Search

Objectives: To evaluate the pricing of etanercept (ETN) reference and biosimilar drugs in a changing competitive to monopolized market., Methods: We conducted a comprehensive, retrospective analysis of ETN market competition, specifically changes in tender price based on shifts in market monopoly, including the effects on cost evolution, in the off-patent market in Poland. We included a total of 473 tenders for ETN purchase in dedicated biologic drug reimbursement programs, covering both pre-filled syringes and automatic injectors. This study covers the timeframe from November 2017 to December 2023, throughout which we evaluated a unique setting of ETN market re-monopolization from the perspective of payer, hospital and patient benefits resulting from changing cost calculations., Results: Between 2017 and 2022, Erelzi was recorded as having the largest total tender volume (59%), with a mean price [per ETN daily defined dose (DDD)] of €7.28, followed by Enbrel (31%, €8.34) and Benepali (10%, €9.45), respectively. Over the last 6 months of waning market competition, the mean price for winning bids was estimated at €5.69. After market re-monopolization by an ETN biosimilar, the mean price of winning bids increased to €8.09, and continued to increase (€9.71) in the last 6 months of available follow-up. In contrast to the competitive era, no significant relationship between tender volume and winning price was recorded after re-monopolization. In the most recent tenders, mean ETN prices increased up to €15.82, nearly tripling the lowest prices of the competitive market period. In the early re-monopolization market, mean annual treatment cost per patient is estimated at over €3800, which exceeds therapy costs in the prior competitive market years, and is expected to increase to over €6200 based on the most recent tenders. On a healthcare system level, this corresponds to over €3.42 million excess costs due to market monopoly. Higher ETN prices resulted in downstream failure of regulatory incentives to promote affordable biologics. Due to higher pricing, hospitals lost over an estimated €2.52 million, with possible risk of treatment restrictions. For the same reason, the public payer achieved comparable savings, allowing for partial coverage of higher reimbursement expenses., Conclusions: This nation-level scenario of market re-monopolization by a biosimilar drug confirms net loss and excess costs for the healthcare payer, as can be expected from economic theory. The upwards drug repricing and restriction of treatment availability occurs much more rapidly than the decrement in a period of market competition., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To evaluate the impact of the entry of biosimilars on the pricing of eight biologic products in 57 countries and regions., Methods: We utilized an interrupted time series design and IQVIA MIDAS® data to analyze the annual sales data of eight biologic products (adalimumab, bevacizumab, epoetin, etanercept, filgrastim, infliximab, pegfilgrastim, and trastuzumab) across 57 countries and regions from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. We examined the immediate and long-term changes in biologics ex-manufacturer pricing following the entry of biosimilars to the market., Results: Following the entry of biosimilars, the average price per dose of biologic product was immediately reduced by $438 for trastuzumab, $112 for infliximab, and $110 for bevacizumab. The persistent effect of biosimilars' market entry led to further reductions in price per dose every year: by $49 for adalimumab, $290 for filgrastim, $21 for infliximab, and $189 for trastuzumab. Similarly, we analyzed the impact of biosimilars on four biologics' prices in the US, where the prices of three biologics significantly decreased every year, with filgrastim, pegfilgrastim, and infliximab decreasing by $955, $753, and $104, respectively., Conclusions: The introduction of biosimilars has significantly reduced the prices of biologics both globally and in the US. These findings not only demonstrate the economic benefits of increasing biosimilar utilization, but also emphasize the importance of biosimilars in controlling healthcare costs. Policies should aim to expand the availability of biosimilars to counteract the exponential growth of medical spending caused by the use of biologics., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this article have the following competing interests: H.C. reported receiving the Bristol Myers Squibb-University of North Carolina Global Health Economics and Outcomes Research pre-doctoral fellowship outside the submitted work. S.O. reported receiving research funding from the Merck Investigator Studies Program outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported., (Copyright: © 2024 Chen 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 and Aims: This study aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of the etanercept (ETN) originator (Enbrel) and ETN biosimilar SB4 (Brenzys) as first-line treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), while also exploring the potential cost-savings associated with this approach in Australia., Methods: Clinical data were obtained from the Optimising Patient outcomes in rheumatoLogy Australian real-world data set. Adult patients with RA who had initiated treatment with the ETN originator or biosimilar as their first-recorded biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug between 1 April 2017 and 31 December 2020 were included. Treatment persistence was analysed using survival analysis. Cost-savings were estimated based on data reported by the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise., Results: Propensity score matching followed by inverse probability of treatment weighting selected patients taking originator (n = 209) or biosimilar (n = 141) with similar baseline characteristics and eliminated small differences in baseline disease activity. The median time for 50% of the patients to stop treatment was 19.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.7-36.4 months) for the originator and 22.4 months (95% CI, 15.0-33.1 months) for the biosimilar (P = 0.95). As a result of pricing policies established by the Australian Government, introduction of the ETN biosimilar would have resulted in a cost-savings of over AU$9.5 million for 1 year of treatment for the patients reported in this study., Conclusion: Treatment persistence using either ETN originator or biosimilar was similar. The cost of all brands of ETN markedly reduced upon listing of the ETN biosimilar, resulting in significant savings for the Australian Government., (© 2023 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Introduction: By reducing treatment costs, biosimilars provide an opportunity to improve accessibility to highly effective drugs., Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate access to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKis) among patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases within a 10 year timeframe in Poland., Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis using a nationwide public payer database., Results: By 2022, 11 102, 6602, and 4400 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) were treated with bDMARDs or JAKis. Peak drug utilization was observed for adalimumab, followed by etanercept and tocilizumab. Within the study timeframe, the estimated access to innovative drugs increased from 0.8%, 1.4%, and 0.8% to 3.2%, 8.7%, and 3.5% for RA, PsA, and axSpA patients, respectively. Affordable tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) still predominate among innovative therapeutics, but their market share declined from 87% to 46%. The number of patients treated with other bDMARDs/JAKis almost doubled within the prespecified timeframe. Overall, the average annual treatment cost per patient decreased by 60%, from 7315 EUR to 2886 EUR. Despite recent safety warnings, JAKis appear to be increasingly utilized. Additional analyses regarding the COVID‑19 pandemic showed impaired access to intravenous therapies, but not subcutaneous or oral formulations., Conclusions: In Poland, biosimilars‑related savings improved availability of higher‑priced innovative drugs rather than less costly TNFis. Data‑driven resource allocation and dedicated policy solutions facilitating access to affordable biologics are recommended.

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic progressive inflammatory disease that causes joint destruction. The condition imposes a significant economic burden on patients and societies. The present study is aimed at evaluating the cost-effectiveness of Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept in treating rheumatoid arthritis in Iran., Methods: This is a cost-effectiveness study of economic evaluation in which the Markov model was used. The study was carried out on 154 patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Fars province taking Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept. The patients were selected through sampling. In this study, the cost data were collected from a community perspective, and the outcomes were the mean reductions in DAS-28 and QALY. The cost data collection form and the EQ-5D questionnaire were also used to collect the required data. The results were presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and the sensitivity analysis was used to measure the robustness of the study results. The TreeAge Pro and Excel softwares were used to analyze the collected data., Results: The results showed that the mean costs and the QALY rates in the Infliximab, Adalimumab, and Etanercept arms were $ 79,518.33 and 12.34, $ 91,695.59 and 13.25, and $ 87,440.92 and 11.79, respectively. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, the results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, Infliximab was in the acceptance area and below the threshold in 77% of simulations. The scatter plot was in the mentioned area in 81% and 91% of simulations compared with Adalimumab and Etanercept, respectively, implying lower costs and higher effectiveness than the other two alternatives. Therefore, the strategy was more cost-effective., Conclusion: According to the results of this study, Infliximab was more cost-effective than the other two medications. Therefore, it is recommended that physicians use this medication as the priority in treating rheumatoid arthritis. It is also suggested that health policymakers consider the present study results in preparing treatment guidelines for RA., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Ahmad Gholami et al.)

Background There is over 10 years of clinical experience and evidence to show that biosimilar medicines can be used as safely and effectively in approved therapeutic indications as their originator biological medicines. In Ireland, biosimilar medicine uptake has been very slow, and savings to the health service will only be realised through fostering a competitive biological medicine market. Objective The objective of this study was to investigate the utilisation of biosimilars following a 'best-value biological' medicine initiative for adalimumab and etanercept in the Irish healthcare setting. Methods Data was extracted from the National High Tech claims database and High Tech ordering and management hub for the following drugs; adalimumab (Humira®, Amgevita®, Hulio®, Idacio®, and Imraldi®) and etanercept (Enbrel® and Benepali®). Main outcome measure: uptake of the best-value biological medicines. Results In June 2019, just over 90 patients had been initiated on, or switched to a best-value biological for adalimumab or etanercept. Over the next 12 months this increased to over 8500 patients. With the best-value biologicals accounting for approximately 50 % of market share in June 2020, the combined estimated savings and avoided costs are €22.7 million to date. The gain-share prescribing incentive has raised over €3.6 million for the specialties to invest back into patient care. Conclusion Against the background of a finite healthcare budget, this study shows that increasing use of biosimilars can create the financial savings and space to invest in new innovative therapies for the benefit of many patients., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature.)

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

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

Background: We aimed to examine the uptake of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and its economic implication for healthcare expenditure., Methods: Using Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patient Samples, we extracted RA patients who used biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2009 and 2018. Descriptive statistics were used to explain the basic features of the data. We calculated the proportion of users of each bDMARD among total patients with bDMARDs half-yearly. We assessed changes in the utilization proportions of bDMARDs including 4 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and 2 non-TNFis, which have been approved for RA in Korea: etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, tocilizumab, and abatacept, and analyzed the changes in market share of biosimilars among the bDMARDs after their introduction. Overall trends of medical costs for each bDMARD were presented over the 10-year period., Results: Since the introduction of the biosimilar TNFis in 2012, the proportion of their use among bDMARDs steadily increased to 15.8% in 2018. While there has been a gradual increase in the use of biosimilar TNFis, the use of the corresponding originators has been decreasing. The introduction of biosimilar TNFis has resulted in a decrease in the medical costs of patients using either originator or biosimilar TNFis., Conclusion: In Korea, the proportional use of biosimilar TNFis has gradually increased since their introduction. The availability of less expensive biosimilar TNFis seems to have brought about a decrease in the medical costs of users of the originators., Competing Interests: Yoon-Kyoung Sung has received research grants from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Pfizer, and JW Pharmaceutical. Soo-Kyung Cho, Sun-Young Jung, Hyoungyoung Kim, Yeo-Jin Song, and Kyungeun Lee have nothing to declare., (© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

The aim of the study was to estimate the annual direct costs of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to establish possible factors associated with those costs. The main data source was the Moroccan registry of biological therapies in rheumatic diseases (RBSMR Registry). We included patients with available 1-year data. Variables related to socio-economic status, disease and biological therapy were collected. Direct costs included prices of biologics, costs of infusions, and subcutaneous injections. Differences in costs across groups were tested by Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Correlations analysis was performed in search of factors associated with high costs. We included 197 rheumatoid arthritis patients. The mean age was 52.3 ± 11 years, with female predominance 86.8%. Receiving one of the following therapies: rituximab (n = 132), tocilizumab (n = 37), or TNF-blockers (n = 28). Median one-year direct costs per patient were €1665 [€1472-€9879]. The total annual direct costs were € 978,494. Rituximab, constituted 25.7% of the total annual budget. TNF-blockers and tocilizumab represented 27.3% and 47% of this overall budget, respectively. Although the costs were not significantly different in terms of gender or level of study, the insurance type significantly affected the cost estimation. A positive correlation was found between the annual direct cost and body mass index (r = 0.15, p = 0.04). In Morocco, a developing country, the annual direct costs of biological therapy are high. Our results may contribute to the development of strategies for better governance of these costs.

In 2018, TNFα inhibitors were the highest cost drug class for Canadian public drug programs. In 2019, two Canadian provinces announced mandatory nonmedical switching policies in an attempt to reduce their costs by increasing biosimilar uptake. The national impact of similar policies across Canada is unknown. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of monthly publicly funded prescription claims for infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab between June 2015 and December 2019. We reported the market share of biosimilars for infliximab and etanercept in 2019 for each province and estimated the cost savings that public payers could have realized in 2019 if mandatory switching policies had been implemented across Canada, including a sensitivity analysis, which assumed that governments receive a 25% rebate on all biologics. Provincial drug programs spent CAD $991.84 million on infliximab, etanercept, and adalimumab in 2019, and, when biosimilars were available, they constituted only 15.5% of national utilization of these drugs. In British Columbia, the implementation of a mandatory switching policy for patients with rheumatic conditions increased the biosimilar market share of infliximab and etanercept by 299% (from 19.7% to 78.5%). If applied nationwide to all three biologics for all indications, we estimate such policies could lead to annual savings of between CAD $179.71 million and CAD $425.64 million nationally. The overall market share of biosimilars remains low in all provinces where mandatory switching policies have not been introduced. The cost implications of successfully increasing biosimilar uptake would be substantial, particularly as more biosimilars reach the Canadian market., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

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

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

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

Background: Etanercept (ETN) and adalimumab (ADA) are tumor necrosis factor inhibitors indicated for treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and are used as monotherapy or in combination with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as methotrexate (MTX). Data on treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA as monotherapies or in combination therapy with MTX are lacking in biologic DMARD (bDMARD)-naive patients with RA., Objective: To evaluate treatment patterns and costs of ETN and ADA monotherapy and combination therapy in bDMARD-naive patients with RA., Methods: Data from adult bDMARD-naive patients with RA were evaluated according to index therapy (ADA or ETN as monotherapy or combination therapy with MTX) in a retrospective cohort study using the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental Databases from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2017. Participants were bDMARD-naive for ≥ 12 months before initial ETN or ADA pharmacy claim (index date) and had continuous enrollment for ≥ 12 months pre-index and 24 months post-index. Combination therapy cohorts had an MTX claim within 30 days of the index date. Outcomes included persistence (no treatment changes or gap [≥ 60 days]); modifications to index therapy (discontinuation or switching without prior gap, restarting as switch or restart after gap, or MTX initiation/discontinuation); and mean total bDMARD costs for 2 years post-index., Results: Patients on ETN monotherapy (n = 2,064) had higher persistence (26.8% vs. 21.1%, respectively; P < 0.001) on index treatment and received treatment for a longer duration (mean 375.9 days vs. 339.7 days, respectively; P < 0.001) than those on ADA monotherapy (n = 1,528). Regimen changes were more common in patients on ADA monotherapy than patients on ETN monotherapy (38.0% vs. 33.4%, respectively; P = 0.004). More patients on ADA monotherapy added MTX than those on ETN (17.5% vs. 12.6%, respectively; P < 0.001). Overall, 790 patients receiving index monotherapy had a regimen change following a gap (≥ 60 days), with a similar proportion between cohorts. Among these patients, 13.8% restarted index therapy, and 7.9% switched from index therapy. Significantly more patients receiving ETN monotherapy restarted their index regimen after a gap than those receiving ADA monotherapy (14.9% vs. 12.2%, respectively; P = 0.023). The proportion of patients persistent on combination therapy was similar between the ETN and ADA combination therapy cohorts (21.9% vs. 22.2%, respectively; P = 0.818). Treatment pattern rates were similar regardless of index combination therapy. Overall, costs for ADA were consistently higher within the index regimen throughout the follow-up period irrespective of MTX., Conclusions: ETN monotherapy as first-line treatment was associated with higher persistence, lower rate of MTX supplementation, and lower bDMARD costs than ADA monotherapy. ETN monotherapy may represent a less costly option for achieving treatment targets in bDMARD-naive patients with RA., Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Amgen. Tkacz, Henderson DeYoung, and Wilson are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen for this study. Collier and Oko-osi are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at AMCP Nexus 2018; October 25-28, 2018; Orlando, FL.

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disease that requires long-term treatment to improve or maintain stable disease activity. Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), a class of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD), are effective at treating symptoms and inhibiting joint progression. Although treatment changes are not recommended in patients with stable disease, health plans have recently enacted formulary changes with higher copayments that could disrupt patient access to TNFis., Objective: To assess the association of formulary copayment changes with real-world treatment patterns, treatment effectiveness, and health care costs among bDMARD-naive patients with RA receiving the TNFi etanercept., Methods: This retrospective observational cohort analysis used the IBM Watson Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database. Adult patients with RA with 6 months of stable etanercept use (no refill gap ≥ 45 days) from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2015, were selected and the index date was set to the first fill date after the stable-use period. Average etanercept copayment was calculated at the drug-plan level. Copayment change was defined as a monthly increase of at least $40 to account for copayment changes attributable to etanercept wholesale acquisition costs between 2014 and 2015. This amount also corresponded to the 90th percentile of average plan-level changes in etanercept copayments in the database, representing an average change in copayment by a payer. Patients were followed ≥ 12 months before and after the index date to track etanercept treatment changes and ≥ 12 months after a treatment change to track costs after etanercept copayment changes. Etanercept persistence, bDMARD switching, refill gaps, and treatment effectiveness (using a validated effectiveness algorithm) were described for patients with or without copayment change during the 12 months post-index or postchange. We also assessed the mean total of all-cause and RA-related expenditure during the 12-month post-index (or postchange) period., Results: 1,970 stable patients met study inclusion criteria (mean [standard deviation] age: 50.3 [9.5] years; 77.8% female) and were evaluated. Of these, 133 (6.8%) patients had a copayment change ≥$40 during follow-up. Overall, most patients (60.3%) persisted on etanercept for the 12-month follow-up period, while 13.0% switched from etanercept, and 8.1% discontinued (refill gap of ≥ 45 days). Nearly half (48.0%) of all patients were considered effectively treated according to a validated algorithm. Compared with patients without a copayment change, those with a copayment change were more likely to switch biologics (19.5% vs. 12.6%; P = 0.021). Although statistical significance was not reached, patients with a copayment change were less likely to be persistent (54.1% vs. 60.7%; P = 0.135), and less likely to be effectively treated (42.1% vs. 48.4%; P = 0.161) than patients without a copayment change. All-cause and RA-related expenditures at baseline and post-copayment change were similar between patients with and without a copayment change., Conclusions: Changing formulary copayment of etanercept was associated with higher switching without difference in costs or health care utilization between copayment and no copayment change groups., Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Amgen. Bonafede, Manjelievskaia, and Lopez-Gonzalez are employees of IBM Watson Health, which received funding from Amgen to conduct this study. Oko-osi, Collier, and Stolshek are employees and shareholders of Amgen. Gharaibeh was an employee of Amgen at the time of study execution and manuscript drafting. The authors have no other relationships that present a potential conflict of interest. Data pertaining to this study were presented in a poster at the 2018 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL.

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).

Purpose: A rapidly increasing use of biological drugs has led to substantial costs. Shift to biosimilars enables considerable reduction of these costs without jeopardizing the treatment of patients, but most countries have extensive possibilities of untapped cost-savings. The aim of this study was to describe the Danish quick and near-complete implementation of the two first TNF inhibitor biosimilars (infliximab and etanercept)., Methods: We shed light on the considerations and experiences made during the implementation, and present key figures from the implementation., Results: The infliximab biosimilar constituted 90.6% of the total amount of infliximab four months following patent expiration of the biooriginator. Similar results were seen for etanercept biosimilar. Substantial cost reductions were experienced in the way that e.g. the infliximab-shift reduced cost by two thirds., Conclusion: We believe that a thorough preparation and an organizational setting supporting the implementation is crucial for the successful implementation. This same implementation model will be used for future biosimilars.

Objective: This study aimed to explore the cost-effectiveness of etanercept plus methotrexate (ETN+MTX) compared to triple disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in treating Chinese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients., Methods: The 134 Chinese RA patients who were about to initiate ETN+MTX or triple DMARDs therapy based on treat-to-target strategy were consecutively recruited and categorized into ETN+MTX group (N = 49) or triple DMARDs group (N = 85). Treatment efficacy was assessed at month 3 (M3)/M6/M9/M12 after initiation of treatment. Also, 1-year treatment cost was evaluated, and cost-effectiveness analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted., Results: RA patients in ETN+MTX group exhibited similar disease activity and quality of life at each time point while elevated 28-joint disease activity score based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) change (M0-M12) and low disease activity rate compared with triple DMARDs group. For 1-year treatment cost, ETN+MTX required increased drug cost, decreased other medical cost, and finally elevated total cost compared with triple DMARDs. Meanwhile, compared to triple DMARDs, ETN+MTX produced an additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of 0.015, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥2,939,506.7 per QALY that was 53.1 folds of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. More interestingly, sensitivity analysis revealed that the ETN price had to be reduced at least by 71.3% before ETN+MTX became cost-effectiveness compared to triple DMARDs., Conclusion: ETN+MTX is less cost-effective in treating Chinese RA patients compared with triple DMARDs.

Aims: To estimate the cost impact of non-medical switching from originator to biosimilar etanercept in stable patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the UK. Materials and methods: A cohort-based decision tree model was developed with a 1-year time horizon. The model population included patients with stable RA (patients who responded to originator etanercept treatment with no treatment changes in the previous 6 months). Patients could undergo a non-medical switch to a biosimilar and then switch treatment again, if medically required, after 3-6 months. Data on the proportion of patients switching therapies, baseline healthcare resource use, and impact of switching on resource use were sourced from a survey of 150 rheumatologists from EU5 markets (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). The average impact of switching was evaluated as mean values for change in resource utilization due to switching. Also, low- and high-impact scenarios (lower and upper values of the 95% confidence intervals for change in resource utilization due to switching) were modelled as sensitivity analyses. Cost data came from published UK sources. Results: The model assumed that 5,000 patients were treated with originator etanercept, with 1,259 (25.2%) switching to a biosimilar. Of those, 875 (69.5%) and 384 (30.5%) switched to SB4 and GP2015, respectively. After 3 months, 26.3% of patients who switched treatments did so again: 8.3% back to originator, 3.8% to the other biosimilar, and 14.2% to another biologic. Although originator etanercept was more expensive than the biosimilars, switching was more costly than continuous originator treatment across all impact scenarios. Switching treatment chains had higher overall annual per-patient costs than continuous originator treatment. Switching was associated with increased healthcare resource use. Limitations: Results from this analysis are not transferable to other (non-RA) etanercept indications. Conclusion: Non-medical switching can result in increased payer costs because of increased healthcare resource use following switching.

Background and Objectives: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with an estimated prevalence in Spain of 2.3% of the population. Approximately 30% of patients have moderate-to-severe forms. Treatment with biologic agents is proving to be a step forward in the management of the disease, although these treatments are very expensive. The objective of this study was to determine the efficiency, in terms of cost per number needed to treat (NNT), of the biologic drugs available in Spain for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis., Methods: NNT data were obtained from a network meta-analysis that included all randomized clinical trials of biologic drugs sold in Spain. The cost of each treatment was calculated based on the approved dosage for the first year of treatment, as indicated in the Summary of Product Characteristics. These data were used to calculate the cost per NNT of the drugs for various PASI scores (75, 90, and 100). A sensitivity analysis was performed taking into consideration only the PASI-response measurement time (after 10, 12, or 16 weeks, depending on the drug)., Results: The order of efficiency, from most to least efficient, in the case of a PASI 75 response was ixekizumab > ustekinumab 45mg > ustekinumab 90mg > secukinumab > infliximab > etanercept > adalimumab. The order for PASI 90 was ixekizumab >secukinumab >ustekinumab 45mg > ustekinumab 90mg > infliximab > adalimumab > etanercept. The order for PASI 100 was ixekizumab > secukinumab > infliximab > ustekinumab 90mg > ustekinumab 45mg > adalimumab > etanercept. The sensitivity analysis showed some changes in the order, depending on the response-assessment period., Conclusions: The findings show a link between the efficacy of the biologic therapies available in Spain for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and their efficiency. Ixekizumab had the lowest cost per NNT for all PASI-response scores (75, 90, and 100) during the first year of treatment., (Copyright © 2018 AEDV. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Assess the cost-effectiveness (US healthcare payer perspective) of sarilumab subcutaneous (SC) 200 mg + methotrexate versus conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) or targeted DMARD + methotrexate for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in adults with inadequate response to methotrexate., Methods: Microsimulation based on patient profiles from MOBILITY (NCT01061736) was conducted via a 6-month decision tree and lifetime Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Treatment response at 6 months was informed by a network meta-analysis and based on American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response. Responders: patients with ACR20 response who continued with therapy; non-responders: ACR20 non-responders who transitioned to the subsequent treatment. Utilities and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated via mapping 6-month ACR20/50/70 response to relative change in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index score (short term) and based on published algorithms (long term). Direct costs considered drugs (wholesale acquisition costs), administration and routine care., Results: Lifetime QALYs and costs for treatment sequences on the efficiency frontier were 3.43 and $115,019 for active csDMARD, 5.79 and $430,918 for sarilumab, and 5.94 and $524,832 for etanercept (all others dominated). Sarilumab was cost-effective versus tocilizumab and csDMARD (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $84,079/QALY and $134,286/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested comparable costs and slightly improved health benefits for sarilumab versus tocilizumab, irrespective of threshold., Conclusion: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA, sarilumab 200 mg SC every 2 weeks + methotrexate can be considered a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and greater health benefits than alternative treatment sequences (+ methotrexate) beginning with adalimumab, certolizumab, golimumab and tofacitinib and below commonly accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds against tocilizumab + methotrexate or csDMARD active treatment., Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Background: Diverging approaches towards market entry and uptake of biosimilars, even within a country, leads to regional variation in biosimilar use. This is the case in Sweden, where the 21 county councils control the healthcare budget and offer regional guidance., Objectives: This study aimed to analyse the market dynamics of originator and biosimilar etanercept (outpatient setting) in the different counties of Sweden, and examine the influence of local policy measures and practices, in addition to national policy., Methods: This study was performed in three steps: (1) a structured review of the literature on (biosimilar) policies in Sweden; (2) analysis of market data on the counties' originator and biosimilar etanercept uptake (quarter two 2012 to quarter four 2017) provided by IQVIA™; and (3) discussion of findings in face-to-face semi-structured interviews with the national pricing and reimbursement agency, key experts in the county councils of Skåne, Västra Götaland and Stockholm, and an industry representative., Results: Notwithstanding the existence of a national managed entry agreement for etanercept, wide variations in biosimilar market shares between counties were observed (40-82% in 2017). Over time, early and late adopters of biosimilar etanercept can be distinguished. In quarter four 2017, biosimilar market shares of all counties slightly decreased in accordance with the lower priced originator product from 1 October 2017. As prescriptions for treatment with etanercept are often provided for a year, two approaches are possible to switch patients: active pullback of prescriptions resulting in additional workload, or wait until the patient's next visit. Qualitative analysis indicated that the choice to use the biosimilar or the originator product depends on differences in rebated prices of the biosimilar and originator product, the presence of key opinion leaders, local guidelines, and financial streams and local gainsharing arrangements. Our estimates of current rebated prices and costs after gainsharing for the county councils and Government reveal only limited price differences between products., Conclusions: Regional variations in use of biosimilar etanercept can be seen although prices are coordinated nationally. This suggests that counties react differently to price differences and highlights the role of local policy and attitudes of stakeholders towards biosimilars and switching. It seems that some counties are hesitant to switch patients, as it is associated with an increased administrative workload that might not be compensated for by savings associated with a lower priced product.

Background: There is limited evidence regarding biologics dosing patterns and its costs among psoriasis patients in the United Kingdom (UK). Objective: This retrospective study assessed biologics dose increase beyond labelled dose and associated UK pharmacy costs in moderate to severe psoriasis patients. Methods: Adult psoriasis patients on biologic prescription for ≥12 continuous months between January 2010 and March 2015 with their diagnosis recorded in the UK Hospital Treatment Insights Database within one month of such prescription were included. The proportion of patients receiving ≥30% higher the average daily maintenance dose as per the UK product label, and associated 12-month costs were reported. Results: The study included 362 patients, receiving adalimumab (48%), etanercept (17%), ustekinumab (12%), and infliximab (23%). Beyond labelled dose increase was noted in 14% adalimumab, 20% etanercept, 18% ustekinumab and 28% infliximab patients with an associated mean annual extra cost per patient of £7936, £5912, £2422 and £2275, respectively. Conclusion: Dose increase beyond labelled dose of biologics was commonly observed in moderate to severe psoriasis in the UK and resulted in substantial annual incremental pharmacy costs.

Objective: To study acceptance rate and factors influencing acceptance of the switch from originator etanercept (Enbrel©) to biosimilar etanercept (SB4, Bénépali©) in patients with rheumatic disease., Methods: Patients with a well-controlled rheumatic disease consulting in our rheumatology department were offered the switch for SB4. After oral and written information concerning biosimilar, free choice to accept the switch was left to the patients. The main outcome was primary switch acceptance rate defined by switch acceptance during the initial consult. Real switch adherence, socio-cultural factors and beliefs influencing switch acceptance rate were retrieved during a telephonic interview at distance from the consultation., Results: Fifty-two patients were eligible for the switch: 32 (62%) with spondyloarthritis and 20 (38%) with rheumatoid arthritis. The primary acceptance rate was 92% (48/52). Patients refusing the switch were more likely to report a bad opinion on generic drugs (100% vs 11%, p < 0.001). Other patient characteristics were roughly identical except for a statistical trend in the refusal group toward older age (61.4vs 50.7years, p = 0.08) and longer disease duration (26vs 12.1years, p = 0.05). Despite initial acceptance, two patients did not begin SB4 after receiving negative information by their regular pharmacist. Real SB4 switch rate was 85% (44/52) and 86% (38/44) of patients reported a good experience of the switch., Conclusions: Acceptance rate of the switch from originator to biosimilar etanercept is high. Patient information, physician and pharmacist knowledge on biosimilars should be taken into account in order to improve their diffusion., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin 17A, has demonstrated strong and sustained efficacy in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis in clinical trials., Objective: This analysis compared the cost per responder of secukinumab as first biologic treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, with adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept and ustekinumab in Germany., Methods: A 52-week decision-tree model was developed. Response to treatment was assessed based on the likelihood of achieving a predefined Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response to separate the cohort into responders (PASI ≥75), partial responders (PASI 50 to 74) and non-responders (PASI <50). Responders at week 16 continued initial treatment, whereas partial responders and non-responders were switched to standard of care, which included methotrexate, cyclosporine, phototherapy and topical corticosteroids. Sustained response was defined as 16-week response maintained at week 52. A German healthcare system perspective was adopted. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison; 2016 resource unit costs from national sources; and adverse events and discontinuation rates from the literature. We calculated cost per PASI 90 responder over week 16 and week 52, as well as cost per sustained responder between weeks 16 and 52., Results: Secukinumab had the lowest cost per PASI 90 responder over 16 weeks (€18 026) compared with ustekinumab (€18 080), adalimumab (€23 499), infliximab (€29 599) and etanercept (€34 037). Over 52 weeks, costs per PASI 90 responder ranged from €42 409 (secukinumab) to €70 363 (etanercept). Likewise, secukinumab had the lowest cost per sustained 52-week PASI 90 responder (€22 690) compared with other biologic treatments. Sensitivity analyses, excluding patient copayments, showed similar results., Conclusions: First biologic treatment with secukinumab for moderate to severe psoriasis is cost-effective, with lowest cost per responder compared with other biologic treatments in Germany., (© 2018 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence invited Eli Lilly and Company Ltd, the company manufacturing ixekizumab (tradename Taltz ® ), to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab. Ixekizumab was compared with tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab), ustekinumab, secukinumab, best supportive care and, if non-biological treatment or phototherapy is suitable, also compared with systemic non-biological therapies and phototherapy with ultraviolet B radiation for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Center, was commissioned as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article presents a summary of the company submission, the Evidence Review Group report and the development of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance for the use of this drug in England and Wales by the Appraisal Committee. The Evidence Review Group produced a critical review of the clinical and cost effectiveness of ixekizumab based on the company submission. The company submission presented three randomised controlled trials identified in a systematic review. All randomised controlled trials were phase III, multicentre placebo-controlled trials including 3866 participants with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Two trials also included an active comparator (etanercept). All randomised controlled trials showed statistically significant increases in two primary outcomes, static Physician Global Assessment (0,1) and improvement of 75% from baseline in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. Ixekizumab was generally well tolerated in the randomised controlled trials, with similar discontinuation rates because of adverse events as placebo or etanercept. The most frequent adverse events of special interest were infections and injection-site reactions. The company submission also included a network meta-analysis of relevant comparators. The Evidence Review Group highlighted some issues regarding the systematic review process and an issue with the generalisability of the findings in that the trials failed to include patients with moderate psoriasis according to a widely used definition. This issue was considered by the Appraisal Committee and the population was deemed generalisable to patients in England and Wales. Based on the network meta-analysis, the Appraisal Committee concluded that ixekizumab was more clinically effective than adalimumab and ustekinumab, and agreed it was likely that ixekizumab was similarly effective compared with secukinumab and infliximab while tolerability was similar to other biological treatments approved for treating psoriasis. The Evidence Review Group's critical assessment of the company's economic evaluation highlighted a number of concerns, including (1) the use of relative outcomes such as Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response to model the cost effectiveness; (2) the exclusion of the consequences of adverse events; (3) the assumption of no utility gain in the induction phase; (4) equal annual discontinuation rates for all treatments; (5) the selection of treatment sequences for consideration in the analyses and; (6) the transparency of the Visual Basic for Applications code used to develop the model. Although some of these issues were adjusted in the Evidence Review Group base case, the Evidence Review Group could not estimate the impact of all of these issues, and thus acknowledges that there are still uncertainties concerning the cost-effectiveness evidence. In the Evidence Review Group base-case incremental analysis, the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £25,532 per quality-adjusted life-year gained vs. the etanercept sequence. Ixekizumab in the first-line sequence has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £39,129 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with the treatment sequence incorporating ixekizumab in the second line. Consistent with its conclusion regarding clinical effectiveness, the Appraisal Committee concluded that the cost effectiveness of ixekizumab for treating moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis was similar to that of other biological treatments, already recommended in previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. The committee concluded that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was within the range that could be considered a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources.

The role of biologic therapies in the field of dermatology continues to evolve as newer drugs and biosimilars are introduced to the U.S. market. Prescribing patterns and expenditures regarding biologic drugs are not well described. To address this knowledge gap, a retrospective review was conducted using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Part D Prescriber dataset between January 1st, 2013 and December 31st, 2015. The primary outcome was claims per provider per calendar year. Secondary outcomes included drug cost, shared cost per dermatologist, and practice location. Median claims per provider remained stable between 2013 and 2014 (24 versus 23, respectively; P=0.64). The majority of 2015 claims were for adalimumab (50.1%) and etanercept (41.4%). Total spending from Medicare payment data for biologic drugs prescribed by Ohio dermatologists increased by $3 million during the study period. The Gini coefficient for provider contributions to overall costs was 0.47, indicating moderate inequality among Ohio dermatologists. Spending associated with biologic drugs used for dermatologic indications is increasing in Ohio. As the market changes, providers should be aware of these patterns to better care for patients in need of biologic therapies.

Objectives: Studies have reported that the presence of elevated anti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPA)/RF levels, together with joint erosions, is associated with higher disease burden in terms of disability and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Abatacept has been shown to be effective in this patient population with favourable comparative data against adalimumab. However, few studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of abatacept in this population to similar treatments such as TNFs. The objective of the study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of abatacept to adalimumab as a first bDMARD in ACPA-positive RA patients who failed treatment with methotrexate (MTX) in Germany., Methods: A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness, from a payer's perspective, of different treatment sequences in RA over a two year time frame. The effectiveness criteria were defined as achieving the treatment target measured by the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28(CRP)<2.6; "remission"). A treatment switch to a different biologic as 2nd line and 3rd line bDMARD was allowed - in case of not achieving remission with therapy - every 6 months over a two year time period. Effectiveness data was based on randomised controlled trials (RCT) identified by an updated previous systematic literature search by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Costs of medication and other direct medical costs were considered. Cost-effectiveness of RA treatment was investigated in ACPA-positive patients and presented as overall costs per day in remission., Results: For ACPA-positive patients, treatment strategies including early treatment with abatacept had lower total costs per clinical outcome compared to later use. Treatment sequences starting with abatacept resulted in lower costs per day in remission (mean 330 €/day, range 328-333 €/day) compared to sequences starting with adalimumab (mean 384 €/day, range 378-390 €/day). Choice of the second or third biologic in the treatment sequences appears to have little impact on the costs per outcome., Conclusions: The results of this analysis suggest that in ACPA-positive RA patients treatment with abatacept appears to have lower costs per response (remission) compared to treatment with adalimumab as a first bDMARD.

Background: Treatment with biologics may be indicated for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, but comparative evidence on cost-effectiveness is limited. Switching of biologics is common, but it is unclear what the effect is of differences in sequences of biologics., Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different biologic treatment sequences for psoriasis based on real-world evidence., Patients and Methods: A sequence model was developed to evaluate the costs and health effects of three consecutive lines of biologic treatments [for example adalimumab-etanercept-ustekinumab (Ada-Eta-Ust) vs. Eta-Ust-Ada] over a 10-year time horizon in the Netherlands. The model was populated with data from the Dutch BioCAPTURE registry and scientific literature. Analyses were conducted of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and uncertainty was addressed by probabilistic as well as scenario analyses., Results: Treatment of psoriasis with biologics for a 10-year period was estimated to be associated with a cost of €141 962 to €148 442 per patient depending on the treatment sequence used. Cumulative health effects ranged from 7·79 to 8·03 QALYs. Starting with Ada or Ust seems favourable concerning cost and utilities compared with strategies starting with Eta, although credible intervals were partly overlapping., Conclusions: The order in which biologics are used influences treatment cost-effectiveness, both in terms of costs and health effects. Initiation of a biologic treatment sequence for psoriasis might best be done with Ada or Ust; Eta seems less optimal from a health-economic perspective., (© 2017 British Association of Dermatologists.)

Objectives: Switching to a different mechanism of action in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients after a first anti-TNF-α has proved to be effective. The objective of this study was a health economic assessment in Italy., Methods: The study was conducted using a pharmacoeconomic model with a 3-year time horizon. Effectiveness was measured as days gained in low disease activity (LDA; DAS28-ESR <3.2) or in remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6). The model simulated the response to treatments, based on the Rotation Or Change (ROC) trial, the probability of discontinuation and switch to a 3rd-line biologic, and the transition to death. Time on treatment curves for 2nd-line biologics were derived from published Italian real-word data. Costs were estimated based on published sources and Italian prices and tariffs., Results: The switch to tocilizumab after the failure of a first anti-TNF-α was more effective than a second anti-TNF-α, in terms of days in remission (224 vs. 114 days) and of days in LDA (345 vs. 193 days). The cost-consequence ratio with tocilizumab iv was 174 euros/day in remission and 113 euros/day in LDA. With tocilizumab sc the ratio was 181 euros/day in remission and 117 euros/day in LDA. The same ratios for the anti-TNF-α treatments ranged from 233 to Euro 320 euros per day in remission and from 138 to 190 euros per day in LDA., Conclusions: The switch to a different mechanism of action, namely tocilizumab, after the failure of a first anti-TNF-α agent seems a rational strategy for RA patients in the Italian setting.

Background: Previous studies in Taiwan utilizing the Taiwan's National Health Insurance Database (NHIRD) have estimated the direct healthcare costs of RA patients, but they have not focused on patients on bDMARDs, or considered patients' response to therapy., Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the rate of inadequate response for patients newly treated with biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) as well as their costs and resource use., Methods: Data were from the catastrophic illness file within the NHIRD from 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2013. Patients with RA, which was categorized by the presence of a catastrophic illness card, that were previously bDMARD-naïve, were included in this study if they initiated their first bDMARD during the index period. The index period included all of 2010, a pre-index period consisting of the index date- 365 days, and a follow-up period including the index date to 365 days post-index, were also included. Previously biologically-naïve patients were indexed into the study on the date of their first claim for a bDMARD. A validated algorithm was used to examine the rate of inadequate response (IR) in the biologically-naïve cohort of patients. Inadequate responders met one or more of the following criteria during their year of follow-up: low adherence (proportion of days covered <0.80); switched to or added a second bDMARD; added a new conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD); received ≥1 glucocorticoid injection; or increased oral glucocorticoid dosing. All-cause mean annual direct costs and resource use were measured in the year of follow-up. Costs were converted from NT$ to USD using 1 NT$ = 0.033 USD., Results: A total of 818 patients with RA initiated their first bDMARD (54% etanercept and 46% adalimumab) in 2010. After one year of follow-up, 32% (n = 258) were classified as stable, 66% (n = 540) had an IR, and 2% (n = 20) were lost to follow-up. During the follow-up period mean annual total direct costs were $16,136 for stable patients compared to $14,154 for patients with IR. Mean annual non-medication direct costs were $937 for stable patients and $1,574 for patients with IR. Mean annual hospitalizations were higher for patients with IR (0.46) compared to stable patients (0.10) during the one year follow-up period., Conclusions: The majority of patients that were previously naïve to bDMARDs had an IR to their first bDMARD during the year of follow-up. Patients with an IR had numerically increased all-cause resource utilization and non-medication costs during the follow-up period compared to patients with stable disease. This level of IR suggests an unmet need in the RA treatment paradigm.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic condition that affects about 1% of the adult population. In a historical cohort of Minas Gerais State, 11,573 RA patients registered in the Outpatient Information System (SIA) between 2008 and 2013 were identified. For this study we adopted the public funding body's perspective and the values were adjusted by the national inflation index (IPCA) of December 2015. Etanercept was the most expensive treatment. The mean cohort age was 52 years old and most of the patients were women. Multiple regression analysis indicated a negative association between higher expenditure and age, female sex, and diagnosis at entry in the cohort and positive association between high expenditure and the Human Development Index (HDI) of the municipality and use of tumor necrosis factor agents. This study identified the factors that have an impact on RA drug treatment expenditure. Also, we showed that methods that enable extracting demographic and expenditure data of administrative information systems may represent important tools in the construction of economic studies to subsidize economic health evaluations, especially from the standpoint of the managers.

This article is the second part of a trilogy that discusses IP issues related to anti-Tumor Necrosis factor α (TNFα) biologics. TNFα is the world's most valuable target, with accumulated sales of TNFα biologics of 34 bn USD in 2014. While in the first part of this trilogy, Humira was discussed, this second parts discusses the patent strategies of Enbrel, Remicade, Cimzia and Simponi.

Objectives: To evaluate the economic impact of future prescriptions of etanercept and adalimumab biosimilars at the territorial scale covered by PharmAlp'Ain, a hospitals grouping of orders for health products., Methods: Determination of the number and status of patients (naive or in continuation of treatment) from the National Database "Datamart de Consommation Inter-Régimes" of health insurance, concerned by a dispensation in a pharmacy of etanercept or adalimumab in 2015. Calculation of potential savings in case of biosimilar requirements according to 3 hypotheses: 63% (rate observed in a previous study) of initiations are treated with biosimiliaries and the others by princeps (H 1 ); all initiations under biosimilars and continuation therapy with the princeps (H 2 ) or all patients are treated with biosimilars (H 3 )., Results: The annual savings are estimated at 237,000 € with the H 1 hypothesis. In the case of H 2 , the expected savings would be 376,200 € per year. In the case of H 3 , savings for the community could reach almost 1,282,800 € per year., Conclusion: The arrival of biosimilars allows significant savings for medicines market. According to the French recommendations in 2016, the expected savings are between the H 1 and H 2 hypothesis. The rate of penetration of biosimilars depends on many factors such as the involvement of health professionals, patient adherence, or health authority recommendations., (Copyright © 2017 Académie Nationale de Pharmacie. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited., Objective: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO., Methods: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs., Results: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80 mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45 mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300 mg and ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100., Conclusion: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.

BACKGROUND: Newer psoriasis treatments can achieve greater levels of efficacy than older systemic therapies; however, current psoriasis costs are substantial. We sought to estimate costs per additional responder associated with ixekizumab and etanercept, versus placebo, using efficacy data from phase 3 clinical trials (UNCOVER-2 and UNCOVER-3). METHODS: In UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3, patients received subcutaneous placebo, etanercept 50 mg twice weekly (BIW), or ixekizumab one 80 mg injection every 2 weeks (Q2W) after a 160-mg starting dose. Twelve-week induction-phase Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 response rates for ixekizumab, etanercept, and placebo were obtained from pooled data from the overall and United States (US) subgroup intention-to-treat (ITT) populations, and used to calculate numbers needed to treat (NNTs) to achieve one additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 response for ixekizumab Q2W and etanercept BIW versus placebo. Twelve-week drug costs per patient were calculated based on the UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3 dosing schedule and wholesale acquisition costs. Mean costs per additional responder for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 for each treatment versus placebo were calculated for pooled UN-COVER-2/UNCOVER-3 overall and US subgroup ITT populations. RESULTS: Pooled overall ITT population: costs per additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 responder were US $37,540, US $46,299, or US $80,710 for ixekizumab Q2W and US $57,533, US $120,720, or US $404,695 for etanercept BIW, respectively. US subgroup ITT population: costs per additional PASI 75, PASI 90, or PASI 100 responder were US $38,165, US $49,740, or US $93,536 for ixekizumab Q2W and US $69,580, US $140,881, or US $631,875 for etanercept BIW, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve-week costs per additional responder were lower for ixekizumab Q2W than for etanercept BIW across all levels of clearance (PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100) in the pooled UNCOVER-2/UNCOVER-3 overall and US subgroup ITT populations.

Objective: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective but expensive options for treating rheumatoid arthritis. The introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars presents a significant potential cost saving in a financially constrained health system such as the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. This study examines the impact of the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars on the utilisation of bDMARDs and subsequent budget impact., Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis of secondary care utilisation data in rheumatology specialities from the DEFINE database, between March 2014 and February 2017., Results: The cumulative cost savings from the introduction of infliximab and etanercept biosimilars was £38.8 million over 2 years. There was a statistically significant increase in average monthly utilisation of bDMARDs for adalimumab (0.48%), certolizumab pegol (1.90%), golimumab (3.06%), abatacept (2.97%) and tocilizumab (2.24%), but not for etanercept. In contrast, the overall utilisation of infliximab decreased slightly by an average of 0.03% per month. The introduction of infliximab biosimilars negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded infliximab significantly. Similarly, the introduction of an etanercept biosimilar negatively affected the monthly utilisation of branded etanercept significantly., Conclusions: The introduction of bDMARDs biosimilars has resulted in considerable cost savings to the NHS, with the branded products reducing their prices in response to the availability of less expensive biosimilars and competition between the biosimilars themselves. Our results also suggest that when a biosimilar is available for a directly comparable branded molecule, price is the key influencing factor in the prescribing of a specific product.

Aim: Comparing biologic persistence and healthcare costs between rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initiating first- or second-line subcutaneous abatacept, adalimumab, or etanercept., Materials & Methods: Retrospective, observational cohort study, which included adults with RA who initiated either of the three treatments between 29 July 2011 and 1 July 2015. Total healthcare costs were measured during baseline and follow-up. Biologic persistence was compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Subcutaneous abatacept-treated patients had numerically lowest adjusted hazards of nonpersistence and increase from baseline in total healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses measuring outcomes over an alternative follow-up definition produced consistent results., Conclusion: Abatacept-treated RA patients appeared to have the poorest health status yet often had the lowest increase from baseline in healthcare costs and longest duration of biologic persistence.

Objective: To compare the cost consequence of biologic drugs for moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System., Methods: We built a decision tree with a two-year time horizon. Efficacy data for biologics (etanercept, infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab) were drawn from published meta-analyses: PASI75 for the induction phase and PASI90 for the rest of follow-up. Patients with PASI < 75 at week 10-16 were switched to another biologic agent. Efficacy at week 24 was considered the highest possible efficacy for each drug and assumed to remain constant throughout the two-year period. Only drug treatment costs were used. The number needed to treat (NNT), annual cost per patient, annual cost per patient with PASI90 (cost per responder) and cost of primary failure (PASI < 75 at first efficacy evaluation) were calculated., Results: Secukinumab monotherapy was associated with the lowest cost per responder, followed by infliximab and ustekinumab. Treatment sequences starting with secukinumab were the most efficient, having the lowest NNT and cost per responder. Although the annual cost per treatment is similar for all drugs, there are huge differences in the cost per responder., Conclusions: Secukinumab as first-line biologic treatment is the most efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the short-to-medium term.

Introduction: After a patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fails tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment, clinical guidelines support either cycling to another TNFi or switching to a different mechanism of action (MOA), but payers often require TNFi cycling before they reimburse switching MOA. This study examined treatment persistence, cost, and cost per persistent patient among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers., Methods: This study of Commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data from the Optum Research Database included patients with RA and at least one claim for a TNFi (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between January 2012 and September 2015 who changed to another TNFi or a different MOA therapy (abatacept, tocilizumab, or tofacitinib) within 1 year. The index date was the date of the change in therapy. Treatment persistence was defined as no subsequent switch or 60-day gap in therapy for 1 year post-index. RA-related costs included plan-paid and patient-paid amounts for inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy claims. Medication costs included index and post-index costs of TNFi and different MOA therapies., Results: There were 581 (38.3%) MOA switchers and 935 (61.7%) TNFi cyclers. The treatment persistence rate was significantly higher for MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers (47.7% versus 40.2%, P = 0.004). Mean 1-year healthcare costs were significantly lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers for total RA-related costs ($37,804 versus $42,116; P < 0.001) and medication costs ($29,001 versus $34,917; P < 0.001). When costs were divided by treatment persistence, costs per persistent patient were lower among MOA switchers versus TNFi cyclers: $25,436 lower total RA-related cost and $25,999 lower medication costs., Conclusion: MOA switching is associated with higher treatment persistence and lower healthcare costs than TNFi cycling. Reimbursement policies that require patients to cycle TNFi before switching MOA may result in suboptimal outcomes for both patients and payers., Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Introduction: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of psoriasis; however, their use is limited by costs. Ixekizumab was more effective than etanercept in the UNCOVER trials, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved ixekizumab for treating psoriasis. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these therapies is crucial for medical decision making and our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of various ixekizumab dosing frequencies compared with etanercept., Methods: We utilized published data from the UNCOVER comparative efficacy trials, including transitional probabilities and treatment response rates, to create a Markov model simulating the clinical course and cost-effectiveness of three treatment algorithms for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis over 60-weeks: (1) ixekizumab every 2 weeks for 12 weeks then every 4 weeks, (2) ixekizumab every 4 weeks throughout the treatment period, (3) biweekly etanercept for 12 weeks then once weekly. We utilized a standard willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) and Medicaid drug acquisition costs for our calculations., Results: Ixekizumab every 4 weeks was $28,681 (USD) less expensive than biweekly etanercept, and $21,375 less expensive, and 0.006 QALY less effective, than ixekizumab every 2 weeks-- a savings of $28.7 and $21.4 million, respectively, per 1,000 patients. A 95.6% cost reduction to $197.83 per dose is required for ixekizumab every 2 weeks to be more cost-effective than every 4 weeks. Biweekly etanercept requires a 29.5% cost reduction ($743.82 per dose) to be competitive with ixekizumab every 4 weeks., Discussion: This cost-effectiveness model utilizes strong input data but is a limited approximation of real-life scenarios. Treatment with ixekizumab every 2 weeks is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with ixekizumab every 4 weeks at current U.S. market prices. Yet, the U.S. FDA approval and manufacturer's recommendation are for ixekizumab every 2 weeks. Accordingly, we suggested selecting biologic therapies using cost-effectiveness analyses.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(10):964-970.

Background: Infliximab and etanercept biosimilars present significant potential cost savings to the NHS. Patients need to be involved in the decision to use these medicines but there is limited published literature on their knowledge and attitudes about these biosimilars., Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate ankylosing spondylitis and rheumatoid arthritis patients' knowledge and attitudes towards infliximab and etanercept biosimilars in the UK., Methods: A self-administered web survey was conducted among the members of the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society and the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society in the UK between 2 March 2017 and 2 June 2017., Results: A total of 182 patients participated in this survey. The majority of participants (73%) were on etanercept, and 66 and 80% of patients on originator biologic and biosimilars, respectively, understood what biosimilars were. Patients who were currently on biosimilars had greater confidence in their effectiveness and the doctor's decision to initiate than those who were originally on originator biologics that doctors proposed to switch to biosimilars. The majority (82%) of participants on biosimilars thought that biosimilars help to save money for the NHS, while just over half (54%) of participants on the originator biologics thought the cost of treatment should not be considered when prescribing biosimilars., Conclusions: Survey participants had a good knowledge and understanding of biosimilars. Participants on biosimilars were confident and positive about biosimilars' safety, efficacy and switching, whereas participants on the originator biologics were more reluctant to switch to biosimilars. Those patients who expressed concerns felt that more clinical trials on switching biosimilars, better communication and reassurance by healthcare professional teams and further involvement in decision making would increase their acceptance of biosimilars.

Objectives: We assessed the level of maintained effectiveness and associated healthcare costs in stabilised rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients who reduced doses of adalimumab or etanercept., Methods: Eligible patients were identified from a U.S. commercial insurance database using the following criteria: adults with ≥2 RA diagnoses; effectively treated on standard dose of adalimumab or etanercept for a 6-month baseline period; and ≥3 months of dose reduction within a 6-month assessment period following the index date (date of the first reduced dose). Effectiveness was estimated using a validated claims-based algorithm. Multivariate regression models were used to assess maintained effectiveness and healthcare costs in the short-term (months 7-12) and long-term (months 13-24) following the index date, while adjusting for baseline characteristics. Cost per patient maintaining effective treatment (CPME) was calculated as the average total healthcare costs divided by the proportion of patients with maintained effectiveness., Results: Both groups (etanercept=375; adalimumab=610) had 70% females and a mean age of 48 years. Adjusted rates of maintained effectiveness for etanercept vs. adalimumab were 57.5% vs. 64.7% (p=0.028) in the short-term and 44.3% vs. 51.9% (p=0.047) in the long-term. Adjusted healthcare costs were similar for etanercept- and adalimumab-treated patients (short-term: $15,043 vs. $15,041; long-term: $31,461 vs. $30,449). The CPME was $2,915 higher with etanercept-treated patients in short-term and $12,349 higher in long-term compared with adalimumab-treated patients., Conclusions: Among stabilised RA patients who reduced biologic dosing, a greater proportion of adalimumab-treated patients maintained effectiveness than etanercept-treated patients. Adalimumab was associated with a lower total CPME than etanercept.

We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of certolizumab pegol (CZP), a pegylated fc-free anti-TNF, as add-on therapy to methotrexate (MTX) versus etanercept, adalimumab, or golimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) not responding to the conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). A Markov model (6-month cycle length) assessed health and cost outcomes of CZP versus other anti-TNFs recommended for RA in Greece over a patient's lifetime. Following discontinuation of first-line anti-TNF, patients switched to second anti-TNF and then to a biologic with another mode of action. Sequential use of csDMARDs followed third biologic. Clinical data and utilities were extracted from published literature. Analysis was conducted from third-party payer perspective in Greece. Costs (drug acquisition, administration, monitoring, and patient management) were considered for 2014. Results presented are incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) ascertained robustness of base-case findings. Base-case analysis indicated that CZP+MTX was more costly and more effective compared with Etanercept+MTX (base-case ICER: €3,177 per QALY), whilst versus adalimumab/golimumab, CZP was dominant (less costly, more effective). For all comparisons, CZP treatment resulted in greater improvements in life expectancy and QALYs. PSA indicated that at the willingness-to-pay threshold of €34,000/QALY, CZP+MTX was associated with a 71.6, 97.9, or 99.2% probability of being cost-effective versus etanercept, golimumab, or adalimumab, respectively, in combination with MTX. This analysis demonstrates CZP+MTX to be a cost-effective alternative over Etanercept+MTX and a dominant option over Adalimumab+MTX and Golimumab+MTX for management of RA in Greece.