The cost-effectiveness of a bimekizumab versus IL-17A inhibitors treatment-pathway in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis in Scotland.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a treatment-pathway initiated with bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A, in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) compared with IL-17Ai's, ixekizumab, and secukinumab, from the NHS Scotland perspective. METHODS: The axSpA treatment-pathway was modeled using a decision tree followed by a lifetime Markov model. The pathway included first- and second-line biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), followed by best supportive care (bDMARD, nonbiologic). Bimekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("BKZ") was compared with IL-17Ai's: secukinumab 150 mg followed by a blend ("SEC") of dose up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg and any bDMARD, or ixekizumab followed by any bDMARD ("IXE"). Transition to the next therapy was triggered by Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index-50% (BASDAI50) non-response or any-cause discontinuation. A published network meta-analysis provided efficacy data. EuroQoL-5-dimensions utilities were derived by mapping from Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score. Costs included disease management (linked to functional limitations), biologics acquisition (list prices), administration and monitoring (NHS 2021/22). Discounting was 3.5%/year. Probabilistic results from patients with non-radiographic axSpA and ankylosing spondylitis were averaged to reflect the axSpA disease spectrum. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BKZ was £24,801/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs. SEC (95% credible interval £24,163-£25,895). BKZ had similar costs (Δ -£385 [-£15,239-£14,468]) and QALYs (Δ 0.039 [-0.748-0.825]) to IXE, with £1,523 (£862-£2,222) net monetary benefit. Conclusions remained unchanged in most scenarios. Results' drivers included BASDAI50 response rate and disease management cost. LIMITATIONS: Results were based on list prices. Data concerning up-titration to secukinumab 300 mg was scarce. CONCLUSIONS: The bimekizumab treatment-pathway represents a cost-effective option across the axSpA disease spectrum in Scotland. Bimekizumab is cost-effective compared to a secukinumab-pathway that includes dose up-titration, and has similar costs and QALYs to an ixekizumab-pathway.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Secukinumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naïve: N = 63/37; TNFi-IR: N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were re-weighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64-7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT01752634, NCT01989468, NCT02294227, NCT02404350.

Comparative Effectiveness of Bimekizumab and Guselkumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis at 52 Weeks Assessed Using a Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison.

INTRODUCTION: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used to assess the relative efficacy of bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) compared to guselkumab 100 mg Q4W or every 8 weeks (Q8W) at 48/52 weeks in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who were biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug-naïve (bDMARD-naïve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). METHODS: Relevant trials were identified as part of a systematic literature review. For patients who were bDMARD-naïve, individual patient data (IPD) from BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) was matched to summary data from DISCOVER-2 (Q4W, n = 245; Q8W, n = 248). For patients who were TNFi-IR, IPD from BE COMPLETE (n = 267) and summary data from COSMOS (Q8W, N = 189). Trial populations were re-weighted using propensity scores. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and guselkumab 48- or 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. RESULTS: In patients who were bDMARD-naïve, bimekizumab was associated with a greater likelihood of ACR50 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 1.62 [1.07, 2.44]; p = 0.021), ACR70 (2.20 [1.43, 3.38]; p < 0.001), and MDA (1.82 [1.20, 2.76]; p = 0.005) compared to guselkumab Q4W at week 52. Bimekizumab also had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response (2.08 [1.34, 3.22]; p = 0.001) and MDA (2.07 [1.35, 3.17]; p < 0.001) compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 52. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood in achieving all evaluated outcomes compared to guselkumab Q8W at week 48/52 (ACR20, 1.77 [1.15, 2.72]; p = 0.010; ACR50, 1.56 [1.03, 2.36]; p = 0.037; ACR70, 1.66 [1.05, 2.61]; p = 0.028; and MDA, 1.95 [1.27, 3.02]; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: According to MAICs, bimekizumab demonstrated greater or comparable efficacy on ACR50/70 and MDA outcomes than guselkumab in patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naïve and TNFi-IR at week 48/52. Bimekizumab had a more favorable likelihood than guselkumab in achieving more stringent treatment outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: NCT03895203, NCT03896581, NCT04009499, NCT03158285, NCT03796858.