Search

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.

Background A subcutaneous (SC) formulation of infliximab biosimilar CT-P13 is approved in Europe for the treatment of adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It may offer improved efficacy versus intravenous (IV) infliximab formulations. Methods A network meta-regression was conducted using individual patient data from two randomised trials in patients with RA, which compared CT-P13 SC with CT-P13 IV, and CT-P13 IV with reference infliximab IV. In this analysis, CT-P13 SC was compared with CT-P13 IV, reference infliximab IV and pooled data for both reference infliximab IV and CT-P13 IV. Outcomes included changes from baseline in 28-joint Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and rates of remission, low disease activity or clinically meaningful improvement in functional disability per Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Results The two studies enrolled 949 patients with RA; pooled data for 840 and 751 patients were evaluable at weeks 30 and 54, respectively. For the CT-P13 SC versus pooled IV treatment arm comparison, differences in changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP (− 0.578; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.831, − 0.325; p p = 0.002) and SDAI (− 4.031; 95% CI − 6.385, − 1.677; p = 0.0008) scores at 30 weeks were statistically significant in favour of CT-P13 SC. From weeks 30 to 54, the magnitude of the differences increased and remained statistically significant in favour of CT-P13 SC. Similar results were observed for the comparison of CT-P13 SC with CT-P13 IV and with reference infliximab IV. Statistically significant differences at week 30 favoured CT-P13 SC over the pooled IV treatment arms for the proportions of patients achieving EULAR-CRP good response, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 and ACR70 responses, DAS28-CRP-defined remission, low disease activity (DAS28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI criteria) and clinically meaningful HAQ-DI improvement. Conclusions CT-P13 SC was associated with greater improvements in DAS28-CRP, CDAI and SDAI scores and higher rates of clinical response, low disease activity and clinically meaningful improvement in functional disability, compared with CT-P13 IV and reference infliximab IV. Trial registration EudraCT, 2016-002125-11, registered 1 July 2016; EudraCT 2010-018646-31, registered 23 June 2010.

CT-P13 subcutaneous (SC)—the first and only SC version of infliximab—is approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This new mode of infliximab administration will allow patients to self-inject at home, significantly reducing the number of outpatient visits and costs of intravenous (IV) administration. This paper describes the economic impact of introducing CT-P13 SC to the market from the UK societal perspective. The budget impact analysis was conducted to assess the financial impact of the adoption of CT-P13 SC over a 5-year period. A prevalence-based budget impact model was developed incorporating epidemiological data, administration cost data, and market share data. The analysis compared a “world with” CT-P13 SC scenario to a “world without” CT-P13 SC. A sensitivity analysis included dose escalation up to 4.1 mg/kg to reflect the real-world care delivery setting. Compared to the “world without” scenario, the introduction of CT-P13 SC resulted in cost savings of ₤69.3 million in the UK over a 5-year period. In the scenario analysis, the saving increased to ₤173.5 million over 5 years. Use of CT-P13 SC may lead to substantial cost savings for the UK society.

International audience; Objectives: There are few comparative data for tumor necrosis factor inhibitors in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: Historical data for reference product/biosimilar intravenous infliximab, or adalimumab and etanercept, were pooled and compared with phase 3 study results for a subcutaneous (SC) formulation of the infliximab biosimilar CT-P13, in a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42019149621).Results: The authors identified 13 eligible controlled trials that randomized over 5400 participants to prespecified treatments of interest. Comparison with pooled historical data suggested a numerical advan-tage for CT-P13 SC over intravenous infliximab for almost every prespecified efficacy outcome evaluated, including Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate), Clinical/ Simplified Disease Activity Index scores, American College of Rheumatology responses, and multiple measures of disease remission and low disease activity; for the majority of outcomes, there was no overlap in 95% confidence intervals between groups. A numerical advantage for CT-P13 SC was also observed for safety outcomes (adverse events, infections, and discontinuations). Similar, but less marked, trends were observed for comparison with historical efficacy and safety data for adalimumab/etanercept.Conclusion: CT-P13 SC offers an improved or similar benefit-to-harm ratio compared with infliximab (intravenous) and adalimumab/etanercept, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe RA.

ObjectiveTo demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents.MethodsIn this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0–last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (Cmax). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24.Results103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%–125% (AUC0–last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); Cmax: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles.ConclusionsCT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.Trial registration numberNCT01534884.