Sustaining competition for biosimilars on the pharmacy benefit: Use it or lose it.

Congress passed the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009, specifically to offer market competition as a counterweight to the rising costs of biologic medicines. As of April 15, 2024, 49 biosimilars have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 15 biologic categories. Biosimilar competition has been undeniably successful: Through 2022, biosimilars have saved the US health system $23.6 billion, without significant care disruption or reduced quality. Through 2023, adalimumab biosimilar competition has added an additional $6.5 billion to this total, primarily through greater rebates from the reference manufacturer. Despite launching at discounts as great as 85%, adalimumab biosimilars have not been given preferred formulary positioning in the vast majority of cases and have thus gained only 3% of market share through 2023, largely because of payers' and pharmacy benefit managers' preference for rebates over discounts. This situation may negatively influence future biosimilar development, posing a threat to a biosimilar pipeline that represents hundreds of billions in savings over the next 10 years.

Reduction of biologic pricing following biosimilar introduction: Analysis across 57 countries and regions, 2012-19.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions. METHODS: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market. RESULTS: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics.

The use of the biosimilar drug can lead to large health care savings that can be reinvested for continued innovation: Analysis of consumption of an Italian health care company.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar drugs offer an opportunity for all global healthcare systems because they provide significant cost savings while ensuring equal efficacy and safety in the treatment of chronic diseases. These savings can be allocated to support ongoing innovation. METHODS: An analysis of the usage of major biosimilar drugs across various therapeutic areas has been conducted within an Italian healthcare company serving a population of over one million. Data on consumption, expenditure, and the number of treated patients has been extracted from the company's databases. Finally, a comparison with the year 2021 has been performed to determine if biosimilar drug usage increased in 2022. RESULTS: In 2022, the data reveals that a substantial portion of the analysed active ingredients are being used as biosimilar drugs, except in a few residual cases. However, among the most consumed drugs, resistance still exists in the case of Adalimumab and Etanercept, for which expenditure on originator drugs exceeds 2 million euros. CONCLUSION: The 2022-2021 comparison highlights the increasing use of biosimilar drugs. This data is encouraging and suggests that in the coming months, we may achieve total utilization, which would be to the benefit of the National Health System (NHS) and the citizens who can rely on an efficient and sustainable healthcare policy that is continually improving.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Biopharmaceuticals for Treating Rheumatoid Arthritis: Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran. METHODS: This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data. RESULTS: The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA.

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

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

Cost to Medicare of Delayed Adalimumab Biosimilar Availability.

Launched in 2002, originator adalimumab (Humira) is the top revenue-generating drug in the United States. Between 2016 and 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 5 adalimumab biosimilars, yet none have been marketed owing to patent dispute settlements. We sought to calculate the cost of this delayed entry to Medicare over this period by estimating the difference between reported spending on originator adalimumab and estimated spending on originator and biosimilar adalimumab products assuming timely biosimilar market entry. Estimates of potential biosimilar spending were calculated based on the following evidence-based projections: (i) market capture of 15% for the first biosimilar and 5.5% for successive biosimilars in their first year on the market, and 5% annually thereafter; (ii) price reductions of 3.5% per year and 2.4% per additional biosimilar entry for originator adalimumab; and (iii) price discounts of 25% at launch, 3.4% per year, and 1.7% per additional biosimilar entry for biosimilar adalimumab. Based on these assumptions, had adalimumab biosimilars launched upon approval, estimated non-rebate spending on them would have been $18.3 million in 2016, $225.7 million in 2017, $436.2 million in 2018, and $727.7 million in 2019, whereas estimated non-rebate spending on originator adalimumab would have been $2.33 billion, $2.04 billion, $1.78 billion, and $1.42 billion. Cumulative spending on adalimumab would have thus been $8.98 billion instead of an observed $12.11 billion. Accounting for estimated rebates, total predicted savings would have been $2.19 billion. Reforms for timely biosimilar availability will be critical in ensuring optimal savings for Medicare after biosimilar approval.

Uptake of biosimilars for TNF-α inhibitors adalimumab and etanercept following the best-value biological medicine initiative in Ireland.

Background There is over 10 years of clinical experience and evidence to show that biosimilar medicines can be used as safely and effectively in approved therapeutic indications as their originator biological medicines. In Ireland, biosimilar medicine uptake has been very slow, and savings to the health service will only be realised through fostering a competitive biological medicine market. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the utilisation of biosimilars following a 'best-value biological' medicine initiative for adalimumab and etanercept in the Irish healthcare setting. Methods Data was extracted from the National High Tech claims database and High Tech ordering and management hub for the following drugs; adalimumab (Humira®, Amgevita®, Hulio®, Idacio®, and Imraldi®) and etanercept (Enbrel® and Benepali®). Main outcome measure: uptake of the best-value biological medicines. Results In June 2019, just over 90 patients had been initiated on, or switched to a best-value biological for adalimumab or etanercept. Over the next 12 months this increased to over 8500 patients. With the best-value biologicals accounting for approximately 50 % of market share in June 2020, the combined estimated savings and avoided costs are €22.7 million to date. The gain-share prescribing incentive has raised over €3.6 million for the specialties to invest back into patient care. Conclusion Against the background of a finite healthcare budget, this study shows that increasing use of biosimilars can create the financial savings and space to invest in new innovative therapies for the benefit of many patients.

Trends in list prices, net prices, and discounts of self-administered injectable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: List prices of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors drastically increased during the last decade, but previous research has shown that half of these increases were offset by rising manufacturer discounts. It remains unclear to what extent manufacturers' discounts have offset increases in list prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor. Evaluating trends in net prices and discounts at the product level will be paramount in understanding the role of competition in the biologic market. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe product-level changes in net prices of each self-administered injectable TNF inhibitor available in 2007-2019 and (b) quantify to what extent manufacturer discounts have offset increases in list prices. METHODS: We obtained 2007-2019 pricing data for etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab, and golimumab from the investment firm SSR Health, which uses company-reported sales to estimate net prices and discounts for brand products manufactured by publicly traded companies. For each drug and year, we calculated annual costs of treatment for patients with rheumatoid arthritis based on list and net prices and discounts in Medicaid and other payers. RESULTS: From 2007-2019, list prices of etanercept and adalimumab increased by 293% and 295%, respectively; however, discounts offset 47% and 45% of these increases, leading to net price increases of 171% and 203%. List prices of golimumab and certolizumab increased by 183% and 182%, respectively, but with discounts offsetting 58% and 59% of these increases, net prices increased by 103% and 109%. Net prices of golimumab started to decrease after 2016, while net prices of adalimumab and certolizumab experienced their first drop in 2019. Across the study period, discounts in Medicaid and in other payers increased, respectively, from 21% to 85% and 6% to 32% for etanercept; from 26% to 88% and 19% to 35% for adalimumab; from 28% to 63% and 22% to 46% for golimumab; and from 29% to 83% and 27% to 47% for certolizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing manufacturer discounts, net prices of self-administered injectable TNF inhibitors still increased at a mean annual rate of 9.6% in 2007-2019. This led to net prices tripling for adalimumab and more than doubling for etanercept, golimumab, and certolizumab. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the Myers Family Foundation. Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant number K01HL142847). Funding sources had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Hernandez has served on Pfizer's scientific advisory board. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-utility analysis of treatment options after initial tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy discontinuation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who discontinued initial treatment with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), 2 approaches are commonly used: cycling to another TNFi or switching to a drug with another mechanism of action. Currently, there is no consensus on which approach to use first. A report from the IBM MarketScan Research administrative claims database showed adalimumab (cycling strategy) and abatacept (switching strategy) were more commonly prescribed after the first TNFi discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of adalimumab versus abatacept in patients with RA whose initial TNFi therapy failed. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-utility microsimulation state-transition model was used. Our target population was commercially insured adults with RA, the time horizon was 10 years, and we used a payer perspective. Patients not responding to adalimumab or abatacept were moved to the next drug in a sequence of 3 and, finally, to conventional synthetic therapy. Incremental cost-utility ratios (2016 USD per quality-adjusted-life-year gained [QALY)] were calculated. Utilities were derived from a formula based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index and age-adjusted comorbidity score. RESULTS: Switching to abatacept after the first TNFi showed an incremental cost of just more than $11,300 over 10 years and achieved a QALY benefit of 0.16 compared with adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $68,950 per QALY. Scenario analysis produced an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio range of $44,573 per QALY to $148,558 per QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that switching to abatacept after TNFi therapy failure had an 80.6% likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to abatacept is a cost-effective strategy for patients with RA whose discontinue initial therapy with TNFi. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this project was provided by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award (principal investigator: Maria A. Lopez-Olivo). Karpes Matusevich's work was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Research Award from the University of Texas, School of Public Health Office of Research. Lal reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (employed by Optum). Suarez-Almazor reports competing interests outside of the submitted work (consulting fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Agile Therapeutics, Amag Pharmaceuticals, and Gilead). Chan, Swint, and Cantor have nothing to disclose.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tofacitinib compared with adalimumab and etanercept in the treatment of severe active rheumatoid arthritis; Iranian experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of Tofacitinib (TFC) in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not responded well to methotrexate from the Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: An individual microsimulation Markov model was developed to compare TFC with etanercept (ETN) and Adalimumab (ADA) over a life-time horizon. Treatment efficacy was estimated based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response improvement criteria in 6 months. Changes in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores were mapped onto utility values to calculate outcomes in terms of QALYs. Direct medical costs were taken from national databases. Uncertainty in model parameters was evaluated by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that TFC was cost-effective in both scenarios. Although TFC was associated with lower QALYs than ETN (6.664 versus 6.876), it was also associated with lower costs over a life-time horizon ($42,565.04 versus $58,696.29). Additionally, TFC was found to be the dominant strategy with a lower cost ($50,299.91 versus $51,550.29) and higher QALYs gained (6.900 versus 6.687) compared to ADA. CONCLUSION: TFC was found to be cost-effective in patients with severe RA who do not respond well to methotrexate compared to ADA, ETN in Iran.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs of biologics and apremilast among patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis by metabolic condition status.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment patterns and costs among psoriasis patients with and without metabolic conditions newly initiating a biologic or apremilast. METHODS: Adult patients included had ≥1 prescription for secukinumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, etanercept, or apremilast between 01/01/2015 and 08/31/2018 (date of first prescription was index date) and no index drug use in the 12-months pre-index, and continuous enrollment in the 12-month pre-index and 24-month post-index periods. Patients were divided into mutually exclusive treatment cohorts and stratified by their pre-index metabolic condition status. Treatment patterns (adherence, non-persistence, switching, discontinuation, use of combination therapy, and re-initiation) and healthcare costs were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 7773 patients were included; 47.5-56.7% had a metabolic condition. Except for the apremilast group, patients with metabolic conditions had higher discontinuation (secukinumab: 50.6% vs. 43.7%; adalimumab*: 53.9% vs. 48.7%; ustekinumab*: 41.9% vs. 35.1%; etanercept: 42.8% vs. 41.2%; apremilast: 43.1% vs. 46.1%) and switching (secukinumab: 48.1% vs. 41.2%; adalimumab*: 47.8% vs. 41.9%; ustekinumab*: 34.5% vs. 25.3%; etanercept*: 53.6% vs. 51.5%; apremilast: 45.8% vs. 44.6%) than patients without (*p < .05). Patients with metabolic conditions incurred significantly higher costs. CONCLUSION: Many psoriasis patients initiating biologics or apremilast had metabolic conditions. These patients had higher discontinuation and switching, and significantly higher healthcare costs.

Potential Cost Implications of Mandatory Non-Medical Switching Policies for Biologics for Rheumatic Conditions and Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Canada.

In 2018, TNFα inhibitors were the highest cost drug class for Canadian public drug programs. In 2019, two Canadian provinces announced mandatory nonmedical switching policies in an attempt to reduce their costs by increasing biosimilar uptake. The national impact of similar policies across Canada is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of monthly publicly funded prescription claims for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between June 2015 and December 2019. We reported the market share of biosimilars for infliximab and etanercept in 2019 for each province and estimated the cost savings that public payers could have realized in 2019 if mandatory switching policies had been implemented across Canada, including a sensitivity analysis, which assumed that governments receive a 25% rebate on all biologics. Provincial drug programs spent CAD $991.84 million on infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab in 2019, and, when biosimilars were available, they constituted only 15.5% of national utilization of these drugs. In British Columbia, the implementation of a mandatory switching policy for patients with rheumatic conditions increased the biosimilar market share of infliximab and etanercept by 299% (from 19.7% to 78.5%). If applied nationwide to all three biologics for all indications, we estimate such policies could lead to annual savings of between CAD $179.71 million and CAD $425.64 million nationally. The overall market share of biosimilars remains low in all provinces where mandatory switching policies have not been introduced. The cost implications of successfully increasing biosimilar uptake would be substantial, particularly as more biosimilars reach the Canadian market.

Cost-utility analysis of the anti-TNF therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in a real-world based model.

BACKGROUND: Spending on drugs provided by the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increased substantially with the beginning of the supply of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARD). This study aims to perform a cost-utility analysis of the most used biological drugs for the treatment of RA in Brazil. METHODS: a Markov model was used to carry out the cost-utility analysis. The data were obtained from a prospective cohort of RA patients using adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab in Brazil. The BPHS perspective was adopted and the time horizon was five years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the uncertainty. RESULTS: golimumab was the most cost-effective drug. Etanercept was dominated by golimumab. Adalimumab presented an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of $95,095.37 compared to golimumab in five years of follow-up. These results were confirmed by sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: the utility among adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab was similar and the cost was the component that most impacted the economic model. Therefore, depending on the agreed price with the drug manufacturers, the incremental cost-utility ratio may vary among them.

Biosimilars in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Over the past 2 decades, biological therapy with monoclonal antibodies targeting tumor necrosis factor-α has become a cornerstone of treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Although clinically effective, the biological therapies remain expensive, and their availability and utilization have been at times limited due to their high costs. Biosimilars are biological products similar to but not identical to the original biological agent or "reference biologic," also called "originator biologic." It is hoped that the use of biosimilars might enable these agents to become more available and, thus, decrease further expenditures related to the use of the original reference agents such as infliximab and adalimumab. In this study, we review the currently available evidence and shortcomings of these data supporting the use of biosimilars for the treatment of patients with inflammatory bowel disease, including their efficacy and safety as related to initiating therapy with biosimilar agents or switching between reference and biosimilar biologic agents.

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

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

Biological Retention Rates, the Reasons of Switching, and Prognostic Factors in Patients with Psoriasis Treated Biologics.

OBJECTIVE: To review patients who were treated at Tokai University Hospital with biologic agents for psoriasis vulgaris and psoriatic arthritis and analyze the biological retention rate, reasons for switching biologics, and investigate possible clinical prognostic factor which may affect whether a patient preferred one biologic to another. METHODS: Clinical courses of 63 patients who received biologic agents between Sep of 2010 to June of 2019 were investigated. Biological retention rate of each biologic agents, reasons of switching to another biologic agent, and prognostic factors, if any, between switched and non-switched patients were examined. RESULTS: The biological retention rate of ustekinumab (UST) was significantly longer than that of infliximab (IFX) or adalimumab (ADA). The major reason of switching was due to secondary loss of efficacy. Patients being treated with UST were more likely to switch to another biologic when they exhibited nail lesions. CONCLUSION: These results suggested that biological retention rate of UST was superior than that of IFX or ADA. Furthermore, with patients administered UST, nail symptom suggested possible clinical prognostic factor for switching to other biologic agents.

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

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

Biologic Therapy for Ulcerative Colitis.

Five biologics are approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC): infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, vedolizumab, and ustekinumab. These drugs have varying levels of efficacy and are recommended as first-line treatment of moderate to severe UC. There has been only 1 head-to-head trial comparing the efficacy of the biologics, adalimumab and vedolizumab, which has important implications for management. Therapeutic drug monitoring of biologics, especially anti-TNF alpha agents, may improve the long-term efficacy of these agents. The future of treatment may include personalization of medications, based on patient-specific and disease-specific characteristics as well as biomarkers, along with appropriate therapeutic drug monitoring.

The Effect of Dose Escalation on the Cost-Effectiveness of Etanercept and Adalimumab with Methotrexate Among Patients with Moderate to Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occasionally increase their doses of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, especially the monoclonal antibody origin drugs such as adalimumab and infliximab, after inadequate response to the initial dose. Previous studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various sequences of treatment for RA in the United States but have not considered the effect of dose escalation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of etanercept and adalimumab by incorporating the effect of dose escalation in moderate to severe RA patients. METHODS: We adapted the open-source Innovation and Value Initiative - Rheumatoid Arthritis model, version 1.0 to separately simulate the magnitude and time to dose escalation among RA patients taking adalimumab plus methotrexate or etanercept plus methotrexate from a societal perspective and lifetime horizon. An important assumption in the model was that dose escalation would increase treatment costs through its effect on the number of doses but would have no effect on effectiveness. We estimated the dose escalation parameters using the IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases. We fit competing parametric survival models to model time to dose escalation and used model diagnostics to compare the fit of the competing models. We measured the magnitude of dose escalation as the percentage increase in the number of doses conditional on dose escalation. Finally, we used the parameterized model to simulate treatment sequences beginning with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, etanercept) followed by nonbiologic treatment. RESULTS: In baseline models without dose escalation, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of the etanercept treatment sequence relative to the adalimumab treatment sequence was $85,593. Incorporating dose escalation increased treatment costs for each sequence, but costs increased more with adalimumab, lowering the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio to $9,001. At willingness-to-pay levels of $100,000, the etanercept sequence was more cost-effective compared with the adalimumab sequence, with probability 0.55 and 0.85 in models with and without dose escalation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation has important effects on cost-effectiveness and should be considered when comparing biologic medications for the treatment of RA. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by Amgen. When this work was conducted, Incerti and Jansen were employees of Precision Health Economics, which received financial support from Amgen. Maksabedian Hernandez, Collier, Gharaibeh, and Stolshek were employees and stockholders of Amgen, and Tkacz and Moore-Schiltz were employees of IBM Watson Health, which received financial support from Amgen. Some of the results of this work were previously presented as a poster at the 2019 AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting, March 25-28, 2019, in San Diego, CA.

Healthcare-Related Costs Associated with Switching Subcutaneous Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitor in the Treatment of Inflammatory Arthritis: a Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Subsequent lines of subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor (SC-TNFi) treatment may be well motivated in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriatic arthritis (PsA)-collectively named inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, the costs associated with switching SC-TNFis are largely unknown. The objective of this retrospective observational study was to explore costs of healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) associated with switching SC-TNFi treatment among biologic-naïve Swedish patients with IA. METHODS: Using population-based register data, adult patients filling prescriptions between May 6, 2010 and December 31, 2014 for an SC-TNFi (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, and golimumab) were included. Patients switching treatment (cyclers) were matched to treatment persistent patients on the basis of propensity score and follow-up time. HCRU-associated costs were captured and compared 12 months before and 12 months after the index date (defined as the date of the switch). RESULTS: A balanced cohort of 594 matched pairs was derived. Prior to the index date, cyclers had significantly higher non-treatment HCRU costs compared to persistent patients ($3815 [3498-4147] vs. $2900; 95%CI [2565-3256]). However, 12 months after the index date, cyclers had significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs while persistent patients lowered theirs ($822 [232-1490] vs. $- 313 [- 664-36]). This resulted in a statistically significant difference in difference of $1135 between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In biologic-naïve patients treated with SC-TNFi for IA, cyclers significantly increased their non-treatment HCRU costs 12 months after switching treatment while persistent patients lowered their costs during the same time period. As these findings indicate that differences in treatment persistence may have an impact on costs, further research utilizing more comprehensive data sources in alternate settings is warranted.