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

Infliximab Pricing in International Economic Evaluations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease to Inform Biologic and Biosimilar Access Policies: A Systematic Review

Background. Policies mandating the use of lower cost biosimilars in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have created concerns for patients who prefer their original biologic. Purpose. To inform the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar infliximab treatment in IBD by systematically reviewing the effect of infliximab price variation on cost-effectiveness for jurisdictional decision making. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, Healthstar, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Mental Measurements Yearbook citation databases, PEDE, CEA registry, HTA agencies. Study Selection. Economic evaluations of infliximab for adult or pediatric Crohn's disease and/or ulcerative colitis published from 1998 through 2019 in which drug price was varied in sensitivity analysis were included. Data Extraction. Study characteristics, main findings, and results of drug price sensitivity analyses were extracted. Studies were critically appraised. The cost-effective price of infliximab was determined based on the stated willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds for each jurisdiction. Data Synthesis. Infliximab price was examined in sensitivity analysis in 31 studies. Infliximab showed favorable cost-effectiveness at a price ranging from CAD $66 to $1,260 per vial, depending on jurisdiction. A total of 18 studies (58%) demonstrated cost-effectiveness ratios above the jurisdictional WTP threshold. Limitations. Drug prices were not always reported separately, WTP thresholds varied, and funding sources were not consistently reported. Conclusion. Despite the high cost of infliximab, few economic evaluations examined price variation, limiting the ability to infer the effects of biosimilar introduction. Alternative pricing strategies and access to treatment could be considered to enable IBD patients to maintain access to their current medications.

Highlights

In an effort to reduce public drug expenditures, Canadian and other jurisdictional drug plans have mandated the use of lower cost, but similarly effective, biosimilars in patients with newly diagnosed inflammatory bowel disease or require a nonmedical switch for established patients. This switch has created concerns for patients and clinicians who want to maintain the ability to make treatment decisions and remain with the original biologic.It is customary for economic evaluations to assess the robustness of results to variations in high-cost items such as medications. In the absence of economic evaluations of biosimilars, examining biologic drug price in sensitivity analysis provides insight into the cost-effectiveness of biosimilar alternatives. A total of 31 economic evaluations of infliximab for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease varied the infliximab price in sensitivity analysis.The infliximab price deemed to be cost-effective within each study ranged from CAD $66 to CAD $1,260 per 100-mg vial. A total of 18 studies (58%) demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio above the jurisdictional willingness-to-pay threshold. If policy decisions are based on price, then originator manufacturers could consider reducing the price or negotiating alternative pricing models to enable patients with inflammatory bowel disease to remain on their current medications.

Vedolizumab subcutaneous formulation maintenance therapy for patients with IBD: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The application of vedolizumab (VDZ) subcutaneous (SC) formulation has brought more convenience and hope to patients with moderate-to-severe inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) in the coronavirus disease 2019 context.

Objective

This study aimed to systematically evaluate all previous studies that used VDZ SC formulation for maintenance therapy in patients with IBD.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Sources and Methods

The search was conducted using the subject and free terms related to 'Vedolizumab', 'Subcutaneous', and 'IBD', in Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, and at ClinicalTrials.gov databases between 2008 and 2022. The methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, respectively. The endpoints included efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity.

Results

A total of 60 studies and 2 completed clinical registry trials were retrieved, of which 3 RCTs with high methodological quality, and 3 cohort studies with large heterogeneity were included in the meta-analysis. In the RCT study design, patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) under different conditions after treated with VDZ SC were significantly distinct than those for placebo (PBO) in clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and biochemical remission. In Crohn's disease (CD), the aforementioned parameters were slightly higher than those for PBO, but there was not statistically significant in endoscopic remission and the efficacy of anti-tumor necrosis factor-naive patients. The clinical remission, endoscopic remission, and biochemical remission in patients with UC after VDZ SC treatment were similar to those after intravenous (IV) treatment. The risk ratios in patients experiencing adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs after VDZ SC and PBO treatments were 86% and 89% in UC, and 96% and 80% in CD, respectively. Compared with IV, safety was not statistically different. The risk of developing anti-VDZ antibody after VDZ SC treatment was only 20% of that after PBO in patients with UC, but it was 9.38 times in CD.

Conclusion

VDZ SC treatment maintained the clinical efficacy of IV induction in patients with IBD without increasing the safety risk, and the efficacy was more pronounced in patients with UC. Immunogenicity might be a potential factor for the decrease in efficacy rate in patients with IBD.

Registration

INPLASY 2022120115.

Network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis of infliximab, cyclosporine and tacrolimus for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Assess the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of infliximab, cyclosporine and tacrolimus for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS

A literature search identified studies that investigated infliximab, cyclosporine or tacrolimus compared with placebo in UC patients. Short-term, long-term remission rates and response rates were employed to assess efficacy. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were analyzed. A Markov model was constructed to simulate the progression in a cohort of patients with UC, with an over 10 years of time horizon, with a discount rate of 3%, and established threshold of €30,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or ¥82442/QALY.

RESULTS

Results of network meta-analysis showed that the order was cyclosporine, tacrolimus, infliximab and placebo from high rate to low with regard to short-term clinical response. The comparison between infliximab versus cyclosporine achieved an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €184435/QALY and ¥531607/QALY, with a 0.34893 QALYs difference of efficacy, and an incremental cost of €64355 and ¥185494. Tacrolimus versus cyclosporine reached an ICER of €44236/QALY and ¥57494/QALY, with a difference of 0.40963 QALYs in efficacy, and a raising cost to €18120 and ¥23551. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that cyclosporine would be cost-effective in the 75.8% of the simulations, tacrolimus in the 24.2%, and infliximab for the 0%.

CONCLUSION

Infliximab, cyclosporine and tacrolimus as salvage therapies are efficacious. For long-term of clinical remission, the order of pharmacological agents was tacrolimus, infliximab and cyclosporine from high efficacy to low while no significant difference is seen. In cost-effectiveness analysis, the cyclosporine versus infliximab or tacrolimus is expected to be at best.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Subcutaneous Infliximab for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases in Sequential Biologic Treatment

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) guidelines recommend tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors (TNFis) for patients who have not responded to conventional therapy, and vedolizumab in case of inadequate response to conventional therapy and/or TNFis. Recent studies have shown that vedolizumab may also be effective in the earlier treatment lines. Therefore, we conducted cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the optimal treatment sequence in patients with IBD.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon compared the cost-effectiveness of different biologic treatment sequences in patients with moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease (CD) from the UK and French perspectives. Subcutaneous formulations of infliximab, vedolizumab, and adalimumab were evaluated. Comparative effectiveness was based on a network meta-analysis of clinical trials and real-world evidence. Costs included pharmacotherapy, surgery, adverse events, and disease management.

RESULTS

The results indicated that treatment sequences starting with infliximab were less costly and more effective than those starting with vedolizumab for patients with UC in the United Kingdom and France, and patients with just CD in France. For patients with CD in the United Kingdom, treatment sequences starting with infliximab resulted in better health outcomes with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) near the threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the ICERs, treatment sequences starting with infliximab are the dominant option for patients with UC in the United Kingdom, and patients with UC and CD in France. In UK patients with CD, ICERs were near the assumed "willingness to pay" threshold. These results reinforce the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommendations for using infliximab prior to using vedolizumab in biologics-naïve patients.

Cost Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Vedolizumab for Maintenance Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis in Canada

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ulcerative colitis is highly prevalent in Canada and cost-effective ulcerative colitis therapies are warranted. Vedolizumab subcutaneous (SC) formulation was recently approved for ulcerative colitis maintenance therapy. We assessed vedolizumab SC cost effectiveness vs conventional and advanced therapeutics in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to evaluate vedolizumab SC costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and cost effectiveness vs conventional therapy, adalimumab SC, infliximab intravenous, golimumab SC, tofacitinib, ustekinumab SC, and vedolizumab intravenous. This model predicts the number of patients achieving clinical response and remission after treatment induction, and sustained benefit during maintenance treatment. To account for statistical uncertainties, the base-case analysis was conducted in a probabilistic manner. Scenario analyses examined the impact of previous treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor agents, dose escalation, loss of efficacy, and treatment adherence.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, conventional therapy was the most cost-effective therapeutic option in the overall population. Vedolizumab SC was cost effective and dominant compared with other advanced therapies (adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib 5 mg, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab intravenous). The annual vedolizumab SC cost per patient was reduced vs ustekinumab SC, tofacitinib 5 mg, vedolizumab intravenous, and golimumab SC by $47,024, $3251, $2120, and $2004 (Canadian dollars), respectively, and exceeded that of infliximab, adalimumab, and conventional therapy by $582, $3293, and $41,024, respectively. Among the treatments, vedolizumab SC generated the highest quality-adjusted life-years overall (14.21), which translated into the best incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained over conventional therapy in the overall population ($109,374) and in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve and anti-tumor necrosis factor-experienced patients ($41,658/$114,287).

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional therapy offered the most cost-effective therapeutic option followed by vedolizumab SC. Based on a $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold, vedolizumab was cost effective in anti-tumor necrosis factor-naïve patients but not the overall population also when compared to conventional therapy.

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-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.

Vedolizumab in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis: An Evidence-Based Review of Safety, Efficacy, and Place of Therapy

INTRODUCTION

Selective blockade of the integrins and mucosal adhesion molecules is a promising therapeutic strategy for ulcerative colitis (UC). Vedolizumab (VDZ), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody against α4β7 integrin, selectively blocks the trafficking of the leukocytes into the gastrointestinal tract through its binding with the α4β7 integrin.

AIM

In this review, we provide an overview of the unique mechanism of VDZ, along with its efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data obtained from clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A positive exposure-efficacy relationship with regard to clinical remission and clinical response was apparent in VDZ induction therapy. No drug-specific safety signals are currently available.

PLACE IN THERAPY

VDZ has been shown to be effective as first- or second-line induction and maintenance therapy in UC.

CONCLUSION

VDZ is a safe and effective treatment option for patients with UC. Prolonged VDZ induction therapy may contribute to improved outcomes in patients with UC, particularly those previously treated with tumor necrosis factor-α. Prospective head-to-head study of VDZ and other biologics would alter the positioning of VDZ much more clearly.

Vedolizumab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease: evolving paradigms

Inflammatory bowel diseases, comprising Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), are chronic, relapsing and remitting immune-mediated inflammatory diseases affecting the gastrointestinal tract. Vedolizumab is the first licensed drug in a group of 'gut-selective' biological agents used to treat inflammatory bowel diseases. The GEMINI registrational trials established the efficacy of vedolizumab for the induction and maintenance of remission in both CD and UC, with the most favourable results in tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-antagonist-naive patients. In recent years, a wealth of 'real-world' data has emerged supporting positive clinical, endoscopic and histological outcomes in patients treated with vedolizumab (VDZ) as well as reassuring safety data. More recently, the results of the first head-to-head trials of VDZ and TNF antagonists have been reported, as well as the results of a number of studies exploring the role of therapeutic drug monitoring with VDZ. This review brings together data reported on VDZ to date, including from the GEMINI trials, real-world data and emerging studies regarding therapeutic drug monitoring and immunogenicity. The safety profile of VDZ is also reviewed. Evolving treatment paradigms are explored, including data regarding the role of VDZ in perianal CD, post-operative complications and recurrence, extraintestinal manifestations and pregnancy.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Vedolizumab Compared with Other Biologics in Anti-TNF-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Vedolizumab (VDZ) was approved by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2018 for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe active ulcerative colitis (UC). The comparative cost-effectiveness of VDZ compared with other biologics is unknown in Japan. This information could be useful for decision makers at the time of repricing biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to assess the cost-effectiveness of VDZ versus other branded biologics for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe UC who were anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-naïve, from the Japanese public healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

A hybrid decision tree/Markov model was developed to predict the number of patients who achieved response and remission at the end of the induction phase and sustained it during the maintenance phase, translating this into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs. Treatment-related adverse events, discontinuation and surgery, and their impact on QALYs and costs were also modeled. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted to estimate the comparative efficacy of each treatment versus placebo. Rates of adverse events, surgery, surgery complications, and utilities were from the literature. Costs (2018 Japanese yen) were obtained from the Japanese National Health Insurance drug price list and medical fee table and local claims databases. Clinical and economic outcomes were projected over a lifetime and discounted at 2% annually.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime, VDZ yielded greater QALYs and cost savings compared with golimumab and was cost-effective compared with adalimumab and infliximab (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ¥4,821,940 and ¥4,687,692, respectively). Deterministic and probabilistic analyses supported the robustness of the findings in the base-case analysis, indicating that VDZ was either dominant or cost-effective in most scenarios and replications. The main limitations of this analysis include excluding tofacitinib and infliximab biosimilar as comparators, health-state utility estimates were obtained from population studies in the United Kingdom, and the impact of subsequent (i.e., second-line) biologic treatment was not evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis suggests that VDZ is dominant or cost-effective compared with other branded biologics for the treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe UC in Japan.