Search

Background: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) has approved the subcutaneous (SC) administration of infliximab, presenting a more convenient alternative with reduced outpatient visits and diminished expenses compared to the intravenous (IV) administration. However, the financial implications of this formulation have not been examined from the perspective of Saudi payers., Methods and Materials: A prevalence-based budget impact model was developed to evaluate the financial effects of introducing "environment without" versus "with infliximab SC." The model's time horizon spanned over 2 years (2021-2023), aligning with the biennial national pharmaceutical procurement cycle. The comparison focused on infliximab SC versus all available formulations of infliximab IV in the Saudi market for two inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD): Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD). Treatment comparators' comparability and dose escalations were substantiated by published studies, utilizing dosing information from the summary of product characteristics. Drug acquisition costs were derived from SFDA registered prices, with IV formulation administration costs included. Scenario analysis assessed the budget impact of infliximab SC introduction at uptake rates ranging from 0% to 100%., Results: Introducing infliximab SC demonstrated cost-saving potential in the treatment of IBD. At 100% uptake with UC patients for 2 years, infliximab SC resulted in savings of -SAR-31.9 million (-SAR29,145 per patient). Similarly, for CD, introducing infliximab SC at 100% uptake over 2 years yielded savings of -SAR106.2 million (-SAR36,585 per patient)., Conclusion: This study reveals that infliximab SC is associated with cost-saving potential when compared to infliximab IV formulations available in Saudi Arabia. Future research should address uncertainties related to real-world comparative effectiveness, the convenience of administration, patient tolerability, and physician acceptance of the SC formulation of infliximab, alongside comparisons with other TNF-alpha inhibitors., Competing Interests: N Alkhatib holds equity in Pi Pharma Intelligence, LLC, which provides health technology solutions, scientific and consulting services to biopharmaceutical, diagnostics, and medical device companies on a nonexclusivity basis. By the company internal policy, owners, employees, and associates are prohibited from holding equity in client and sponsor organizations or contracting independently with client and sponsor organizations or receiving compensation independently from such organizations. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Alkhatib et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Chronic migraine is a disabling condition, affecting 2-4% of adults globally. With the introduction of expensive calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, it is timely to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preventive drugs for chronic migraine., Objective: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of medications used for chronic migraine through systematic reviews and economic modelling., Eligibility Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of drug treatments for efficacy with > 100 participants with chronic migraine per arm; for adverse events > 100 participants with episodic or chronic migraine per arm. Previous economic analyses of preventive drugs for chronic migraine., Data Sources: Eight databases., Reviews Methods: Systematic reviews, network meta-analysis and economic modelling., Outcomes: Monthly headache days, monthly migraine days, headache-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness., Results: We found 51 individual articles, reporting 11 randomised controlled trials, testing 6 drugs (topiramate, Botox, eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, galcanezumab), versus placebo, on 7352 adults with chronic migraine. Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, Botox and topiramate reduced headache/migraine days by 2.0-2.5, just under two, or by less than 1.5 days per month, respectively. In the network meta-analysis, eptinezumab 300 mg and fremanezumab monthly ranked in first place in both monthly headache day and monthly migraine day analyses. The calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies were consistently the best choices for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life. Topiramate was very unlikely to be the best choice for headache/migraine days and headache-related quality of life when compared to calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies or Botox. We found no trials of the commonly used drugs, such as propranolol or amitriptyline, to include in the analysis. The adverse events review included 40 randomised controlled trials with 25,891 participants; 3 additional drugs, amitriptyline, atogepant and rimegepant, were included. There were very few serious adverse events - none of which were linked to the use of these medications. Adverse events were common. Most people using some calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies reported injection site issues; and people using topiramate or amitriptyline had nervous system or gastrointestinal issues. The cost-effectiveness review identified 16 studies evaluating chronic migraine medications in adults. The newer, injected drugs are more costly than the oral preventatives, but they were cost-effective. Our economic model showed that topiramate was the least costly option and had the fewest quality-adjusted life-year gains, whereas eptinezumab 300 mg was more costly but generated the most quality-adjusted life-year gains. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier showed that topiramate was the most cost-effective medication if the decision maker is willing to pay up to £50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Our consensus workshop brought together people with chronic migraine and headache experts. Consensus was reached on the top three recommendations for future research on medications to prevent chronic migraine: (1) calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies and Botox versus calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies, (2) candesartan versus placebo and (3) flunarizine versus placebo., Limitations: Topiramate was the only oral drug for which we were able to include data. We did not find sufficient quality evidence to support the use of other oral drugs., Conclusions: We did not find evidence that the calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies are more clinically and cost-effective when compared to topiramate or Botox. We identified directions for future research these drugs might take., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021265990, CRD42021265993 and CRD42021265995., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR132803) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 63. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background and Objective: The EV-302 trial found that the combination of enfortumab vedotin (EV) with pembrolizumab significantly improved survival for patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC). However, given the high cost of the drugs, there is a need to assess its value by considering both efficacy and cost. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of EV plus pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with mUC from the perspective of U.S. payers., Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime costs and effectiveness of EV in combination with pembrolizumab with chemotherapy in the treatment of mUC patients from U.S. payer perspective. Life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and lifetime costs were estimated. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate model uncertainty. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed., Results: Compared to chemotherapy, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab provided an additional 2.10 LYs and 1.72 QALYs, at an incremental cost of $962,240.8 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is $558,973 per QALY. Subgroup analysis indicated that patients ineligible for cisplatin treatment had a lower ICER compared to those who were eligible for cisplatin., Conclusions: From the perspective of US payers, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY, the combination of EV and pembrolizumab is estimated to not be cost-effective compared to traditional chemotherapy in the first-line treatment of mUC patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Li, Wu, Xie, Xiang, Meng, Tan, Wang and Wan.)

Background: Heavily treatment-experienced (HTE) people with HIV (PWH) have limited treatment options owing to multidrug resistance (MDR). Lenacapavir (LEN) is indicated, in combination with other antiretrovirals, for the treatment of adults with MDR HIV-1 experiencing failure of their current antiretroviral regimen because of resistance, intolerance, or safety considerations., Objective: To evaluate the cost-utility of LEN in combination with an optimized background regimen (OBR) vs alternative recently approved treatments for HTE PWH, fostemsavir (FTR)+OBR and ibalizumab (IBA)+OBR, for the treatment of PWH with MDR, from a mixed US health care payer perspective., Methods: A Markov state-transition model with a lifetime time horizon was developed. Transition probabilities between viral load categories were based on individual participant data from the CAPELLA trial for LEN+OBR and on relative efficacy parameters obtained from indirect treatment comparisons for comparators. Health state utilities were sourced from the literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs, drug administration costs, disease management costs, adverse event costs, AIDS-related event costs, and treatment switching costs and were sourced from red book costs, Medicare and Medicaid fees, and the literature. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. The model was used to estimate total and incremental costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. A deterministic and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, as well as scenario analyses, were performed to address elements of uncertainty in the model and to explore the robustness of the results., Results: Over a lifetime time horizon, LEN+OBR was associated with the highest absolute QALYs (9.41) and the greatest number of LYs (12.09) compared with FTR+OBR (QALYs: 8.75; LYs: 11.26) and IBA+OBR (QALYs: 8.36; LYs: 10.78). LEN+OBR was also associated with the lowest total lifetime costs of the 3 interventions (LEN+OBR: $1,441,122 [US dollars]; FTR+OBR: $1,504,986; IBA+OBR: $1,524,396) and therefore was dominant over both comparators in the base case. LEN+OBR remained dominant vs FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR across the range of scenarios tested and LEN+OBR had a 99% probability of being cost-effective compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY., Conclusions: This economic evaluation demonstrated that LEN+OBR provides meaningful increases in QALYs and LYs, and is dominant over a lifetime time horizon, compared with FTR+OBR and IBA+OBR for the treatment of PWH with MDR in the United States.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tisotumab vedotin to treat recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer in second- or third-line from the U.S. payer perspective., Methods: A Markov model with three-state was employed to simulate recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients who were administered either tisotumab vedotin or investigator's choice of chemotherapy based on the phase III, open-labeled innovaTV 301 randomized clinical trial. The data on cost and health preferences were collected from the literature., Results: Tisotumab vedotin generated an additional 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to chemotherapy, but at an additional cost of $206,779. This results in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $839,107.88 per QALY. The results of the univariate sensitivity analysis indicated that cost of tisotumab vedotin, utility of progressive disease and progression-free survival had the greatest impacts on the outcomes. Probability sensitivity analysis showed that tisotumab vedotin had a 0% chance of being considered cost-effective., Conclusion: Tisotumab vedotin was unlikely cost-effective compared to chemotherapy for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer patients at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY from the perspective of a U.S. payer. Lowering the prices of tisotumab vedotin could potentially enhance its cost-effectiveness., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported., (© 2024. Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology, and Japan Society of Gynecologic Oncology.)

Background: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab as a treatment option for patients with inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from healthcare and partial societal perspectives in Vietnam., Method: A lifetime partitioned survival model was used to evaluate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with consolidation durvalumab in comparison with the standard of care alone. Local costs and utilities were incorporated into the model. In the base-case analysis, no discount was applied to the acquisition cost of durvalumab. Scenario-based, one-way and probabilistic-sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: The base-case analysis revealed that the intervention resulted in an increase of 1.38 life years or 1.08 QALYs for patients, but the intervention was not deemed cost-effective from either perspective in the base-case analysis. However, with a 70% reduction in the durvalumab acquisition cost, the intervention was observed to be cost-effective when evaluated from a healthcare perspective and when examining the undiscounted results from a partial societal standpoint., Conclusion: This study provides evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab for the treatment of inoperable stage III NSCLC in Vietnam for various scenarios. The intervention was not cost-effective at full acquisition cost, but it is important to acknowledge that cost-effectiveness arguments alone cannot solely guide decision-makers in Vietnam; other criteria, such as budget impact and ethical concerns, are crucial factors to consider in decision-making processes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The lead author (VQM) was a member of an advisory team for AstraZeneca Vietnam on a project that performed a health technology assessment of durvalumab for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer in 2020. However, the present study was separate from that advisory project. In the present study, we performed the economic evaluations using the latest published inputs, including five-year survival data and local data on patient cost and utility. The present study was funded by the Erling-Persson Foundation, Umeå University and Hanoi University of Public Health; financial support was provided to the lead author in the form of a doctoral study. Copyright on the model used and content of this article belong to the authors. The authors have indicated that they have no other conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. Patients or the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of our research., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%., Methods: A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars., Results: Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively., Discussion: This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM., Competing Interests: DH has consulted for BMS, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Pfizer, Kite, and Karyopharm; has received research funding from BMS, Karyopharm, and the Pentecost Family Myeloma Research Center. OP has served on a speaker’s bureau for Adaptive Biotechnologies. SS and EZ are employed by Evidera and were contracted by Janssen to work on this project. SU has served in a consulting or advisory role for AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, Celgene, Genentech, Gilead Sciences, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Merck, and Takeda; and has received research funding from Amgen, Array BioPharma, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Merck, Pharmacyclics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, and SkylineDx. SJ has served in a consulting or advisory role for BMS, Janssen, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Legend Biotech USA Inc., Regeneron, Sanofi, and Takeda; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS and Janssen. XL, YZ, and ZQ are currently employed at Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, and own Johnson & Johnson stock. SH is currently employed at Janssen Global Services, LLC, and owns Johnson & Johnson stock. This study was funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company and Legend Biotech USA Inc. The sponsors were involved in study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article, and the decision to submit it for publication., (Copyright © 2024 Hansen, Lu, Puglianini, Sorensen, Usmani, Zhang, Huo, Zhang, Qureshi and Jagannath.)

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of conventional care (CC) and seven first-line targeted therapies marketed in China for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS)-namely secukinumab, ixekizumab, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab and tofacitinib-from the perspective of the Chinese health care system., Methods: The York model was structured as a 12-week decision tree leading into two Markov models. This study set 1 year as a recurring cycle and a lifetime timeframe for the model. Primary model outcomes included the costs in Chinese yuan (CNY), health outcomes in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥89,358 (equal to the per capita gross domestic product in China in 2023) per QALY. Parameters in the York model were captured from network meta-analyses and literature including treatment response, short-term disease progression, patient functioning and long-term structural disease progression. Utilities are dependent on indicators such as the BASDAI score, the BASFI score, gender and age. Drug prices were analysed using the median price of the Chinese market from YAOZH net in the basic analysis. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 5.0%. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness of the results. The prices of original drugs and generic drugs were used in the scenario analysis., Results: Compared with CC, the ICER of golimumab was ¥104,217.4/QALY, which is between 1 and 3 times the GDP per capita, while the ICERs of the other six targeted therapies were less than ¥89,358/QALY. The specific economic rank of the targeted therapy was as follows: secukinumab > ixekizumab > tofacitinib > infliximab > etanercept > adalimumab > golimumab. Treatment response rates such as the BASDAI50, changes in the BASDAI/BASFI scores and the discounting rate were key model drivers. According to the scenario analysis, IL-17 inhibitors were still the most economical intervention when original drugs and generic drugs were used., Conclusion: Targeted therapies are cost-effective treatments for AS. Overall, IL-17 inhibitors were the dominant treatment. The choice of the brand-new prices or generic drug prices can greatly affect economics., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Biologics has been known to be effective for patients with psoriasis. However, optimal treatment pathways and their cost-effectiveness are limited in a resource-limited country. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different sequential biologics for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis., Method: A hybrid model from a societal perspective was used. Model inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, clinical trials, and published literature. Three different sequential biologic treatments were assessed; Sequence 1; 1st Interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor (secukinumab) followed by 2nd IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab or brodalumab), then 3rd IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab), Sequence 2; ixekizumab followed by secukinumab or brodalumab, then guselkumab, and Sequence 3; brodalumab followed by ixekizumab or secukinumab, then guselkumab. Methotrexate or ciclosporin was used as standard of care (SoC)., Results: All three different sequential biologic therapies could gain total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but they had higher cost than SoC. Sequence 1 had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to SoC at 621,373 THB/QALY (19,449 $/QALY). ICER for Sequence 2 was 957,258 THB/QALY (29,962 $/QALY), while that for Sequence 3 was 1,332,262 THB/QALY (41,700 $/QALY). Fully incremental analysis indicated that Sequence 3 was dominated by Sequence 1 and Sequence 2. ICER for Sequence 2 was 7,206,104 THB/QALY (225,551 $/QALY) when compared to Sequence 1., Conclusion: At the current willingness-to-pay of 160,000 THB/QALY, no sequential IL-17 inhibitor was cost-effective compared to SoC. Secukinumab followed by ixekizumab or brodalumab then guselkumab (Sequence 1) may be the most appropriate option compared with other treatments., Competing Interests: Piyameth Dilokthornsakul receives research grants from Novartis (Thailand) Limited, Pfizer (Thailand) Limited. He also receives honorariums from GSK (Thailand) Limited, and Boehringer Ingelheim (Thailand) Limited. Other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 Dilokthornsakul et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Durvalumab, used as consolidation immunotherapy, has shown to improve survival in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer who respond to chemoradiotherapy, based on the most recent follow-up of PACIFIC. The Chilean healthcare system provides access to certain immunotherapies for this condition. The present study sought to estimate the budget impact of durvalumab versus standard of care in the context of the Chilean healthcare system., Research Design and Methods: A partitioned survival model was adapted to compare two strategies: durvalumab as consolidation therapy and standard of care for treating stage III NSCLC. The number of patients eligible for treatment was estimated using published incidence data and modeled for a 5-year time horizon. Model inputs were based on published literature, and the duration of treatment was estimated using survival curves obtained from PACIFIC. Costs were estimated in Chilean pesos (CLP) and converted to USD dollars using an exchange rate of USD 1  =  CLP 827. Scenario analyses were performed to assess different subsequent therapy splits, variations in the target population and dosage of durvalumab., Results: Durvalumab uptake projected total costs ranging from USD 1.27 in Year 1 to 8.5 million in Year 5 from the public perspective. From the private perspective, the budget impact for the first year is USD 1.3 million to USD 3 million for 2028. This difference relies mostly on the lower number of patients treated. Both perspectives anticipated cost savings over the time horizon through reduced monitoring, adverse events, and end-of-life expenses., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that the inclusion of Durvalumab for NSCLC in Chile represents an investment in the Chilean health system. The incremental costs align with clinical benefits and potential savings in healthcare resource utilization. However, a comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis is needed to evaluate its economic value thoroughly., Competing Interests: Manuel Espinoza has been compensated by Merck, Grunenthal, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Abbvie, and Roche for training activities and presentations. Nicolás Armijo has received fees from Roche and Sandoz for educational services and presentations. I have previously received fees from Novartis and Novo Nordisk for educational services. Manuel, Nicolás, and I also are members of Epsilon Research, a health economics consultancy. However, our commercial affiliation does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Armijo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Tralokinumab is the first selective interleukin 13 inhibitor approved for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. This article reports the findings of a comprehensive literature review and extensive economic analysis to assess tralokinumab's safety, effectiveness, and cost. Evidence synthesis involved evaluating comparative effectiveness and conducting economic sensitivity analyses. This review was prepared by the University of Connecticut School of Pharmacy Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) Student Chapter. The student author group won the AMCP National Pharmacy and Therapeutics competition for their tralokinumab product review in March 2023.

Background: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model., Methods: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted., Results: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses., Conclusion: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Standard of care for unresectable locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) involves definitive chemoradiotherapy followed by maintenance therapy with durvalumab. However, the cost of durvalumab has been cited as a barrier to its use in various health systems., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab vs placebo as maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC from 4 international payer perspectives (US, Brazil, Singapore, and Spain)., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this economic evaluation, a Markov model was designed to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of maintenance durvalumab for unresectable stage III NSCLC with that of placebo, using 5-year outcomes data from the PACIFIC randomized placebo-controlled trial. Individual patient data were extracted from the PACIFIC, KEYNOTE-189, ADAURA, ALEX, and REVEL randomized clinical trials to develop a decision-analytic model to determine the cost-effectiveness of durvalumab compared with placebo maintenance therapy over a 10-year time horizon. Direct costs, adverse events, and patient characteristics were based on country-specific payer perspectives and demographic characteristics. The study was conducted from June 1, 2022, through December 27, 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: Life-years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds ([data reported in US$] US: $150 000 per QALY; Brazil: $22 251 per QALY; Singapore: $55 288 per QALY, and Spain: $107 069 per QALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameters of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed., Results: The US base-case model found that treatment with durvalumab was associated with an increased cost of $114 394 and improved effectiveness of 0.50 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $228 788 per QALY. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, according to base-case models, were $141 146 for Brazil, $153 461 for Singapore, and $125 193 for Spain. Durvalumab price adjustments to the PACIFIC data improved cost-effectiveness in Singapore, with an ICER of $45 164. The model was most sensitive to the utility of durvalumab., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost-effectiveness analysis of durvalumab as maintenance therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC, the therapy was found to be cost-prohibitive from the perspective of various international payers according to country-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds per QALY. The findings of the study suggest that discounted durvalumab acquisition costs, as possible in Singapore, might improve cost-effectiveness globally.

Background: Monoclonal antibody drugs are widely used, highly marketed, expensive compounds. Relationships between these drug manufacturers and physicians may increase the potential for bias in relevant studies., Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the rate of disclosures among physicians receiving compensations for monoclonal antibody drugs (MAbDs)., Design: This is a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study., Participants: The 50 physicians who received the highest financial compensation for selected MAbDs from 2016 to 2020 were included., Main Measures: Payment data were obtained from the Open Payments Database, bibliometric data were obtained from SCOPUS, and disclosure data were obtained from relevant publications found in PubMed. The primary outcome was rate of disclosure concordance between self-declared conflict-of-interest and industry-reported payments documented in the Open Payments Database., Key Results: Of the 50 physicians examined, 74% (N = 37) had publications examined. A cumulative 6170 payments totaling $18,484,228 were analyzed. A total of 418 relevant papers were reviewed. The rate of full disclosure (all relevant financial relationships disclosed) was 39.5%, partial disclosure (some but not all financial relationships disclosed) was 28.0%, and no disclosure was 26.3%. 6.2% did not require disclosure. Publications authored by dermatologists had the highest rate of full disclosure at 49.3%. There was no association between h-index and disclosure rate. Practice guidelines had the highest rate of full disclosure at 69.2% while basic science papers had the lowest (0%). Lastly, substantial variations in specific journal disclosure policies were found., Conclusions: Substantial inconsistencies were found between self-reported disclosures and the Open Payments Database among physicians receiving high compensation for MAbDs. A policy of full disclosure for all publications should be adopted., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Aims: Evaluate existing oncology value frameworks in terms of their methodology, structure, characteristics, and functionality using the example of enfortumab vedotin, an approved therapy for urothelial carcinoma., Methods: A search of PubMed, grey literature, and official websites of relevant international organizations was performed from January 2022 to March 2023., Results: Six frameworks were identified and analyzed, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology's assessment framework, European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center's DrugAbacus, Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's assessment framework, and the Drug Assessment Framework. Comparisons across frameworks were challenging, owing to differing approaches, objectives, perspectives, methodology, and criteria. Based on the results of the EV-301 study (NCT03474107), the European Society for Medical Oncology's Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale assigned a score of 4 out of 5 to enfortumab vedotin administered after chemotherapy and immunotherapy. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Evidence Blocks enabled assessment of enfortumab vedotin compared with other treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma, resulting in the positioning of enfortumab vedotin as a preferred regimen after chemotherapy and immunotherapy., Conclusions: Application of value frameworks in oncology can contribute to informed value-based decision-making. However, comparisons across frameworks should be made with caution and limited to the same lines of treatment. Enfortumab vedotin may contribute to optimizing outcomes in patients previously treated with chemotherapy and immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma.

Aim: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of zolbetuximab plus capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2- negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma from the perspective of Chinese payers. Materials & methods: A partitioned survival model was developed to assess the costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of zolbetuximab plus CAPOX versus placebo plus CAPOX. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of model. Results: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX gained an additional cost of $91,551 and an extra health benefit of 0.24 QALY over placebo plus CAPOX, producing an ICER of $388,186/QALY, which exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,223/QALY. Sensitivity analysis shows that the model was generally robust. Conclusion: Zolbetuximab plus CAPOX would not be a cost-effective first-line treatment regimen in CLDN18.2-positive, HER2 -negative, mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in China.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus)., Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib)., Data Sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review., Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources., Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost., Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations., Future Work and Limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

DISCLOSURES: No funding contributed to the writing of this commentary. Smith Begolka, Butler, and Guadalupe are salaried employees of the National Eczema Association, which has received grants and sponsorship awards from a variety of industry partners, including AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Smith Begolka has received grant funding from Pfizer and advisory board honoraria from Pfizer and Incyte. Butler and Guadalupe have received advisory board honoraria from Incyte.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, The Donaghue Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from AbbVie, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Evolve Pharmacy, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Humana, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sun Life Financial, uniQure, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Herron-Smith, Nhan, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Through their affiliated institutions, Atlas, Brouwer, Carlson, and Hansen received funding from ICER for the work described in this summary.

Background: The introduction of daratumumab into the treatment of multiple myeloma has improved outcomes in patients; however, community oncologists often dose more frequently than the US FDA-approved label. Materials and methods: Integra analyzed its database to elucidate daratumumab treatment patterns and the impact of increased utilization on the cost of care for multiple myeloma. Results: Following week 24, 671 (65%) of 1037 patients remained on daratumumab-containing regimens, with 330 patients continuing more frequent treatments than the expected once-every-4-weeks dosing described in the standard dosing schedule. Patients received an average of 14% more daratumumab doses than the FDA-approved label indicates, increasing the 1-year daratumumab costs by an estimated US$31,353. Conclusion:  Daratumumab is utilized more frequently than the FDA-recommended dosing, leading to higher multiple myeloma treatment costs.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma survival rates are steadily increasing due to availability of new drug classes used in combination with corticosteroids and chemotherapy. The latest treatments are daratumumab or bortezomib in combination therapy with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd). Daratumumab, a CD38-targeted, human IgG1k monoclonal antibody, and bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, are both approved as regimens for transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). There have been cost-effectiveness analyses for daratumumab and bortezomib use in RRMM, but there are limited data regarding cost-effectiveness for daratumumab or bortezomib use in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients who are ineligible for stem cell transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 separate regimens-(1) daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone triple therapy (DRd); (2) bortezomib and lenalidomide plus dexamethasone triple therapy (VRd); and (3) lenalidomide plus dexamethasone (Rd)-in patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. METHODS: A 2-state Markov model was developed using a US health system perspective and lifetime time horizon. Transition probabilities were calculated from the latest progression-free survival data reported in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials-MAIA and SWOG S0777-and extrapolated using a Weibull distribution based on the Hoyle Henley method. National data sources were used to obtain costs in 2019 US dollars, discounted by 3%. Health state utilities from available literature were applied to each health state. Utility decrements for adverse events were individualized in each choice branch with utility decrement weighted by the percentage of patients who experienced the adverse event in the MAIA and SWOG S0777 trials. We assumed a treatment would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay (WTP) of $150,000 per progression-free quality-adjusted life-year ($/PFQALY). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Rd standard therapy had the lowest overall cost at $329,867, followed by VRd at $385,434 and DRd with the highest overall total cost at $626,900. Rd was estimated to result in the least amount (1.24) of PFQALYs, followed by VRd at 1.35 PFQALYs and DRd at 1.52 PFQALYs. With a WTP threshold of $150,000 per PFQALY, VRd was not cost-effective compared with Rd standard therapy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $530,256 per PFQALY. DRd was not cost-effective compared with VRd (ICER = $1,396,318 per PFQALY), nor as compared with Rd standard therapy (ICER = $1060,832). One-way sensitivity analysis showed that our model was sensitive to cost of DRd, VRd, and Rd drugs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that only at a WTP threshold of $550,000 was VRd cost-effective for 40% of iterations. There were no reasonable WTP thresholds, up to $800,00, where DRd became more cost-effective than VRd. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first analysis to directly compare the cost-effectiveness of 3 acceptable chemotherapy treatment regimens for patients with multiple myeloma ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Neither DRd nor VRd triple therapy were found to be cost-effective vs Rd. Further cost-effectiveness analyses that include overall survival data for daratumumab and bortezomib triple therapies are needed to demonstrate an ICER in QALYs. DISCLOSURES : No funding was received for this study. At the time of this study, Narsipur was a UCSF-Actelion Clinical Research and Medical Communications Fellow, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

BACKGROUND: Most cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (CSCCs) can be treated with surgical excision or radiation; however, approximately 1% of patients develop advanced disease. In 2018, the FDA approved cemiplimab-rwlc as the first programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) monoclonal antibody for the treatment of patients with metastatic CSCC or locally advanced CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or curative radiation. In June 2020, pembrolizumab, another PD-1 monoclonal antibody, was approved for the treatment of patients with recurrent or metastatic CSCC who are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation. We previously reported on the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs historical standard of care for the treatment of advanced CSCC from a US perspective. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab for patients with advanced CSCC in the United States. METHODS: A "partitioned survival" framework was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of cemiplimab vs pembrolizumab. Clinical inputs were based on the most recent data cut of the phase 2 trials for cemiplimab (EMPOWER-CSCC-1; NCT02760498) and pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-629). Progression-free survival and overall survival were extrapolated using parametric models until all patients had progressed or died. Health state utilities were derived from data collected in the EMPOWER-CSCC-1 trial. Costs included drug acquisition, drug administration, disease management, terminal care, and adverse events and were based on published 2020 US list prices. To assess model uncertainty, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted, alongside scenario analyses evaluating key modeling assumptions. RESULTS: In the base case, cemiplimab resulted in an incremental gain of 3.44 life-years (discounted) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $130,329 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) vs pembrolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY, PSA indicated a 71% probability that cemiplimab is cost-effective when compared with pembrolizumab. Scenario analysis resulted in ICERs ranging from $115,909 to $187,374. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that cemiplimab is a cost-effective treatment for patients with advanced CSCC, compared with pembrolizumab. These results should be interpreted cautiously in the absence of head-to-head trials; however, in the absence of such data, these results can be used to inform health care decisions over resource allocation. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Sanofi. Paul, Cope, Keeping, Mojebi, and Ayers are employees of PRECISIONheor, which received funding to produce this work. Chen, Kuznik, and Xu are employees and stockholders of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Sasane is an employee and stockholder of Sanofi, Inc. Konidaris, Atsou, and Guyot are employees of Sanofi, Inc. The authors were responsible for all content and editorial decisions and received no honoraria related to the development of this publication.

Objectives: Treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) has undergone significant change in recent years with the introduction of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fidaxomicin and bezlotoxumab for initial CDI compared with standard therapy with oral vancomycin., Methods: A Markov model with eight health states was built based on transition probabilities, costs and health utilities derived from literature to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin, and extended-pulsed fidaxomicin versus standard oral vancomycin over a lifetime horizon from the US societal perspective., Results: For overall CDI treatment, oral vancomycin had a cost of $39 178 and was associated with a gain of 11.64 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Extended-pulsed fidaxomicin had a higher QALY gain of 11.65 at a lower cost of $37 613, and therefore was dominant over vancomycin. Standard fidaxomicin had a QALY gain of 11.94 versus vancomycin at an incremental cost of $495 per QALY. Bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin led to a QALY gain of 11.77 at an incremental cost of $17 746 per QALY. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150 000 per QALY, extended-pulsed fidaxomicin, bezlotoxumab plus vancomycin and standard fidaxomicin were more cost-effective compared with vancomycin alone, yielding incremental net monetary benefits of $3248, $17 011 and $44 308, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that the probabilities of sustained cure from the initial episode were the most sensitive inputs, and results were overall not particularly sensitive to any drug costs., Conclusions: Based on a WTP threshold of $150 000, standard fidaxomicin was estimated to be the most cost-effective treatment. Standard-of-care vancomycin was dominated by extended-pulsed fidaxomicin for treating an episode of CDI and preventing further recurrence, and the addition of bezlotoxumab to vancomycin was dominated by standard fidaxomicin., (Copyright © 2021 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether social determinants of health are associated with survival in the context of pediatric oncology-targeted immunotherapy trials is not known. We examined the association between poverty and event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) for children with high-risk neuroblastoma treated in targeted immunotherapy trials., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 371 children with high-risk neuroblastoma treated with GD2-targeted immunotherapy in the Children's Oncology Group trial ANBL0032 or ANBL0931 at a Pediatric Health Information System center from 2005 to 2014. Neighborhood poverty exposure was characterized a priori as living in a zip code with a median household income within the lowest quartile for the cohort. Household poverty exposure was characterized a priori as sole coverage by public insurance. Post hoc analyses examined the joint effect of neighborhood and household poverty using a common reference. All statistical tests were 2-sided., Results: In multivariable Cox regressions adjusted for disease and treatment factors, household poverty-exposed children experienced statistically significantly inferior EFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.82, P = .001) and OS (HR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.63 to 4.79, P < .001) compared with unexposed children. Neighborhood poverty was not independently associated with EFS or OS. In post hoc analyses exploring the joint effect of neighborhood and household poverty, children with dual-poverty exposure (neighborhood poverty and household poverty) experienced statistically significantly inferior EFS (HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.48 to 3.30, P < .001) and OS (HR = 3.70, 95% CI = 2.08 to 6.59, P < .001) compared with the unexposed group., Conclusions: Poverty is independently associated with increased risk of relapse and death among neuroblastoma patients treated with targeted immunotherapy. Incorporation of social and environmental factors in future trials as health-care delivery intervention targets may increase the benefit of targeted therapies., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The biosimilar concept is now well established. Clinical data accumulated pre- and post-approval have supported biosimilar uptake, in turn stimulating competition in the biologics market and increasing patient access to biologics. Following technological advances, other innovative biologics, such as "biobetters" or "value-added medicines," are now reaching the market. These innovative biologics differ from the reference product by offering additional clinical or non-clinical benefits. We discuss these innovative biologics with reference to CT-P13, initially available as an intravenous (IV) biosimilar of reference infliximab. A subcutaneous (SC) formulation, CT-P13 SC, has now been developed. Relative to CT-P13 IV, CT-P13 SC offers clinical benefits in terms of pharmacokinetics, with comparable efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity, as well as increased convenience for patients and reduced demands on healthcare system resources. As was once the case for biosimilars, nomenclature and regulatory pathways for innovative biologics require clarification to support their uptake and ultimately benefit patients.

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.

Background: Subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) lacks consensus diagnostic criteria and the pathogenesis is poorly understood. There are increasing reports of SCLE induced by monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), but there are limited data on the aetiology, clinical characteristics and natural course of this disease., Methods: We devised a set of diagnostic criteria for SCLE in collaboration with a multinational, multispecialty panel. This systematic review employed a two-layered search strategy of five databases for cases of mAb-induced SCLE (PROSPERO registered protocol CRD42019116521). To explore the relationship between relative mAb use and the number of SCLE cases reported, the estimated number of mAb users was modelled from 2013 to 2018 global commercial data and estimated annual therapy costs., Results: From 40 papers, we identified 52 cases of mAb-induced SCLE, occurring in a cohort that was 73% female and with a median age of 61 years. Fifty percent of cases were induced by anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-ɑ agents. A median of three drug doses preceded SCLE onset and the lesions lasted a median of 7 weeks after drug cessation. Oral and topical corticosteroids were most frequently used. Of the licensed mAbs, adalimumab, denosumab, rituximab, etanercept and infliximab were calculated to have the highest relative number of yearly users based on global sales data. Comparing the number of mAb-induced SCLE cases with estimated yearly users, the checkpoint inhibitors pembrolizumab and nivolumab showed strikingly high rates of SCLE relative to their global use, but ipilimumab did not., Conclusion: We present the first systematic review characterising mAb-induced SCLE with respect to triggers, clinical signs, laboratory findings, prognosis and treatment approaches. We identify elevated rates associated with the use of checkpoint inhibitors and anti-TNFɑ agents.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© European Association of Hospital Pharmacists 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim:  To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of polatuzumab vedotin (pola) + bendamustine + rituximab (BR) in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma based on the GO29365 trial from a US payer's perspective. Materials & methods:  A partitioned survival model used progression-free survival and overall survival data from the GO29365 trial. The base case analysis assumed overall survival was informed by progression-free survival; a mixture cure model estimated proportion of long-term survivors. Results: In the base case, pola + BR was cost-effective versus BR at US$35,864 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses showed that the findings were robust. Conclusion: Pola + BR is cost-effective versus BR for the treatment of transplant-ineligible relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in the US.

Objective: To identify and describe cost-effectiveness studies that  evaluate disease modifying therapies in the context of relapsing- remitting multiple sclerosis., Method: A systematic review of the literature was carried out by  searching MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, LILACS, the Tufts  Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, the National Health  Service Economic Evaluation Database and Open Grey. The search was  performed in January 2018 and covered articles published between  January 2010 and December 2017. The studies reviewed were payer- perspective cost-effectiveness analyses for interferon beta-1a, interferon beta-1b, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, fingolimod, dimethyl  fumarate, natalizumab, alemtuzumab and rituximab. The Quality of  Health Economic Studies instrument was used to determine the quality  of the studies reviewed. Risk of bias was assessed without a  standardized tool. An analysis was made of direct costs, quality- adjusted life-years and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Data  extraction and evaluation of information were conducted separately by  each author., Results: Four hundred one references were found; nine studies were included. A great degree of variability was identified for several  methodological aspects. Two studies that applied the incremental cost- effectiveness ratio (cost) showed no first-line therapy to be cost- effective. A third study demonstrated dominance of interferon beta-1b  over placebo (USD -315,109.45) and a fourth paper showed dominance  of teriflunomide over interferons and glatiramer acetate (USD - 121,840.37). As regards second-line therapies, dimethyl fumarate was  cost-effective in a study that compared it to glatiramer acetate and  interferon beta-1a and it was dominant in another study that compared  it with glatiramer acetate (USD -158,897.93) and fingolimod (USD - 92,988.97). In the third line of treatment, one study showed  natalizumab to be cost-effective as compared with fingolimod, and  another study showed alemtuzumab to be dominant over fingolimod  (USD -49,221). A third trial demonstrated alemtuzumab to be dominant over natalizumab (USD -1,656,266.07). Many of the trials have  sponsorship bias. Eight of the trials received a high QHES score., Conclusions: The present paper shows that cost-effectiveness studies have high levels of methodological variability, some of them  reaching contradictory results. As a result, it is not possible to  determine which disease- modifying therapy is really cost-effective in  the context of relapsingremitting multiple sclerosis., (Copyright AULA MEDICA EDICIONES 2014. Published by AULA MEDICA. All rights reserved.)

Background: We projected the clinical outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of ibalizumab plus an optimized background regimen (OBR) for people with multidrug-resistant (MDR) HIV in the United States., Methods: Using the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications microsimulation model and a health care sector perspective, we compared 2 treatment strategies for MDR HIV: (1) IBA + OBR-ibalizumab plus OBR and (2) OBR-OBR alone. Ibalizumab efficacy and cohort characteristics were from trial data: mean age 49 years, 85% male, and mean CD4 150/µL. Six-month viral suppression was 50% with IBA + OBR and 0% with OBR. The ibalizumab loading dose cost $10,500, and subsequent ibalizumab injections cost $8400/month; OBR cost $4500/month. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated using discounted (3%/year) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. ICERs ≤$100,000/QALY were considered cost-effective. We performed sensitivity analysis on key parameters and examined budget impact., Results: In the base case, 5-year survival increased from 38% with OBR to 47% with IBA + OBR. Lifetime costs were $301,700/person with OBR and $661,800/person with IBA + OBR; the ICER for IBA + OBR compared with OBR was $260,900/QALY. IBA + OBR was not cost-effective even with 100% efficacy. IBA + OBR became cost-effective at base case efficacy if ibalizumab cost was reduced by ≥88%. For an estimated 12,000 people with MDR HIV in the United States, IBA + OBR increased care costs by $1.8 billion (1.5% of total treatment budget) over 5 years., Conclusions: For people with MDR HIV lacking other treatment options, ibalizumab will substantially increase survival when effective. Although adding ibalizumab to OBR is not cost-effective, the low number of eligible patients in the United States makes the budget impact relatively small.

With the maturation of antibody production technologies, both economic optimization and ecological aspects have become important. Continuous downstream processing is a way to reduce the environmental footprint and improve process economics. We compared different primary recovery, capture, and fermentation methods for two output-based antibody production scales: 50 kg/year and 1000 kg/year. In addition, a fixed fermentation volume case of 1000 L was analysed in terms of total cost of goods and process mass intensity as a measure of the environmental footprint. In our scenario, a significant amount of water can be saved in downstream processing when single use equipment is utilized. The overall economic and ecological impact is governed by the product titre in our perfusion (1 g/L) and fed-batch (4 g/L). A low titre in fermentation with similar downstream purification leads to higher process mass intensity and cost of goods due to the higher media demand upstream. The economic perspective for continuous integrated biomanufacturing is very attractive, but environmental consequences should not be neglected. Here, we have shown that perfusion has a higher environmental footprint in the form of water consumption compared to fed-batch. As general guidance to improve process economics, we recommend reducing water consumption., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) are effective in the treatment of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA), including psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, these drugs come with some disadvantages such as adverse events, practical burden for patients and high costs. Dose optimisation of TNFi after patients have reached low disease activity (LDA) has been shown feasible and safe in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, data on TNFi dose optimisation in PsA and axSpA are scarce, especially pragmatic, randomised strategy studies., Methods: We developed an investigator-driven, pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial (DRESS-PS) to compare the effects of a disease activity-guided treat-to-target strategy with or without a tapering attempt in patients with SpA (PsA and axSpA combined), ≥ 16 years of age, who are being treated with TNFi, and have had at least 6 months of low disease activity. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients in LDA after 12 months of follow up. Patients are assessed at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow up. Bayesian power analyses with a weakened prior based on a similar study performed in RA resulted in a sample size of 95 patients in total., Discussion: More knowledge on disease activity-guided treatment algorithms would contribute to better treatment choices and cost savings and potentially decrease the risk of side effects. In this article we elucidate some of our design choices on TNFi dose optimisation and its clinical and methodological consequences., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register, NL6771. Registered on 27 November 2018 (CMO NL66181.091.18, 23 October 2018).

Effectiveness, efficacy and safety of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients has been shown in previous studies. Limited data exist on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of switching originator to biosimilar infliximab (IFX) in IBD patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate impact of switching originator to biosimilar IFX on HRQoL, disease activity, and health care costs in IBD maintenance treatment.In this single-center prospective observational study, all IBD patients receiving maintenance IFX therapy were switched to biosimilar IFX. HRQoL was measured using the generic 15D health-related quality of life instrument (15D) utility measurement and the disease-specific Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ). Crohn Disease Activity Index (CDAI) or Partial Mayo Score (pMayo), and fecal calprotectin (FC) served for evaluation of disease activity. Data were collected at time of switching and 3 and 12 months after switching. Patients' characteristics, clinical background information and costs were collected from patient records and the hospital's electronic database.Fifty-four patients were included in the analysis. No statistically significant changes were observed in 15D, CDAI, pMayo, and FC during 1-year follow-up. IBDQ scores were higher (P = .018) in Crohn disease 3 months after switching than at time of switching. Costs of biosimilar IFX were one-third of costs of originator one. Total costs related to secondary health care (excluding costs of IFX), were similar before and after the onset of biosimilar IFX.HRQoL and disease activity were after switching from originator to biosimilar IFX comparable, but the costs of biosimilar IFX were only one-third of those of the originator one.

Introduction: Biosimilar infliximab has the potential for appreciable cost savings compared to its reference biologic, but dose escalation is common and increases costs. We compared frequency of dose escalation and associated Medicare-approved amount so as to determine the break-even point at which infliximab dose escalation would offset the cost savings of using a biosimilar, referent to alternatively using golimumab., Methods: We studied Medicare enrollees with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) initiating infliximab or golimumab. Frequency of dose escalation was summarized descriptively over 18 months, as were Medicare-approved amounts for reimbursement. Analyses were repeated conditioning on high adherence (i.e., non-discontinuation, > 10-week gap). Multivariable-adjusted logistic regression and mixed models evaluated factors associated with infliximab dose escalation., Results: A total of 5174 infliximab and 2843 golimumab initiators were observed. Dose escalation was rare for golimumab (5%) but common for infliximab (49%), and was even more common (72%) for infliximab among patients who persisted on treatment. Regardless of dose escalation, the adjusted least square mean dollar amounts were appreciably higher for golimumab ($28,146) than for infliximab ($21,216) and greater among persistent patients (cost difference $9269, favoring infliximab). Only when patients escalated infliximab to ≥ 8 mg/kg every 6 weeks was golimumab IV at break-even or less expensive. After controlling for multiple factors, physician ownership of the infusion center was associated with greater likelihood of infliximab dose escalation (odds ratio = 1.25, 95% CI 1.09-1.44)., Conclusion: Despite frequent dose escalation with infliximab that often increase its dose by threefold or more, the savings from the current price of its biosimilar substantially offsets the costs of an alternative infused TNFi biologic for which no biosimilar is available.

Therapeutic antibodies generation has to be faster with less development costs. This requires combination of in silico predictions associated with cutting edge screening and characterization technologies. Here, non-exhaustive examples illustrate this simultaneity need., (© 2019 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

In 2019, monoclonal antibodies are a worldwide annual business worth of more than 100 billions USD (i.e., about 90 billions €). In addition to their use in the clinics, monoclonal antibodies are also used for diagnosis and remain highly valuable tools for academic basic and translational research. Forty-four years after the seminal publication of Georges Köhler and César Milstein, dozens of meetings and seminars focusing on various aspects of mAbs are held annually all around the world. But forty-four years later, the scientific works and efforts that have made possible this scientific breakthrough are gradually forgotten and, for many, monoclonal antibodies are no more than a multi-million USD business alike any other big business, guided by financial markets and the results of on-going clinical trials… Time has now come for acknowledging and paying tribute to all these scientists involved in basic research, to these researchers passionate about science, some famous, some forgotten, scattered all over the world. They explored during the 20 th century the frontiers of unknown and generated a knowledge that allowed the emergence of a technique that translated finally into what is one of the greatest therapeutic revolution of the modern era., (© 2019 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

Therapeutic antibodies have been used for several decades and their associated market (project numbers, approvals…) continues to grow. Remarkably, a new threshold was crossed in the early 2010's to make this decade the decade of immunotherapy. Over the past 10 years, 62 antibodies have been approved, the number of annual transactions between stakeholders has increased to more than 300 (three times more in 2018 than in 2009). The revolution of immunotherapy in cancer treatment and the recent use of antibodies as first-line treatment are the major turning points in oncology. Thus, the last three years alone represent two thirds of the most important deals of the decade involving immunotherapies. Immunotherapy is currently experiencing a golden age that has resulted in many successes, especially in France where biotechnology companies and large pharmaceutical companies have achieved impressive therapeutic and financial results., (© 2019 médecine/sciences – Inserm.)

In just a few years, immune checkpoint inhibitors have dramatically changed the landscape in oncology, offering durable responses and improved survival for many patients across several tumor types. With more than 3,300 new agents in the immuno-oncology pipeline plus a wide array of combinations being studied, it seems this new era is just getting started. These advances come with a significant caveat: most of the world population does not have access to their benefits, because the yearly cost of a novel anticancer medication can routinely exceed $100,000. There is a large amount of data showing that checkpoint inhibitors have significant activity at doses much lower than those currently approved. We review the evidence for reduced drug dosing as a strategy to increase the number of patients who can be treated and what would be needed to further validate this approach.

Background/aim: Immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) are changing cancer treatment in several malignancies, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The introduction of these active new agents is associated with a relevant increase of costs and it is, therefore, important to create a balance between the costs of treatment and the added value represented by the improvement of the clinical parameters of interest such as overall survival (OS). This analysis was conducted to assess the pharmacological costs of first- and second-line treatments with ICIs (pembrolizumab, nivolumab and atezolizumab) for metastatic NSCLC., Materials and Methods: The present evaluation was restricted to phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated the pharmacological costs necessary to get the benefit in OS., Results: Six phase III RCTs were evaluated. Concerning first-line, the lowest cost per month of OS-gain was associated with the use of pembrolizumab at 2,734 €. Concerning second-line, the lowest cost per month of OS-gain was associated with the use of atezolizumab at 3,724 €., Conclusion: Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab are cost-effective in both first and second-line treatment for metastatic NSCLC, respectively., (Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)