Search

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.

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.

Morphine + midazolam and alfentanil + propofol are regimens offering well tolerated and effective sedation for critically ill patients. However, morphine + midazolam is associated with accumulation in these patients, resulting in prolonged recovery characteristics. Alfentanil+propofol, although more expensive, has a shorter elimination half-life, is not associated with accumulation problems and results in a rapid recovery. This study compared sedation quality, patient recovery characteristics and the cost of alfentanil + propofol and morphine + midazolam for sedating critically ill patients in the intensive care setting. 26 patients were randomly allocated to receive sedation with alfentanil + propofol (n = 17) or morphine + midazolam (n = 9). Outcome measures were the times until extubation, intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and final hospital discharge. Cost analysis assessed both drug-related costs, including drug acquisition and administration, and non-drug-related costs, including bed occupancy. Age, gender, diagnosis, Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores and sedation quality did not differ significantly between groups. The times to extubation and until patients were fit for transfer from ICU were significantly shorter for patients sedated with alfentanil + propofol than for those sedated with morphine + midazolam. The total costs (at the time of the study Pounds 1 was equivalent to $US1.59) for ICU hospital stay per patient for alfentanil + propofol and morphine + midazolam were 3063 Pounds and 9511 Pounds, respectively, because the shorter recovery characteristics of alfentanil + propofol led to a reduction in ICU stay. Corresponding costss for total hospital stay were 6063 Pounds and 13735 Pounds, respectively. In conclusion, alfentanil + propofol has a better pharmacoeconomic profile than morphine + midazolam for sedating critically ill patients in the ICU setting.