Integrating efficacy and safety of vedolizumab compared with other advanced therapies to assess net clinical benefit of ulcerative colitis treatments: a network meta-analysis

Cost-Effectiveness of Vedolizumab as a First-Line Advanced Therapy Versus Adalimumab Treatment Sequences for Ulcerative Colitis in Italy

BACKGROUND

Today, there are many treatment options available for the management of ulcerative colitis, creating challenges in selecting the most efficacious and cost-effective treatment sequences. Treatments in the anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) therapeutic class, as well as vedolizumab, are widely used and endorsed as first-line options according to treatment guidelines. The aim of this study was to compare treatment sequences involving vedolizumab and the anti-TNFα treatment adalimumab in terms of cost-effectiveness in the treatment of moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis in Italy.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model comparing treatment sequences within the Italian National Health Service in terms of costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with a lifetime horizon was developed. The analysis focused on the relative positioning of vedolizumab and adalimumab, leveraging the results of the landmark head-to-head VARSITY clinical trial as key inputs. The robustness of the results was investigated through a range of sensitivity and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

The strategy of vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy followed by adalimumab was associated with higher costs and health benefits compared with first-line adalimumab followed by vedolizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €16,146/QALY, which was found to be robust to changes to inputs associated with areas of high uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

This economic evaluation estimated a 94% probability that vedolizumab as a first-line advanced therapy is cost-effective at a threshold of €33,004/QALY when compared with first-line adalimumab sequences. Using clinical trial evidence to inform the efficacy of second-line treatments estimated that the effectiveness of anti-TNFα treatments is not substantially reduced by vedolizumab exposure.

A Review of Available Medical Therapies to Treat Moderate-to-Severe Inflammatory Bowel Disease

The treatment armamentarium for inflammatory bowel disease has expanded rapidly in the past several years with new biologic and small molecule-agents approved for moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease. This has made treatment selection more challenging with limited but evolving guidance as to where to position each medication. In this review, we discuss the efficacy data for each agent approved in the United States by reviewing their phase 3 trial data and other comparative effectiveness studies. In addition, safety considerations and use in special populations are summarized with proposed algorithms for positioning therapies. The aim is to provide a synopsis of high-impact data and aid in outpatient treatment decision-making for patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Comparative efficacy of advanced treatments in biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Only one head-to-head comparison of advanced treatments in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (UC) has been published; therefore, there remains a need for further comparisons.

AIM

The relative treatment effects of filgotinib and adalimumab, golimumab, infliximab, tofacitinib, ustekinumab and vedolizumab were estimated using a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHOD

Systematically identified studies (MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library; searched: inception-May 2019, updated November 2020) investigating treatments for moderately to severely active UC were re-evaluated for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA (fixed-effects model). Relative treatment effects were estimated using different permutations of patient population (biologic-naïve or biologic-experienced), treatment phase (induction or maintenance) and outcomes (MCS response/remission or endoscopic mucosal healing).

RESULTS

Seventeen trials (13 induction; 9 maintenance) were included in the NMA; 8 treatment networks were constructed. Most targeted therapies were superior to placebo in terms of MCS response/remission and endoscopic mucosal healing; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to most other treatments. Infliximab 5 mg/kg was superior to filgotinib 200 mg (biologic-naïve; induction) for MCS response/remission (mean relative effect, 0.34 [95% credible interval: 0.05, 0.62]). Filgotinib 200 mg was superior to adalimumab 160/80/40 mg for MCS response/remission (biologic-experienced; induction; - 0.75 [- 1.16, - 0.35]), and endoscopic mucosal healing (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.90 [- 1.89, - 0.01]); and to golimumab 50 mg every 4 weeks (biologic-naïve; maintenance; - 0.46 [- 0.94, 0]) for MCS response/remission.

CONCLUSION

The current treatment landscape benefits patients with moderately to severely active UC, improving key outcomes; filgotinib 200 mg was similar to current standard of care in most outcomes.

Budget impact of introducing subcutaneous vedolizumab as a maintenance therapy in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with ulcerative colitis in France

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease poses significant social and economic burdens. We assessed the budget impact of including the recently approved subcutaneous (SC) formulation of vedolizumab as maintenance therapy (MT) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in France.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed from a French payer's perspective over 5 years to assess budget impact of including vedolizumab SC as MT for UC following induction therapy with vedolizumab intravenous (IV), by subtracting outcomes of a 'world without vedolizumab SC' from a 'world with vedolizumab SC.' Comparators included approved therapies: infliximab (branded/biosimilar), adalimumab (branded/biosimilar), golimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab IV. The model predicts drug, medical, and total costs, including indirect costs in a scenario analysis. A one-way sensitivity analysis explored the impact of varying individual parameters.

RESULTS

Including vedolizumab SC as MT following vedolizumab IV induction yielded total cost savings of €59,176,842 (biologic-naïve) and €22,004,135 (biologic-experienced) versus a world without vedolizumab SC. Including indirect costs yielded cost savings in biologic-naïve (€62,600,716) and biologic-experienced (€24,314,915) populations in a world with vedolizumab SC.

CONCLUSIONS

Introducing vedolizumab SC as MT after IV induction is expected to have substantial cost savings to a health plan from a French payer's perspective versus a world without vedolizumab SC.

Available Methods for Benefit-risk Assessment: Lessons for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Drugs

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Medical treatment for inflammatory bowel disease has advanced significantly over the two past decades. The advent of biologics and small molecules has revolutionised outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Knowledge of drug pharmacology, indications, and adverse events is essential to ensure the best clinical care while minimising toxicity. Our aim was to review the literature on current methods of benefit-risk assessment, and consider their practical applicability to inflammatory bowel disease.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted to investigate studies documenting benefit-risk assessment.

RESULTS

Several structured frameworks and quantitative methodologies have been developed to evaluate benefit-risk profiles of drugs in a more comprehensive and consistent framework. Quantitative methods integrate benefit and risk outcome measures or incorporate preference weights for benefit and risk criteria into the evaluation. Incorporation of preference weights from patients is an essential aspect of quantitative benefit-risk assessment. Benefit-risk assessment is still evolving in inflammatory bowel disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The risks and benefits of each medical therapy must be discussed with the patient and a shared decision-making process is recommended. Future initiatives should be developed to perform a benefit-risk assessment considering the characteristics of inflammatory bowel disease drugs.

Evaluating cost per remission and cost of serious adverse events of advanced therapies for ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND

Determining the relative cost-effectiveness between advanced therapeutic options for ulcerative colitis (UC) may optimize resource utilization. We evaluated total cost per response, cost per remission, and cost of safety events for patients with moderately-to-severely active UC after 52 weeks of treatment with advanced therapies at standard dosing.

METHODS

An analytic model was developed to estimate costs from the US healthcare system perspective associated with achieving efficacy outcomes and managing safety outcomes for advanced therapies approved for the treatment of UC. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) for response and remission, and numbers needed to harm (NNH) for serious adverse events (SAEs) and serious infections (SIs) were derived from a network meta-analysis of pivotal trials. NNT for induction and maintenance were combined with drug regimen costs to calculate cost per clinical remission. Cost of managing AEs was calculated using NNH for safety outcomes and published costs of treating respective AEs.

RESULTS

Costs per remission were $205,240, $249,417, $267,463, $365,050, $579,622, $750,200, and $787,998 for tofacitinib 10 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, infliximab, vedolizumab, golimumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab, respectively. Incremental costs of SAEs and SIs collectively were $136,390, $90,333, $31,888, $31,061, $20,049, $12,059, and $0 for tofacitinib 5 mg, golimumab, adalimumab, tofacitinib 10 mg, infliximab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab (reference), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Tofacitinib was associated with the lowest cost per response and cost per remission, while vedolizumab had the lowest costs related to SAEs and SIs. Balancing efficacy versus safety is important when evaluating the costs associated with treatment of moderate-to-severe UC.

Comparative real-world effectiveness of vedolizumab and ustekinumab for patients with ulcerative colitis: a GETAID multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

There are currently no comparative data on the efficacy and safety of vedolizumab and ustekinumab in ulcerative colitis (UC) after anti-TNF therapy fails.

METHODS

We retrieved the full datasets of two observational, multicentre, retrospective studies of patients with UC for whom anti-TNF therapy failed and the patients were then treated with either vedolizumab or ustekinumab. The outcomes included steroid-free clinical remission, clinical remission, treatment persistence, colectomy, hospitalization, and serious and infectious adverse events. Propensity scores weighted comparison was applied.

RESULTS

In total, 121 patients were included in the vedolizumab group and 97 were included in the ustekinumab group. At week 14 and week 52, in the weighted cohort, no difference was found between vedolizumab and ustekinumab for steroid-free clinical remission (OR = 0.55 [0.21-1.41], p = .21 and 0.94 [0.40-2.22], p = .89, respectively). There was no difference between vedolizumab and ustekinumab for secondary outcomes such as clinical remission, hospitalization, UC-related surgery, treatment persistence and serious and infectious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

In patients with UC for whom anti-TNF therapy failed, no difference was found between vedolizumab and ustekinumab after propensity scores weighted comparison. Further studies are required to determine predictive factors of the efficacy of both biological agents.

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.

Is There a Best First Line Biological/Small Molecule in IBD: Are We Ready for Sequencing?

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic, life-long inflammatory condition of the gastrointestinal tract. Treatment strategy depends on the severity of the disease course. IBD physicians need to be aware of the life-long treatment options available. The goal is not only to achieve clinical remission but to halt or stabilize the chronic inflammation in the intestines to prevent further structural damage. Therefore, the use of early biologic therapy is recommended in moderate-to-severe IBD patients. However, in the last decade, use of therapeutic drug monitoring has increased considerably, opening an opportunity for sequencing. This review summarizes the available evidence on biologic and small molecules therapy in Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) in different clinical scenarios, including perianal CD, the elderly, extra intestinal manifestations, and pregnancy.