The case of tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: a budget impact analysis

Valuing Treatment With Infliximab for Ankylosing Spondylitis Using a Willingness-to-Pay Approach

OBJECTIVE

To investigate willingness to pay (WTP) for treatment with infliximab by patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and explore factors associated with WTP.

METHODS

Data from 85 patients participating in the European AS Infliximab Cohort (EASIC) open-label extension of the AS Study for the Evaluation of Recombinant Infliximab Therapy (ASSERT) were used. WTP was included at baseline in EASIC and comprised a hypothetical scenario exploring whether the patient would be willing to pay for beneficial effects of infliximab and, if so, what amount they would be willing to pay per administration. Factors associated with WTP were explored using zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regressions.

RESULTS

Of the 85 patients, 63 (74.1%) were willing to pay, and among these, the mean amount they were willing to pay per administration was €275 (median €100 [interquartile range €50-200]). Multivariable ZINB analysis showed that Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 20% improvement (ASAS20) response was associated with a 7-fold lower likelihood to pay 0 euros (odds ratio [OR] 0.14 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.03-0.71]) and a 3-fold increase in the amount willing to pay (exp(β) = 3.32 [95% CI 1.44-7.69]). In addition, the country of residence was associated with a lower likelihood to pay 0 euros (OR 0.07 [95% CI 0.02-0.36]), while increased age was associated with the amount willing to pay (exp(β) = 1.05 [95% CI 1.01-1.09]).

CONCLUSION

In a hypothetical scenario, three-quarters of patients with AS receiving long-term infliximab stated that they were willing to pay an out-of-pocket contribution for this treatment. Treatment response contributed to the willingness as well as to the amount patients were willing to pay.

Budget impact analysis of medicines: updated systematic review and implications

This evaluation determines whether published studies to date meet the key characteristics identified for budget impact analyses (BIA) for medicines, accomplished through a systematic review and assessment against identified key characteristics. Studies from 2001-2015 on 'budget impact analysis' with 'drug' interventions were assessed, selected based on their titles/abstracts and full texts, and their characteristics checked according to key criteria. Out of 1,984 studies, 92 were subsequently identified for review. Of these, 95% were published in Europe and the USA. 2012 saw the largest number of publications (16%) with a decline thereafter. 48% met up to 7 out of the 9 key characteristics. Only 22% stated no conflict of interest. The results indicate low adherence to the key characteristics that should be considered for BIAs and strong conflict of interest. This is an issue since BIAs can be of fundamental importance in managing the entry of new medicines including reimbursement decisions.

Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries

The first biosimilar monoclonal antibody (infliximab, CT-P13) was registered by the European Medicines Agency in 2013 for the treatment of several inflammatory conditions including rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Biosimilar infliximab is first being marketed in the Central and Eastern European countries. This paper presents the estimated budget impact of the introduction of biosimilar infliximab in RA over a 3-year time period in six selected countries, namely Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia. A prevalence-based model was constructed for budget impact analysis. Two scenarios were compared to the reference scenario (RSc) where no biosimilar infliximab is available: biosimilar scenario 1 (BSc1), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is disallowed, and only patients who start new biological therapy are allowed to use biosimilar infliximab; as well as biosimilar scenario 2 (BSc2), where interchanging the originator infliximab with biosimilar infliximab is allowed, and 80% of patients treated with originator infliximab are interchanged to biosimilar infliximab. Compared to the RSc, the net savings are estimated to be €15.3 or €20.8 M in BSc1 and BSc2, respectively, over the 3 years. If budget savings were spent on reimbursement of additional biosimilar infliximab treatment, approximately 1,200 or 1,800 more patients could be treated in the six countries within 3 years in the two biosimilar scenarios, respectively. The actual saving is most sensitive to the assumption of the acquisition cost of the biosimilar drug and to the initial number of patients treated with biological therapy. The study focused on one indication (RA) and demonstrated that the introduction of biosimilar infliximab can lead to substantial budget savings in health care budgets. Further savings are expected for other indications where biosimilar medicines are implemented.

The economic burden of TNFα inhibitors and other biologic treatments in Norway

OBJECTIVE

Costly biologic therapies have improved function and quality of life for patients suffering from rheumatic and inflammatory bowel diseases. In this survey, we aimed to document and analyze the costs.

METHODS

In 2008, the total costs of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors and other biologic agents in Norway were registered prospectively. In addition to costs, the pattern of use in the four Norwegian health regions was analyzed. The expenses were calculated in Norwegian krone and converted into Euros.

RESULTS

The pattern of use was similar in all four regions, indicating that national guidelines are followed. Whereas the cost was similar in the southeast, western, and central regions, the expenses per thousand inhabitants were 1.56 times higher in the northern region. This indicates that patients in the northern region experienced a lower threshold for access to these drugs. The gap in costs between trusts within northern Norway was about to be closed. The Departments of Rheumatology and Gastroenterology had the highest consumption rates.

CONCLUSION

The total cost of biologic agents was significant. Northern Norway had among the highest consumption rates worldwide. This can partly be explained. Further exploration calls for a national registry for the use of these drugs.

Utilization Trends of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors Among Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis in a United States Observational Cohort Study

Objective.

Studies have suggested that early institution of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors improves functional status and slows radiographic progression among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To determine whether these findings have altered practice patterns, we used the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (CORRONA) registry to assess the pattern of TNF inhibitor utilization in the US over time.

Methods.

Demographics and disease activity data were collected for patients with RA. The trend of TNF inhibitor use during 2002–06 was evaluated prospectively using linear and logistic regression models.

Results.

Of the 11,397 patients with RA, 66% and 34% had established RA and early RA (disease duration < 3 yrs), respectively. The majority of patients were female and Caucasian. Despite comparable levels of disease activity, more of the patients with established RA were taking TNF inhibitors than those with early RA (40% vs 25%; p < 0.0001). The majority of patients (70%) taking TNF inhibitors were also receiving disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. The use of TNF inhibitors increased at a rate of 2.8% per year in established RA and 1.2% per year in early RA. The mean Clinical Disease Activity Index at the start of TNF inhibitors decreased at a rate of −0.233 per quarter (p = 0.006), while the mean Disease Activity Score decreased at a rate of −0.04 per quarter (p = 0.022).

Conclusion.

Utilization of TNF inhibitors in this multicenter, observational US cohort is increasing in both early and established RA, although it is more prominent among patients with established RA. The level of disease activity at which TNF inhibitors were initiated decreased over time in patients with both established and early RA.

Budget-impact analyses: a critical review of published studies

This article reviews budget-impact analyses (BIAs) published to date in peer-reviewed bio-medical journals with reference to current best practice, and discusses where future research needs to be directed. Published BIAs were identified by conducting a computerized search on PubMed using the search term 'budget impact analysis'. The years covered by the search included January 2000 through November 2008. Only studies (i) named by authors as BIAs and (ii) predicting financial consequences of adoption and diffusion of a new health intervention(s) within a specific healthcare setting were included. Relevant studies were evaluated according to the checklist that focuses on issues unique to BIA, highlighting areas of agreement or dissent between published studies and methodological guidelines. A total of 34 studies met the inclusion criteria, the majority published in 2007-8. Of these, 41% were from the US, 54% were prepared for pharmaceuticals and 65% had BIA as their main aim. The published BIAs were heterogeneous in respect of methods for deriving budget-impact estimates, time horizon and population. There is fairly good agreement between published studies and methodological guidelines within the scope of perspective, comparator, cost included and data sources. Specific issues that need to be addressed and/or improved are reporting format, sensitivity analysis and discounting. The results indicate that, recently, BIAs have appeared more frequently in peer-reviewed journals, providing stimulus to development, validation and dissemination of methods. Many published studies fail to reach the desired quality, but this situation should change with good research practice principles that will help codify and clarify important issues and promote standardization and transparency. Future research needs to be directed to quality assurance of published BIAs and investment in data collection for parameters specific to BIAs.

Economic evaluations in rheumatoid arthritis: a critical review of measures used to define health States

We reviewed the clinical measures used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) economic evaluations with respect to their relevance and sensitivity to changes in survival, health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and costs. We compared the measures from the economic perspective and discussed the validity of methods used to extrapolate beyond the trial data. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in RA were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and NHS EED databases. Studies were retained if they extrapolated beyond randomized controlled trial evidence using relationships between clinical measures, costs and utilities. In the 22 studies identified, clinical severity was measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) Disability Index, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria, the Disease Activity Score (DAS) or a combination of the HAQ and DAS. The HAQ is correlated with mortality, costs and HR-QOL instruments, and several studies used linear relationships to model these associations. However, a polynomial relationship or discrete states may be more appropriate for patients at the extremes of the disease spectrum, and numerous HAQ health states may be required to capture differences in mortality risk. While the ACR response criteria is a more comprehensive measure than the HAQ, it is a relative measure, which creates difficulties when estimating absolute changes in HR-QOL, costs and mortality risk. The evidence base linking DAS scores with HR-QOL instruments, costs and mortality is less robust, possibly due to the comparatively recent development of the measure and the limited number of possible scores (mild/moderate/severe). While there is some evidence of a relationship between DAS scores and costs, the DAS does not capture all aspects of HR-QOL, and no significant relationship has been established with mortality risk. Evidence suggests the HAQ to be the primary clinical measure for use in economic evaluations as it is measured in almost all clinical studies, and is closely correlated to health utilities, mortality and costs. While new developments suggest the sensitivity of health states may be improved by combining the HAQ with measures such as the DAS, further research is required in this area. Further research is also required to explore the advantages in using either continuous or discrete health states.

Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices--budget impact analysis

OBJECTIVES

There is growing recognition that a comprehensive economic assessment of a new health-care intervention at the time of launch requires both a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA). National regulatory agencies such as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in England and Wales and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee in Australia, as well as managed care organizations in the United States, now require that companies submit estimates of both the cost-effectiveness and the likely impact of the new health-care interventions on national, regional, or local health plan budgets. Although standard methods for performing and presenting the results of CEAs are well accepted, the same progress has not been made for BIAs. The objective of this report is to present guidance on methodologies for those undertaking such analyses or for those reviewing the results of such analyses.

METHODS

The Task Force was appointed with the advice and consent of the Board of Directors of ISPOR. Members were experienced developers or users of budget impact models, worked in academia, industry, and as advisors to governments, and came from several countries in North America, Oceana, Asia, and Europe. The Task Force met to develop core assumptions and an outline before preparing a draft report. They solicited comments on the outline and two drafts from a core group of external reviewers and more broadly from the membership of ISPOR at two ISPOR meetings and via the ISPOR web site.

RESULTS

The Task Force recommends that the budget impact of a new health technology should consider the perspective of the specific health-care decision-maker. As such, the BIA should be performed using data that reflect, for a specific health condition, the size and characteristics of the population, the current and new treatment mix, the efficacy and safety of the new and current treatments, and the resource use and costs for the treatments and symptoms as would apply to the population of interest. The Task Force recommends that budget impact analyses be generated as a series of scenario analyses in the same manner that sensitivity analyses would be provided for CEAs. In particular, the input values for the calculation and the specific cost outcomes presented (a scenario) should be specific to a particular decision-maker's population and information needs. Sensitivity analysis should also be in the form of alternative scenarios chosen from the perspective of the decision-maker. The primary data sources for estimating the budget impact should be published clinical trial estimates and comparator studies for efficacy and safety of current and new technologies as well as, where possible, the decision-maker's own population for the other parameter estimates. Suggested default data sources also are recommended. These include the use of published data, well-recognized local or national statistical information and in special circumstances, expert opinion. Finally, the Task Force recommends that the analyst use the simplest design that will generate credible and transparent estimates. If a health condition model is needed for the BIA, it should reflect health outcomes and their related costs in the total affected population for each year after the new intervention is introduced into clinical practice. The model should be consistent with that used for the CEA with regard to clinical and economic assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

The BIA is important, along with the CEA, as part of a comprehensive economic evaluation of a new health technology. We propose a framework for creating budget impact models, guidance about the acquisition and use of data to make budget projections and a common reporting format that will promote standardization and transparency. Adherence to these proposed good research practice principles would not necessarily supersede jurisdiction-specific budget impact guidelines, but may support and enhance local recommendations or serve as a starting point for payers wishing to promulgate methodology guidelines.

Infusion services in the gastroenterology practice

Gastroenterology practices looking to diversify their services may want to consider infusion therapies as an opportunity to provide a valuable service to patients and create an additional revenue stream. Although patients with gastrointestinal diseases may benefit from such infusions as crystalloid fluids for rehydration or iron for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease is currently the only infusion therapy likely to be of economic benefit to the practice. The focus of this article is on the infusion of biologic agents, and it is assumed that such therapies will continue to play an important role in the management of inflammatory bowel disease for many years.