison of infliximab with adalimumab and golimumab estimated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €43,928.07/QALY and €31,340.69/QALY, with a difference of - 0.43 and - 0.82 QALY, respectively. Vedolizumab vs infliximab achieved an ICER of €122,890.19/QALY with a gain of 0.46 QALY. The comparison of infliximab with tofacitinib yielded an estimated ICER of €270,503.19/QALY, with a slight gain in QALY (0.16). The one-way sensitivity analysis showed a robust study. CONCLUSION: For a threshold of €30,000/QALY, adalimumab was the most cost-effective treatment versus infliximab for moderate to severe ulcerative colitis in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring in inflammatory bowel disease.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is increasingly common, and results in significant morbidity. Traditional therapies include corticosteroids, aminosalicylates, thiopurines and methotrexate but in more recent years biologics have transformed the management of IBD. However, these agents come with a significant financial cost, making them unavailable for many patients worldwide. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an important means to optimise clinical outcomes from pharmacotherapy. Recent studies have also focussed on the cost-effectiveness as an outcome of TDM. TDM of traditional therapies is principally mediated through improved disease control. Cost-savings from TDM of biologic therapies arises mainly from reduced pharmaceutical use with equitable clinical outcomes. This review considers the cost-effectiveness of TDM for IBD therapies, with a focus on recent research into biologic TDM.

Process and Clinical Outcomes of a Biosimilar Adoption Program with Infliximab-Dyyb.

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the FDA approved infliximab-dyyb (IFX-dyyb) as a biosimilar to infliximab (IFX). Deemed to have comparable efficacy and safety to IFX, IFX-dyyb is 20%-30% less expensive, allowing significant cost savings for institutions and some payers. In 2018, IFX was reported to be the drug with the highest spend since 2013, costing $3.8 billion; however, transition to IFX-dyyb would save $1.1 billion. Regardless, many institutions have not transitioned to IFX-dyyb or other IFX biosimilars (e.g., IFX-abda) because of concerns about clinical outcomes, uncertainty regarding financial impact, and barriers to operationalizing biosimilar adoption. At Boston Medical Center, a decision was made in March 2018 to adopt IFX-dyyb and transition patients who have been on IFX for ≥ 6 months for all indications to IFX-dyyb. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe a biosimilar adoption process of IFX-dyyb in patients on IFX for ≥ 6 months; (b) characterize cost savings of transitioning patients to IFX-dyyb; and (c) evaluate real-world clinical outcomes of adult patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who transitioned to IFX-dyyb. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of patients eligible for the IFX-dyyb switch from March 2018 to June 2019 at a large academic medical center. For process outcomes, we collected the proportion of patients who transitioned to IFX-dyyb and calculated the cost savings generated. To assess clinical outcomes of adult IBD patients who transitioned, we collected IFX and IFX-dyyb dosage, Harvey Bradshaw Index (HBI) or Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index (SCCAI) scores, c-reactive protein (CRP) levels, and colonoscopy results. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and McNemar's test were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Of 151 eligible patients, 146 (97%) successfully transitioned to IFX-dyyb. Based on our conversion rate to IFX-dyyb, our health system is forecasted to save approximately $500,000 annually. From March to June 2018, 63 of 75 (84%) eligible IBD patients transitioned from IFX to IFX-dyyb. In this cohort, of the 40 patients with HBI or SCCAI scores before and after transition, 36 (90%) maintained remission. For 32 patients, the mean CRP (SD) before transition was 11.2 (22) and 4.1 (4.8) after transition (P = 0.09). Since the IFX-dyyb transition, 9 patients had a colonoscopy, of which 5 (56%) were in endoscopic remission. As of October 2018, 56 (89%) patients continued with IFX-dyyb after transition. Of the 46 patients who had 12-15 months posttransition data, 38 (83%) remained on IFX-dyyb. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a biosimilar adoption program can be successful and result in significant cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. A model that uses actionable strategies and embraces collaboration among stakeholders is described here, with outcomes demonstrating successful IFX-dyyb uptake and no changes in clinical outcomes of transitioned adult patients with IBD. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Farraye reports advisory board fees from Janssen, Merck, and Pfizer. Shah reports speaker fees from Pfizer. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Alvimopan Is Associated With a Reduction in Length of Stay and Hospital Costs for Patients Undergoing Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of alvimopan in patient undergoing radical cystectomy (RC) for bladder cancer. We hypothesize that alvimopan can decrease cost for RC by reducing length of stay (LOS). METHODS: We identified patients who underwent elective RC for bladder cancer from 2009 to 2015 in the Premier Healthcare Database, a nationwide, all-payer hospital-based database, and compared patients who received and did not receive alvimopan in the perioperative period. Hospitals that had no record of administering alvimopan for patients undergoing RC were excluded. The primary outcomes were LOS and the direct hospital costs. The secondary outcomes were 90-day readmission for ileus and major complications. RESULTS: After applying the inclusion criteria, the study cohort consisted of 1087 patients with 511 patients receiving perioperative alvimopan. Alvimopan was associated with a reduction in hospital costs by -$2709 (95% confidence interval: -$4507 to -$912, P = .003), decreased median LOS (7 vs 8 days, P < .001), and lower likelihood of readmission for ileus (adjusted odds ratio: 0.63, P = .041). While alvimopan use led to higher pharmacy costs, this was outweighed by lower room and board costs due to the reduced LOS. There was no significant difference between 2 groups regarding major complications. These results were robust across multiple adjusted regression models. CONCLUSION: Our data show that alvimopan is associated with a substantial cost-saving in patients undergoing RC, and suggest that routine use of alvimopan may be a potential cost-effective strategy to reduce the overall financial burden of bladder cancer.

Long-Term Management: Modern Measures to Prevent Readmission in Patients with Hepatic Encephalopathy.

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a frequent indication for hospitalization and represents a common manifestation of portal hypertension and decompensated liver disease that contributes to hospital readmissions. Multiple new techniques are being evaluated to assist in preventing readmissions in these high-risk patients. Techniques to improve medication adherence are paramount. The use of telemedicine and on-demand patient assessment is likely to diminish hospitalizations for HE. Wearable technology has the potential to assist in HE diagnosis and prevent HE progression, with an anticipated diminution in hospital readmissions. This article discusses current and potential future techniques to improve outcomes in these vulnerable patients.

How the Beneficial Effects of Alvimopan Differ With Surgical Approach for Radical Cystectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the beneficial perioperative effects of alvimopan differ with surgical approach for patients who undergo open radical cystectomy (ORC) vs robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC). METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed all patients who underwent cystectomy with urinary diversion at our institution between January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2018. Data were collected on demographic characteristics, comorbidities, surgical approach, alvimopan therapy, hospital length of stay (LOS), days until return of bowel function (ROBF), and complications. Outcomes and interactions were evaluated through regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 573 patients, 236 (41.2%) underwent RARC, 337 (58.8%) underwent ORC, and 205 (35.8%) received alvimopan. Comparison of 4 cohorts (ORC with alvimopan, ORC without alvimopan, RARC with alvimopan, and RARC without alvimopan) showed that patients who underwent ORC without alvimopan had the highest rate of postoperative ileus (25.6%, P = .02), longest median hospital LOS (7 days, P < .001), and longest time until ROBF (4 days, P < .001). On multivariable analysis, the interaction between surgical approach and alvimopan use was significant for the outcome of ROBF (estimate, 1.109; 95% confidence interval, 0.418-1.800; P = .002). In the RARC cohort, multivariable analysis showed no benefit of alvimopan with respect to ileus (P = .27), LOS (P = .09), or ROBF (P = .36). Regarding joint effects of robotic approach and alvimopan, RARC had no effect on gastrointestinal tract outcomes. CONCLUSION: We observed a diminished beneficial effect of alvimopan among patients undergoing RARC and a statistically significant benefit of alvimopan among patients undergoing ORC. The implications of these findings may permit more selective medication use for patients who would benefit the most from this drug.

Identification of the Most Cost-effective Position of Vedolizumab Among the Available Biologic Drugs for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are limited data on the most cost-effective sequencing of biologics for ulcerative colitis [UC]. METHODS: We used Markov modelling to identify the most cost-effective position for vedolizumab among biologics for steroid-dependent UC, with a base-case of a 35-year-old male. We assessed three treatment algorithms, with vedolizumab use: prior to an initial anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNFα] and azathioprine [Algorithm 1]; prior to a second anti-TNF and azathioprine [Algorithm 2]; and prior to colectomy [Algorithm 3]. The initial anti-TNF could be either infliximab or adalimumab. Transition probabilities, costs, and quality-adjusted life-year estimates were derived from published estimates, Medicare, and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Primary analyses included 100 trials of 100 000 individuals over 1 year, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$100,000. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess our findings. RESULTS: From a population perspective, when both infliximab and adalimumab are available, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic if ≥14% of initial anti-TNF use was adalimumab. If infliximab is the primary biologic, vedolizumab use after infliximab [Algorithm 2] and prior to adalimumab was the most cost-effective strategy. All models were sensitive to biologic pricing. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation demonstrated that the most cost-effective strategy in UC depends on the proportion of patients using adalimumab as the initial anti-TNF. If adalimumab was ≥14%, vedolizumab was preferred as the first biologic. When only infliximab was available for first-line therapy, the most cost-effective position of vedolizumab was prior to cycling to adalimumab.

Health-related quality of life and costs of switching originator infliximab to biosimilar one in treatment of inflammatory bowel disease.

Effectiveness, efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients has been shown in previous studies. Limited data exist on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of switching originator to biosimilar infliximab (IFX) in IBD patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate impact of switching originator to biosimilar IFX on HRQoL, disease activity, and health care costs in IBD maintenance treatment.In this single-center prospective observational study, all IBD patients receiving maintenance IFX therapy were switched to biosimilar IFX. HRQoL was measured using the generic 15D health-related quality of life instrument (15D) utility measurement and the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Crohn Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or Partial Mayo Score (pMayo), and fecal calprotectin (FC) served for evaluation of disease activity. Data were collected at time of switching and 3 and 12 months after switching. Patients' characteristics, clinical background information and costs were collected from patient records and the hospital's electronic database.Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant changes were observed in 15D, CDAI, pMayo, and FC during 1-year follow-up. IBDQ scores were higher (P = .018) in Crohn disease 3 months after switching than at time of switching. Costs of biosimilar IFX were one-third of costs of originator one. Total costs related to secondary health care (excluding costs of IFX), were similar before and after the onset of biosimilar IFX.HRQoL and disease activity were after switching from originator to biosimilar IFX comparable, but the costs of biosimilar IFX were only one-third of those of the originator one.

Proactive Vs Reactive Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab in Crohn's Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in a Simulated Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is increasingly performed for Infliximab (IFX) in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). Reactive TDM is a cost-effective strategy to empiric IFX dose escalation. The cost-effectiveness of proactive TDM is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of proactive vs reactive TDM in a simulated population of CD patients on IFX. METHODS: We developed a stochastic simulation model of CD patients on IFX and evaluated the expected health costs and outcomes of a proactive TDM strategy compared with a reactive strategy. The proactive strategy measured IFX concentration and antibody status every 6 months, or at the time of a flare, and dosed IFX to a therapeutic window. The reactive strategy only did so at the time of a flare. RESULTS: The proactive strategy led to fewer flares than the reactive strategy. More patients stayed on IFX in the proactive vs reactive strategy (63.4% vs 58.8% at year 5). From a health sector perspective, a proactive strategy was marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive strategy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $146,494 per quality-adjusted life year), assuming a 40% of the wholesale price of IFX. The results were most sensitive to risk of flaring with a low IFX concentration and the cost of IFX. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming 40% of the average wholesale acquisition cost of biologic therapies, proactive TDM for IFX is marginally cost-effective compared with a reactive TDM strategy. As the cost of infliximab decreases, a proactive monitoring strategy is more cost-effective.

Number needed to treat and cost per remitter for biologic treatments of Crohn's disease in Japan.

Aims: Adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab have been approved for patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan. This study compared the relative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab in patients with Crohn's disease based on data from randomized controlled trials.Methods: Data were extracted from four phase 3 clinical trials: CHARM, NCT00445432, ACCENT I, and IM-UNITI. A network meta-analysis (NMA) compared 1-year clinical remission rates in patients who responded to treatment during an induction phase. Remission was defined as a Crohn's Disease Activity Index score <150. The number needed to treat (NNT) was defined as the inverse of the risk reduction (compared with placebo) estimated from the NMA among initial responders. Cost per incremental remitter was calculated based on the projected per patient drug cost (2018 Japanese Yen [¥]) and the NNT.Results: Among initial responders, the remission rates were 45.2%, 31.9%, 27.4%, 24.1%, and 15.6% for adalimumab 40 mg every other week (EOW), infliximab 5 mg/kg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks, ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks, and placebo, respectively. The NNT was the lowest for adalimumab 40 mg EOW. Compared with adalimumab, the incremental cost per remitter was numerically higher for infliximab (¥5,375,470) and statistically higher for ustekinumab 90 mg every 8 weeks and ustekinumab 90 mg every 12 weeks (¥42,788,597 and ¥41,495,543, respectively).Limitations: Indirect comparisons are limited by the availability of suitable clinical evidence and there may be residual heterogeneity that could not be adjusted for.Conclusion: Adalimumab was associated with a numerically lower cost per remitter compared with infliximab and a statistically lower cost per remitter compared with ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe Crohn's disease in Japan.

Cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in adult patients with short bowel syndrome: Markov modeling using traditional cost-effectiveness criteria.

BACKGROUND: Adults with short bowel syndrome have a high mortality and significant morbidity due to unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation that necessitate chronic use of parenteral nutrition (PN). Teduglutide is a novel therapy that promotes intestinal adaptation to improve rehabilitation but with a price >$400,000/y. OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using teduglutide in US adult patients with short bowel syndrome. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the costs (in US dollars) and effectiveness (in quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs) of treatment compared with no teduglutide use, with a presumed starting age of 40 y. Parameters were obtained from published data or estimation. The primary effect modeled was the increased likelihood of reduced PN days per week when using teduglutide, leading to greater quality of life and lower PN costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model parameters. RESULTS: In the base scenario, teduglutide cost $949,910/QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, only reducing teduglutide cost decreased the cost/QALY gained to below the typical threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. Specifically, teduglutide cost would need to be reduced by >65% for it to reach the threshold value. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored no teduglutide use in 80% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. However, teduglutide therapy was cost-saving in 13% of model iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold as treatment for PN reduction in adult patients with short bowel syndrome compared with standard intestinal rehabilitation. Subpopulations that demonstrate maximum benefit could be cost-saving, and complete nonuse could lead to financial loss. Teduglutide becomes economically reasonable only if its cost is substantially reduced.