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.     

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.     

Adalimumab,etanercept, and infliximab utilization patterns and drug costs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

Abstract

Objectives:

To evaluate the utilization patterns of the anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents Humira (adalimumab), Enbrel (etanercept), and Remicade (infliximab) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare medication costs during the first year of treatment. (Humira is a registered trademark of Abbott Laboratories, IL; Enbrel is a registered trademark of Immunex Corporation, CA; and Remicade is a registered trademark of Janssen Biotech, Inc., PA).

Methods:

This retrospective analysis of medical and pharmacy claims included patients who were aged ≥18 years, had ≥2 RA diagnosis codes, and had ≥365 days of persistence with the index anti-TNF. Patients excluded had claims for anti-TNF agents within 6 months before the index date. Refill patterns for adalimumab and etanercept, number of infliximab infusions, time between infusions, and dose per infusion were analyzed for 12 months. Direct anti-TNF medication costs were compared among anti-TNFs for the initial treatment year.

Results:

Infliximab-treated patients (n?=?457) were significantly older than adalimumab- (n?=?337) or etanercept-treated patients (n?=?902). Time between refills was longer than recommended for 28% and 30% of adalimumab and etanercept refill periods, respectively. Potential cumulative time without therapy was 33 days for adalimumab and 43 days for etanercept. Statistically significant differences in mean per-patient anti-TNF medication costs for the first year were reported for adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab ($14,991, $13,361, and $18,139, respectively; p?<?0.0001); however, a cost assessment using labeled dosing of the anti-TNF agents with optimal treatment compliance yielded comparable annual medication costs.

Limitations:

This analysis only evaluated utilization patterns for selected anti-TNF agents and was not inclusive of other medications that patients may have been using for RA. Absolute patient adherence could not be assessed due to lack of information on how patients were self-administering adalimumab and etanercept or if samples of the agents were made available.

Conclusions:

This study identified gaps in patients’ refills compared with prescriber recommendations. The infliximab-treated group had infusion patterns consistent with prescribing information. Potential clinical and economic implications of dose attenuation with adalimumab and etanercept should be explored further.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab in ankylosing spondylitis from the Canadian perspective

Aim: To assess the cost-effectiveness of interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor secukinumab vs the currently licensed biologic therapies in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients from a Canadian healthcare system perspective.

Methods: A decision analytic model (semi-Markov) evaluated the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab 150?mg compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar in a biologic-naïve population, over 60 years of time horizon (lifetime). The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI 50) response rate was used to assess treatment response at week 12. Non-responders or patients discontinuing initial-line of biologic therapy were allowed to switch to subsequent-line biologics. Model input parameters (short-term and long-term changes in BASDAI and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index [BASFI], withdrawal rates, adverse events, costs, resource use, utilities, and disutilities) were obtained from clinical trials, published literature, and other Canadian sources. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and benefits were discounted with an annual discount rate of 1.5% for all treatments.

Results: In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab 150?mg dominated all comparators, as patients treated with secukinumab 150?mg achieved the highest QALYs (16.46) at the lowest cost (CAD 533,010) over a lifetime horizon vs comparators. In the deterministic sensitivity analysis, results were most sensitive to changes in baseline BASFI non-responders, BASDAI 50 at 3 months and discount rates. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that secukinumab 150?mg demonstrated higher probability of achieving maximum net monetary benefit vs all comparators at various cost thresholds.

Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that secukinumab 150?mg is the most cost-effective treatment option for biologic-naïve AS patients compared to certolizumab pegol, adalimumab, golimumab, etanercept and etanercept biosimilar, and infliximab and infliximab biosimilar for a lifetime horizon in Canada. Treatment with secukinumab translates into substantial benefits for patients and the healthcare system.     

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.     

Switching of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a real world setting

Objectives:

This study examined total healthcare costs and rates of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switch biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (bDMARD) therapy in a real world setting.

Methods:

A retrospective longitudinal analysis was conducted in patients with RA using IMS PharMetrics Plus database from 1/1/2004 to 3/31/2010. The first-line cohort included patients newly initiated on abatacept or the tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (anti-TNFs) adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab, with 12 months of continuous follow-up. The second-line cohort included patients initiating a bDMARD with evidence of a different bDMARD within the previous 2 years and with 12 months of continuous follow-up. Switching was defined as a different bDMARD claim within a 200% gap in days supply from the previous bDMARD claim. Non-switchers stayed on their bDMARD in the follow-up period. Monthly total healthcare costs for switchers and non-switchers and rates of bDMARD switching were examined. Switch rates for each bDMARD were also compared.

Results:

First-line switchers had significantly higher monthly total healthcare costs after the switch than non-switchers ($3759 vs $2343; p?p?Limitations:

There are no clinical data available in this database and, therefore, this study did not examine the clinical drivers of healthcare costs and switch rates.

Conclusions:

Monthly total healthcare costs were higher for bDMARD switchers following the switch compared to non-switchers. Patients on abatacept switched less frequently than patients on anti-TNFs. This study highlights the need to identify patients who are likely to switch in order to ensure they receive the appropriate therapy which may improve outcomes and decrease healthcare costs.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluating medical resource utilization and costs associated with thrombocytopenia in chronic liver disease patients

Abstract

Objective:

Thrombocytopenia (TCP), defined as platelet counts <150,000/µL, is a common complication of severe chronic liver disease (CLD). This retrospective study estimated the prevalence of thrombocytopenia in a large population of CLD patients and compared medical resource utilization and medical care costs by TCP status.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a longitudinal administrative claims database from a large US commercial health plan. Patients assigned CLD diagnosis codes from January 1, 2000–December 31, 2003 were identified; annual ambulatory visits, ER visits, inpatient stays, and general and CLD-related medical care costs for patients with vs without TCP (identified using diagnosis codes and platelet count data if available) were compared.

Results:

Of 56,445 patients with an ICD-9-CM diagnosis for CLD, 1289 (2.3%) had a diagnosis for TCP. CLD patients with vs without a TCP diagnosis had >2.5-times the annual number of liver disease-related ambulatory visits (3.6 vs 1.4; odds ratio [OR]?=?2.6, p?<?0.01); were 13-times more likely to have a liver-related inpatient stay (OR?=?13.0, p?<?0.01); were nearly 4-times more likely to have a liver-related ER visit (OR?=?3.9, p?<?0.01); had 3.5-fold greater mean annual overall medical care costs ($43,560 vs $12,270, p?<?0.01); and had 7-fold greater annual liver disease-related medical care costs ($9940 vs $1420, p?<?0.01). Similar results were seen for patients with platelet count data indicating TCP.

Limitations:

CLD and TCP are not always diagnosed, nor is diagnosis uniform or standardized; administrative claims data are subject to coding errors, and individuals covered are not necessarily representative of the general US population. The number of CLD patients in this study with TCP (n?=?1289) is small relative to that expected in the general US population.

Conclusions:

In this analysis, CLD patients with TCP used significantly more medical resources and incurred significantly higher medical care costs than those without TCP.     

Economic consequences of sequencing biologics in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review

Abstract

Background and objectives:

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) blocking agents are effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with mean response rates of 60–70%. Patients with incomplete response to initial anti-TNF treatment often are switched to other biologic treatments with some success. However, little is known about whether or not switching to anti-TNF or other non-TNF biologic treatments is cost-effective. This study sought to review the economic evidence of sequencing various biologic treatments in RA.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted of published and unpublished literature (January 2000 to October 2012) on the cost-effectiveness of sequencing biologic treatments in RA after failure of an initial biologic treatment. It included modeling and other economic studies that assessed cost-effectiveness of one or more sequences of biologics. Studies were excluded that evaluated non-biologic sequencing.

Results:

This review of the available evidence suggests that there is limited evidentiary support favoring the cost-effectiveness of switching from one anti-TNF agent to another within the anti-TNF category of biologics. This is due, in large part, to the limited clinical evidence base supporting the incremental efficacy of second- and third-line anti-TNF treatments and to variation on how and when to assess non-response to the first-line biologic. When compared to anti-TNF agents, biologic treatments with a different mechanism of action are more cost-effective as second-line agents.

Limitations:

Not all sequences and patterns of switching, either within or outside of therapeutic class, have been evaluated for clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness, limiting the interpretation of these findings.

Conclusions:

Switching from one anti-TNF agent to another after first-line treatment failure may not be a cost-effective treatment strategy. However, when non-TNF biologics are included in the sequence they are likely to be more cost-effective than anti-TNF specific cycling sequences.     

Cost per remission and cost per response with infliximab,adalimumab, and golimumab for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis

Abstract

Objective:

To determine the short-term costs per sustained remission and sustained response of three tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, and golimumab) in comparison to conventional therapy for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis.     

The cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: US perspective

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia in a US patient population.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 150?mg twice a day (BID) and pregabalin 225?mg BID to placebo, duloxetine, gabapentin, tramadol, milnacipran, and amitriptyline in patients with severe fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score >59; pain score >6.5). The model estimated response rates for all treatments at 12 weeks based on three randomized trials with pregabalin and a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. Response was categorized as ≥30% improvement in baseline pain score plus global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. After 12 weeks of treatment, responders to treatment entered a treatment Markov model in which response was maintained, lost, or treatment discontinued. The cost-effectiveness end-points were cost per responder at 12 weeks and 1 year. Resource use was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the societal perspective.

Results:

Over 12 weeks, total cost per patient was $229 higher with pregabalin 150?mg BID than placebo, whereas pregabalin 225?mg BID was $866 less costly than placebo. At 1 year, pregabalin was cost saving and more effective than placebo, duloxetine, tramadol, milnacipran, and gabapentin. Compared with amitriptyline, pregabalin was not cost-effective at both dosages, although when excluding old and methodologically weak studies of clinical effectiveness of amitriptyline, pregabalin 225?mg BID became cost saving and pregabalin 150?mg BID was cost-effective.

Limitations:

Comparisons between pregabalin and other active agents are based on indirect comparisons, not head-to-head trials, and so should be interpreted with caution. Limitations for comparators include an inability to access sub-group data, inconsistency of response definitions, inclusion of older trials, and absence of long-term studies.

Conclusions:

This model found pregabalin to be cost-effective in treating patients with severe fibromyalgia.     

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.     

Economic evaluation of tocilizumab combination in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis in Italy

Abstract

Objective:

This study was designed to evaluate the cost utility of tocilizumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, with inadequate responses to traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) from a payer’s perspective in Italy.

Methods:

An individual patient simulation model was used to project lifetime medical costs (payer’s perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Treatment sequences starting with tocilizumab or the most commonly prescribed biologics (etanercept, adalimumab, or infliximab) were compared. The addition of tocilizumab to standard of care, without the replacement of anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α treatments, was also evaluated. Patient characteristics, treatment efficacy, and quality-of-life data were based on three phase 3 tocilizumab clinical trials (TOcilizumab Pivotal Trial in Methotrexate Inadequate respONders [OPTION], Tocilizumab in cOmbination With traditional DMARD therapy [TOWARD], and TociLIzumab Safety and THE Prevention of Structural Joint Damage [LITHE]). Mixed-treatment comparison was used to estimate response probabilities. Resource utilization, treatment acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were estimated using Italian secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results:

Replacement of anti-TNF-α treatments with tocilizumab reduced total costs over a patient’s lifetime (base-case analysis: tocilizumab sequence, €141,100 vs standard of care sequence, €143,500). Patients receiving tocilizumab realized more QALYs than patients receiving standard of care (9.8881 vs 9.3502 QALYs). Therefore, according to the base-case analysis, the tocilizumab sequence dominated the standard of care. In a sensitivity analysis, the model base-case result was robust to input changes. When tocilizumab was added to standard of care, without replacing anti-TNF-α treatments, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €17,100 per QALY.

Conclusion:

The analysis demonstrates that, in Italy, replacing another biologic DMARD with tocilizumab or adding tocilizumab to the current standard of care is a cost-effective strategy in the treatment of RA patients with inadequate responses to tDMARDs.