Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a Canadian perspective

Objective: The study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin (IL)-17A, vs currently licensed biologic treatments in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Methods: A decision analytic semi-Markov model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150?mg and 300?mg compared to subcutaneous biologics adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, and ustekinumab, and intravenous biologics infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced patients over a lifetime horizon. The response to treatments was evaluated after 12 weeks by PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) response rates. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic treatment were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index [PASI], Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ], withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). An annual discount rate of 5% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings were evaluated via sensitivity analyses.

Results: Biologic-naive patients treated with secukinumab achieved the highest number of QALYs (8.54) at the lowest cost (CAD 925,387) over a lifetime horizon vs all comparators. Secukinumab dominated all treatments, except for infliximab and its biosimilar, which achieved minimally more QALYs (8.58). However, infliximab and its biosimilar incurred more costs than secukinumab (infliximab: CAD 1,015,437; infliximab biosimilar: CAD 941,004), resulting in higher cost-effectiveness estimates relative to secukinumab. In the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab dominated all treatments as it generated more QALYs (8.89) at lower costs (CAD 954,692). Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated the results were most sensitive to variation in PsARC response rates, change in HAQ, and utility values in both populations.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is either dominant or cost-effective vs all licensed biologics for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naive and biologic-experienced populations in Canada.     

Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis,psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis,or ankylosing spondylitis

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate annual biologic response modifier (BRM) cost per treated patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and/or ankylosing spondylitis receiving etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, or ustekinumab.

Methods:

This was a cohort study of 69,349 commercially insured individuals in a nationwide claims database with one of these conditions that had a claim for one of these BRMs between January 2008 and December 2010 (the index BRM/index date). Cost per treated patient was calculated as the total BRM acquisition and administration cost to the payer in the first year after the index date (including costs of other BRMs after switching) divided by the number of patients who received the index BRM. Etanercept was selected as the reference for comparisons.

Results:

Etanercept was the most commonly used index BRM (n?=?32,298; 47%), followed by adalimumab (n?=?20,582; 30%), infliximab (n?=?11,157; 16%), abatacept (n?=?2633; 4%), rituximab (n?=?1359; 2%), golimumab (n?=?687; <1%), ustekinumab (n?=?388; <1%), and certolizumab (n?=?245; <1%). Using etanercept as the reference, the cost per treated patient in the first year across all four conditions was 102% for adalimumab and 108% for infliximab. Newer BRMs had costs relative to etanercept that were 90% to 102% for rheumatoid arthritis, 132% for psoriasis, 100% for psoriatic arthritis, and 94% for ankylosing spondylitis.

Limitations:

Potential study limitations were the lack of clinical information (e.g., disease severity, treatment outcomes) or indirect costs, the inability to compare costs of newer BRMs across all four conditions, and much smaller sample sizes for newer BRMs.

Conclusions:

Of the BRMs that are approved for indications within all four conditions studied, etanercept had the lowest cost per treated patient when assessed across all four conditions.     

Costs associated with non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the UK

Abstract

Aims: To estimate the cost impact of non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in stable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK.

Materials and methods: A cohort-based decision tree model was developed with a 1-year time horizon. The model population included patients with stable RA (patients who responded to originator etanercept treatment with no treatment changes in the previous 6?months). Patients could undergo a non-medical switch to a biosimilar and then switch treatment again, if medically required, after 3–6?months. Data on the proportion of patients switching therapies, baseline healthcare resource use, and impact of switching on resource use were sourced from a survey of 150 rheumatologists from EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). The average impact of switching was evaluated as mean values for change in resource utilization due to switching. Also, low- and high-impact scenarios (lower and upper values of the 95% confidence intervals for change in resource utilization due to switching) were modelled as sensitivity analyses. Cost data came from published UK sources.

Results: The model assumed that 5,000 patients were treated with originator etanercept, with 1,259 (25.2%) switching to a biosimilar. Of those, 875 (69.5%) and 384 (30.5%) switched to SB4 and GP2015, respectively. After 3?months, 26.3% of patients who switched treatments did so again: 8.3% back to originator, 3.8% to the other biosimilar, and 14.2% to another biologic. Although originator etanercept was more expensive than the biosimilars, switching was more costly than continuous originator treatment across all impact scenarios. Switching treatment chains had higher overall annual per-patient costs than continuous originator treatment. Switching was associated with increased healthcare resource use.

Limitations: Results from this analysis are not transferable to other (non-RA) etanercept indications.

Conclusion: Non-medical switching can result in increased payer costs because of increased healthcare resource use following switching.     

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

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab,etanercept, and tocilizumab as first-line treatments for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the cost-utility and value of reducing the uncertainty associated with the decision to use first-line biologic treatment (bDMARD) after the failure of one or more traditional drugs (tDMARD) in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (msRA) in Finland.

Research design and methods:

The treatment sequences were compared among 3000 hypothetical Finnish msRA patients using a probabilistic microsimulation model in a lifetime scenario. Adalimumab?+?methotrexate, etanercept?+?methotrexate, or tocilizumab?+?methotrexate were used as first biologics followed by rituximab?+?methotrexate and infliximab?+?methotrexate. Best supportive care (BSC), including tDMARDs, was assumed to be used after the exhaustion of the biologics. Methotrexate alone was added as a further comparator. Efficacy was based on ACR responses that were obtained from a mixed treatment comparison. The resources were valued with Finnish unit costs (year 2010) from the healthcare payer perspective. Additional analyses were carried out, including productivity losses. The Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) values were mapped to the EQ-5D values using the tocilizumab trials; 3% annual discounting for costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and extensive sensitivity analyses were completed.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost per QALY gained and multinomial expected value of perfect information (mEVPI).

Results:

bDMARDs significantly increase the QALYs gained when compared to methotrexate alone. Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate was more cost-effective than adalimumab?+?methotrexate or etanercept?+?methotrexate in comparison with methotrexate alone, and adalimumab?+?methotrexate was dominated by etanercept?+?methotraxate. A QALY gained with retail-priced (wholesale-priced) tocilizumab?+?methotrexate costs €18,957 (€17,057) compared to methotrexate alone. According to the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier and cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier (CEAF), tocilizumab?+?methotrexate should be considered before rituximab?+?methotrexate, infliximab?+?methotrexate, and BSC. Based on the CEAF, tocilizumab?+?methotrexate had a 60–93% probability of being cost-effective with €20,000 per QALY gained (mEVPI €230–2182).

Conclusions:

Tocilizumab?+?methotrexate is a potentially cost-effective bDMARD treatment for msRA, indicating a low value of additional research information with the international threshold values.

Limitations:

Efficacy based on an indirect comparison (certolizumab pegol, golimumab excluded), fixed treatment sequence after the exhaustion of first bDMARD, Swedish resource use data according to HAQ scores, and inpatient costs assumed to include surgery.     

Indirect comparison of the effects of anti-TNF biological agents in patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis by means of a Mixed Treatment Comparison performed on efficacy data from published randomised,controlled trials

Abstract

Objectives:

To compare ASAS (Assessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Response Criteria), 20 response patterns between anti-TNF biological agents in patients with ankylosing spondylitis by means of a mixed treatment comparison of different randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of biological therapies.

Methods:

A systematic review of literature was performed to identify a number of similarly designed double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials investigating the efficacy of the TNF-α inhibitors etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis patients, conducted over an 18-year period. The end-point of interest was ASAS20 response criteria at 24 weeks. Results were analyzed simultaneously using Bayesian mixed treatment comparison techniques. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) of ASAS20 response and associated 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The probability of being the best treatment was also reported.

Results:

Three RCTs were selected for data extraction and further analysis. By mean of MTC, all anti-TNF agents demonstrated to be more efficacious in inducing an ASAS20 response than placebo. Infliximab shows a 72% probability of being the best treatment of all. Adalimumab and etanercept show probabilities of 13% and 15%, respectively. No differences were observed when comparing directly an anti-TNF-α agent against another. When compared with placebo, Infliximab increases the probability of response by ～7-times (OR?=?6.8), Adalimumab by ～4-times (OR?=?4.4), and Etanercept by 5-times (OR?=?4.9). Differences in trials procedures, the use of a fixed-effect model, and the small number of trials included represent limitations of this study

Conclusions:

Even if the mixed treatment comparisons between infliximab, adalimumab, and etanercept did not show a statistically signi?cant difference, this analysis suggests that infliximab, compared to placebo, is expected to provide the highest rate of ASAS20 response in SA patients naive to biologic treatments.     

Tumor necrosis factor blocker dose escalation among biologic naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients in commercial managed-care plans in the 2 years following therapy initiation

Abstract

Objective:

This study uses real-world US managed-care claims data to estimate dose escalation rates over the first and second years of therapy among biologic naïve rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocker therapy with etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab.

Methods:

Non-elderly adult (age 18–65 years) RA patients initiating etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab from July 1, 2005 to April 30, 2009, were identified using the MarketScan Commercial Database. National and regional dose-escalation patterns were evaluated 12 and 24 months after initiation. In the single-instance method, dose escalation was defined as having one average weekly dose 115%, 130%, or 150% greater than the initial average weekly dose. By the two-instances method, dose escalation was defined as having two consecutive claims with an average weekly dose 115% or 130% greater than the initial average weekly dose.

Results:

A total of 2747 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 50 years [SD?=?10]; 74% female). More patients initiated etanercept (44%) than adalimumab (37%) or infliximab (20%). Using the single-instance method, dose escalation at 12 months ranges were 0.8–1.5% for etanercept, 10.8–12.5% for adalimumab, and 16.4–42.5% for infliximab; ranges at 24 months were 0.8–2.1% for etanercept, 14.3–17.5% for adalimumab, and 26.4–57.6% for infliximab. The two-instances method showed a similar relationship among the treatment cohorts at both 12 and 24 months, with lower dose-escalation rates for etanercept (0.8%, 0.8%) than adalimumab (8.7%, 13.3%) or infliximab (22.9%, 37.6%) at the 130% threshold (p?<?0.001). Dose-escalation rates for etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab were consistent across US geographic regions.

Conclusion:

Patients initiating etanercept had lower rates of dose escalation than patients initiating adalimumab or infliximab in the first and second year following therapy initiation, as well as across US geographic regions. These results may not be generalizable to the entire US RA population.     

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a Japanese perspective

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, compared to other clinically used biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab) in Japan for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the healthcare system (total costs) and patient co-payment (using different frequencies of drug purchase) perspectives.

Methods: A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was developed. The model adopted a 5-year time horizon. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison analysis, and other model inputs were collected from published literature and local Japanese sources. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained. The annual discounting rate of 2% was applied to both costs and outcomes.

Results: Results for the healthcare system perspective showed that secukinumab had the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (4.07) vs other biologics, dominated ustekinumab and infliximab, and the ICER of secukinumab compared to adalimumab was ¥8,418,222/QALY gained. In the patient co-payment perspective with the monthly purchase of drugs, ustekinumab had the lowest co-payment cost, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, and secukinumab. In the patient co-payment perspective with a once every 3 months purchase of secukinumab and adalimumab, the co-payment costs of secukinumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab became comparable, and infliximab had the highest co-payment cost.

Limitations: Only short-term efficacy data was modeled, as there was a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Treatment sequencing was restricted to first-line biologic treatment. Drop-out rates for comparators were assumed to be equivalent to secukinumab in the absence of available data.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, providing greater health outcomes to patients at lower total costs compared to infliximab and ustekinumab, as well as comparable patient co-payment relative to other biologic treatments.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus apixaban for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism and extended prevention of recurrences in the UK

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of using rivaroxaban vs apixaban for the initial treatment plus extended prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in the UK. Extended prevention was assessed using a 10-mg rivaroxaban dose, as the 20-mg dose has already been evaluated.

Methods: A Markov model compared the health outcomes and costs of treating VTE patient cohorts with either rivaroxaban (15?mg twice daily for 3 weeks, followed by 20?mg once daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 10?mg once daily) or apixaban (10?mg twice daily for 1 week, followed by 5?mg twice daily for 6 months, then extended prevention with 2.5?mg twice daily) over a lifetime horizon. The model included an initial acute treatment and prevention phase (0–6?months) and an extended prevention phase (6–18 months). Efficacy and safety data were derived from two network meta-analyses. Reference treatment comparators were derived from the EINSTEIN-Pooled study and EINSTEIN-CHOICE trial. Healthcare costs and utility data were derived from published literature.

Results: The rivaroxaban regimen was associated with increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and slightly lower total costs compared with apixaban over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that rivaroxaban remained a cost-effective alternative to apixaban over a wide range of parameters. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates were below the £20,000 per QALY threshold in 74.1% of 2,000 model simulations. Scenario analyses further supported that rivaroxaban is a cost-effective alternative to apixaban.

Limitations: Clinical and safety inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, which are subject to inherent limitations whereby small differences between study designs may severely impact efficacy and safety outcomes. Furthermore, these inputs were based on data from clinical trials, which may not reflect real-world data.

Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with a slightly lower total cost and increased QALYs compared with apixaban for VTE management in the UK over a lifetime horizon.     

National and regional dose escalation and cost of tumor necrosis factor blocker therapy in biologic-naïve rheumatoid arthritis patients in US health plans

Objective:

This study examined the proportion and magnitude of dose escalation nationally and regionally among rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients treated with TNF-blockers and estimated the costs of TNF-blocker therapy.

Methods:

This retrospective cohort study used claims data from US commercially-insured adult RA patients who initiated adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab therapy between 2005–2009. Biologic-naïve patients enrolled in the health plan for ≥6 months before and ≥12 months after therapy initiation were followed for 12 months. Dose escalation was assessed using three methods: (1) average weekly dose?>?recommended label dose, (2) average ending dispensed dose?>?maintenance dose, and (3) average dose after maintenance dose?>?maintenance dose. Annual cost of therapy included costs for mean dose and drug administration fees.

Results:

Overall, 1420 etanercept, 874 adalimumab, and 454 infliximab patients were included. A significantly lower proportion of etanercept-treated patients had dose escalation using the average weekly dose (3.9% vs 21.4% adalimumab and 69.6% infliximab; p?p?p?Limitations:

Exclusion of patients not on continuous TNF-blocker therapy limits the generalizability; however, ～50% of patients were persistent on therapy for 12 months. The study population comprised RA patients in commercial health plans, thus the results may not be generalizable to Medicare or uninsured populations.

Conclusions:

In this retrospective study, etanercept patients had the lowest proportions and magnitudes of dose escalation across all methods compared to adalimumab and infliximab patients nationally and regionally. Mean annual cost was lowest for etanercept-treated patients.     

Outcomes of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor cycling versus switching to a disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug with a new mechanism of action among patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives: To examine treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and treatment costs for 1 year after patients with rheumatoid arthritis switched from a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab), either cycling to another TNFi (“TNFi cyclers”) or switching to a new mechanism of action (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) (“new MOA switchers”).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data for a national insurer. Treatment persistence (without switching again, restarting, or discontinuing), treatment effectiveness (defined below), and costs were assessed for the 12-month post-switch period. Patients were “effectively treated” if they satisfied all six criteria for a treatment effectiveness algorithm (high adherence, no dose increase, no new conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug, no subsequent switch in therapy, no new/increased oral glucocorticoids, and <2 glucocorticoid injections). Multivariable logistic models were used to adjust for baseline factors.

Results: The database included 581 new MOA switchers and 935 TNFi cyclers. New MOA switchers were 39% more likely than TNFi cyclers to persist after the switch (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.12–1.74; p?=?.003) and 36% less likely to switch therapy again (OR?=?0.64; 95% CI?=?0.51–0.81; p?p?=?.006). New MOA switchers had 16% lower drug costs than TNFi cyclers (cost ratio?=?0.84; 95% CI?=?0.79–0.88; p?p?Limitations: Claims payments may not reflect rebates or other cost offsets. Medical and pharmacy claims do not include clinical end-points or reasons that lead to new MOA switching vs TNFi cycling.

Conclusions: These results support switching to a new MOA after a patient fails treatment with a TNFi, which is consistent with recent guidelines for the pharmacologic management of established rheumatoid arthritis.     

Budget impact analysis of secukinumab versus adalimumab in the treatment of ankylosing spondylitis

Background: Biologic treatments have enhanced the treatment outcomes of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Until recently, TNF-alpha-inhibitors have been the only biologics approved for the treatment of active AS. The objective of this study was to assess the potential financial impact of the first non-TNF-alpha biologic secukinumab (fully human IL-17A-inhibitor) vs adalimumab (TNF-alpha-inhibitor) in the treatment of AS in Finland.

Materials and methods: In this model-based budget impact analysis, patients were treated either with secukinumab (150?mg) or adalimumab (40?mg). The number of patients and market share of different biologics were based on national reimbursement registry data. Adalimumab was the most commonly used biologic treatment for AS, and in the base case analysis all adalimumab patients are assumed to switch to secukinumab. Response rates were based on a matching-adjusted indirect comparison between secukinumab and adalimumab. Patients not achieving response were switched to another biologic treatment.

Results: Treating AS patients with secukinumab instead of adalimumab leads to potential savings of 18.2 million euros within a 5-year time period. The total costs within the follow-up time were 59.5 million euros and 77.7 million euros with and without secukinumab, respectively. According to sensitivity analyses, a higher adoption rate of secukinumab corresponds to higher potential savings.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-saving treatment option compared with adalimumab in the treatment of AS in Finland. More patients could be treated with a biologic by allocating resources more efficiently.     

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]).

Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy).

Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA–>IFX–>VEDO–>GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $?0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n?=?204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA–>ADA–>IFX–> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA–>TOFA–>IFX–>VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $?0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions.

Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption.

Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.     

Annual costs of tumor necrosis factor inhibitors using real-world data in a commercially insured population in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To calculate annual cost per treated patient of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab for common approved indications, based on actual TNF-inhibitor use in clinical practice.

Methods:

Adults with ≥1 claim for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab between January 2005 and March 2009 were identified from the IMS LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database. Patients new to therapy or continuing therapy (i.e., a prior claim for a TNF-inhibitor) were analyzed separately. Included patients had been enrolled from 180 days before the first TNF-inhibitor claim (index date) through 360 days after the index date and had a diagnosis during the pre-index period for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Patients with Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, or juvenile idiopathic arthritis were excluded. Annual costs were calculated using wholesale acquisition costs for the TNF-inhibitor and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for drug administration. Costs from restarting or switching TNF-inhibitor therapy during the first year were included.

Results:

A total of 27,704 patients (11,528 new, 16,176 continuing) had claims for etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab, most commonly (65%) for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. The most commonly used agent was etanercept (14,777 patients; 53%), followed by adalimumab (6862 patients; 25%) and infliximab (6065 patients; 22%). Annual cost per treated patient was etanercept $14,873, adalimumab $17,766, and infliximab $21,256 across all indications. Annual cost per treated patient by disease was (etanercept/adalimumab/infliximab): rheumatoid arthritis ($14,314/$17,700/$20,390), psoriasis ($17,182/$17,682/$23,935), psoriatic arthritis ($15,030/$18,483/$24,974), and ankylosing spondylitis ($14,254/$16,925/$23,056). New and continuing patients showed similar results, with etanercept having the lowest costs.

Limitations:

This analysis is limited to three TNF-inhibitors and a US managed-care population.

Conclusions:

Based on this analysis of real-world use of TNF-inhibitors among patients in nationwide clinical practice settings, the annual TNF-inhibitor cost per treated patient was lowest for etanercept across all indications.     

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Abstract

Objectives:

No head-to-head trial has compared the efficacy of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study implements a matching-adjusted indirect comparison technique to address that gap.

Methods:

Patient-level data from a placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab (ADEPT) were re-weighted to match average baseline characteristics from pivotal published trials of etanercept and infliximab. ADEPT patients were re-weighted by odds of enrollment in comparator trials, estimated using logistic regression. Matched-on characteristics included PsA duration, age, gender, severity, active psoriasis, and concomitant treatment. After matching, placebo-adjusted treatment arms were compared at weeks 12 (or 14) and 24. Outcomes included ACR20/50/70, PsARC, HAQ, and modified TSS. PASI50/75/90 were compared for patients with active psoriasis. Cost per responder (CPR) was assessed in the US and Germany using matching-adjusted end-points and drug list prices. Statistical significance was assessed using weighted t-tests.

Results:

After matching, adalimumab-treated patients had greater placebo-adjusted rates of ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 at week 24 compared with etanercept (all p?<?0.05). Adalimumab patients had a higher placebo-adjusted rate of ACR70 than infliximab at week 14 (p?=?0.034). Adalimumab treatment had lower CPR for ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 compared with etanercept at week 24, in both the US and Germany (all p?<?0.02). Adalimumab had lower CPR than infliximab for all outcomes at week 24 (all p?<?0.05).

Conclusion:

Adalimumab is associated with higher ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 response rates than etanercept at week 24 and a higher ACR70 response rate than infliximab at week 14. Adalimumab has significant advantages over etanercept and infliximab in CPR across multiple end-points.

Key limitations:

The matching-adjusted indirect comparison method cannot account for unobserved differences in patient characteristics across trials, and only a head-to-head randomized clinical trial can fully avoid the limitations of indirect comparisons. CPR findings are limited to the US and German markets, and may not be generalizable to other markets with different relative pricing.     

Modeling of the clinical and economic impact of a risk-sharing agreement supporting a treat-to-target strategy in the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in France

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in the context of a pay-for-performance agreement in which medication costs are refunded in case of discontinuation during the first 3 months of treatment.

Methods: The Treat-to-Target strategy consisted of a systematic switch to second-line tumor necrosis factor (TNF)α inhibitor in case of an unmet ACR50 response at 3 months compared to current routine clinical practice. A reference cohort treated first-line with certolizumab pegol according to current practice without systematic switching was considered as the comparator. A decision-tree model was constructed to estimate clinical outcome (health assessment questionnaire-disability index or HAQ-DI score), time spent in ACR50 response (ACR 50), and direct costs of treatment over a 2-year period. HAQ scores were derived from American College of Rheumatology 50 (ACR50) responses. All TNFα inhibitors were assumed to have equivalent efficacy and tolerability. Costs were estimated at 2013 French retail prices (date of the pay-for-performance agreement).

Results: The mean duration of an ACR50 response was 1.23 years in the Treat-to-Target strategy certolizumab pegol cohort vs 0.98 years in the reference cohort, resulting in a mean gain in HAQ at 24 months of 0.117. The Treat-to-Target strategy with a mix of TNFα inhibitors as second-line therapy was more expensive than the reference strategy in absolute terms, but this difference was entirely offset by the pay-for-performance agreement. The Treat-to-Target strategy was, thus, cost-neutral over a 2-year period after the payback of CZP cost for patients not achieving the target at 3 months.

Conclusions: In the context of a pay-for-performance agreement, the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis using a Treat-to-Target strategy with certolizumab pegol in first line is dominant compared to standard use of this drug in the French setting in 2013.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.     

Clinical and economic burden of extra-articular manifestations in ankylosing spondylitis patients treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents

Abstract

Objective:

To assess concomitant extra-articular manifestation (EAM) rates in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents and examine the economic burden of uveitis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in French and German AS patients.

Methods:

Previous analyses of uveitis and IBD in AS patients treated with infliximab, etanercept or adalimumab were identified in PubMed/Medline (January 2000 to August 2011). A supplemental analysis incorporated more recent adalimumab clinical trial data (ATLAS [NCT00085644] and RHAPSODY [NCT00478660]). For resource utilization/costs associated with EAMs, the search was expanded to general spondyloarthritis (SpA) conditions (i.e., AS, reactive or psoriatic arthritis, psoriatic spondylitis, IBD and undifferentiated SpA). Direct and indirect yearly costs associated with AS-associated uveitis and IBD were estimated based on interviews with French and German clinicians and literature review.

Results:

The pooled average rate of anterior uveitis (AU) flares for patients treated with anti-TNF therapy in two meta-analyses and supplemental adalimumab clinical trials was 4.9/100-patient-years (PYs). AU rates (per 100-PYs) were 3.4, 3.7 and 5.7 for infliximab (p?=?0.26 vs etanercept; p?=?0.86 vs adalimumab), adalimumab (p?=?0.033 vs etanercept) and etanercept, respectively. IBD flares (per 100-PYs) were 0.2 for infliximab (p?<?0.001 vs etanercept; p?=?0.18 vs adalimumab), 0.63 for adalimumab (p?=?0.009 vs etanercept) and 2.2 for etanercept. No studies assessing EAM-associated resource utilization or costs in AS patients were found. Direct medical costs associated with IBD treatment ranged from €483 (Germany) to €6443 (France). Clinician-estimated AS-related uveitis direct medical costs were €1410 (Germany) and €1812 (France).

Conclusions:

Clinical data synthesis demonstrated significantly lower AU flare rates with adalimumab vs etanercept and significantly lower IBD rates with both adalimumab and infliximab vs etanercept. Economic analysis indicated substantial costs associated with AU and IBD flares secondary to AS in France and Germany. Future economic evaluations of anti-TNF agents should incorporate EAMs and subsequent treatment costs. Limitations include restricted availability of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial data, inclusion of data from open-label studies, lack of real-world (i.e., non-trial-based) EAM rates and a lack of EAM-specific direct and indirect costs with which to compare the results presented herein.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

Objective: Dulaglutide 1.5?mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8?mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30?kg/m².

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5?mg vs liraglutide 1.8?mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30?kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40?IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5?mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8?mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5?mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

Limitations: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

Conclusion: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5?mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8?mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.     

The budget impact of brodalumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis on US commercial health plans

Introduction: Brodalumab is a new biologic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the impact of the introduction of brodalumab on the pharmacy budget on US commercial health plans.

Methods: An Excel-based health economic decision analytic model with a US health plan perspective was developed. The model incorporated published moderate-to-severe psoriasis prevalence data; market shares of common biologic drugs, including adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept, used for the treatment of moderate–severe psoriasis; 2017-year Wholesale Acquisition Costs for the biologic drugs; drug dispensing fee; patient co-pay; and drug contracting discount. Total annual health plan costs for the biologic drugs were estimated. Scenarios with different proportions of patients treated with brodalumab were compared to a control scenario when no brodalumab was used.

Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan covering two million members, 7,038 moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients were estimated to be eligible for treatment with brodalumab. Prior to brodalumab approval, the proportions of patients treated by other biologics were estimated at 50.8% for adalimumab, 13.5% for ustekinumab, 14.1% for secukinumab, 4.4% for ixekizumab, and 17.2% for etanercept. With a 20% drug price discount applied to all biologics, the annual health plan costs for brodalumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept were estimated at $37,224, $49,166, $55,084, $56,061, $64,396, and $57,170, respectively. When no brodalumab is used, the total annual pharmacy budget for the biologics used among these patients was estimated at $414,362,647. Among scenarios where the proportions of brodalumab usage were 3%, 8%, 16%, and 30%, the total annual pharmacy cost was estimated to be reduced by $3,698,129, $9,861,677, $19,723,355, and $36,981,290, respectively.

Conclusion: Based on the economic model, brodalumab has the potential to substantially reduce pharmacy expenditures for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the US.