Explore the vast range of titles available.

TNF inhibitors have improved treatment of Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, spondyloarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and chronic plaque psoriasis, but are expensive therapies. The aim of NOR-SWITCH was to examine switching from originator infliximab to the less expensive biosimilar CT-P13 regarding efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity. The study is a randomised, non-inferiority, double-blind, phase 4 trial with 52 weeks of follow-up. Adult patients on stable treatment with infliximab originator treated in a hospital setting for at least 6 months were eligible for participation. Patients with informed consent were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either continued infliximab originator or to switch to CT-P13 treatment, with unchanged dosing regimen. Data were collected at infusion visits in 40 Norwegian study centres. Patients, assessors, and patient care providers were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease worsening during 52-week follow-up. 394 patients in the primary per-protocol set were needed to show a non-inferiority margin of 15%, assuming 30% disease worsening in each group. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02148640. Between Oct 24, 2014, and July 8, 2015, 482 patients were enrolled and randomised (241 to infliximab originator, 241 to CT-P13 group; one patient was excluded from the full analysis and safety set for CT-P13) and 408 were included in the per-protocol set (202 in the infliximab originator group and 206 in the CT-P13 group). 155 (32%) patients in the full analysis set had Crohn's disease, 93 (19%) had ulcerative colitis, 91 (19%) had spondyloarthritis, 77 (16%) had rheumatoid arthritis, 30 (6%) had psoriatic arthritis, and 35 (7%) had chronic plaque psoriasis. Disease worsening occurred in 53 (26%) patients in the infliximab originator group and 61 (30%) patients in the CT-P13 group (per-protocol set; adjusted treatment difference −4·4%, 95% CI −12·7 to 3·9). The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups (for serious adverse events, 24 [10%] for infliximab originator vs 21 [9%] for CT-P13; for overall adverse events, 168 [70%] vs 164 [68%]; and for adverse events leading to discontinuation, nine [4%] vs eight [3%], respectively). The NOR-SWITCH trial showed that switching from infliximab originator to CT-P13 was not inferior to continued treatment with infliximab originator according to a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 15%. The study was not powered to show non-inferiority in individual diseases. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services.

Objective The introduction of anti tumour necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) therapy might impact healthcare expenditures, but there are limited data regarding the costs of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) following the introduction of these drugs. We aimed to assess the healthcare costs and productivity losses in a large cohort of IBD patients. Design Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients from seven university hospitals and seven general hospitals were invited to fill-out a web-based questionnaire. Cost items were derived from a 3 month follow-up questionnaire and categorised in outpatient clinic, diagnostics, medication, surgery and hospitalisation. Productivity losses included sick leave of paid and unpaid work. Costs were expressed as mean 3-month costs per patients with a 95% CI obtained using non-parametric bootstrapping. Results A total of 1315 CD patients and 937 UC patients were included. Healthcare costs were almost three times higher in CD as compared with UC, €1625 (95% CI €1476 to €1775) versus €595 (95% CI €505 to €685), respectively (p<0.01). Anti-TNFα use was the main costs driver, accounting for 64% and 31% of the total cost in CD and UC. Hospitalisation and surgery together accounted for 19% and <1% of the healthcare costs in CD and 23% and 1% in UC, respectively. Productivity losses accounted for 16% and 39% of the total costs in CD and UC. Conclusions We showed that healthcare costs are mainly driven by medication costs, most importantly by anti-TNFα therapy. Hospitalisation and surgery accounted only for a minor part of the healthcare costs.

Background In Crohn’s disease patients failing infliximab therapy, interventions defined by an algorithm based on infliximab and anti-infliximab antibody measurements have proven more cost-effective than intensifying the infliximab regimen. Aim This study investigated long-term economic outcomes at the week 20 follow-up study visit and after 1 year. Clinical outcomes were assessed at week 20. Methods Follow-up from a 12-week, single-blind, clinical trial where patients with infliximab treatment failure were randomized to infliximab intensification (5 mg/kg every 4 weeks) ( n  = 36), or algorithm-defined interventions ( n  = 33). Accumulated costs, expressed as mean costs per patient, were based on the Danish National Patient Registry. Results At the scheduled week 20 follow-up study visit, response and remission rates were similar in all study subpopulations between patients treated by the algorithm or by infliximab intensification. However, the sum of healthcare costs related to Crohn’s disease was substantially lower (31 %) for patients randomized to algorithm-based interventions than infliximab intensification in the intention-to-treat population: $11,940 versus $17,236; p  = 0.005. For per-protocol patients ( n  = 55), costs at the week 20 follow-up visit were even lower (49 %) in the algorithm group: $8,742 versus $17,236; p  = 0.002. Figures were similar for patients having completed the 12-week trial as per protocol (50 % reduction in costs) ( n  = 45). Among patients continuing the allocated study intervention throughout the entire 20-week follow-up period ( n  = 29), costs were reduced by 60 % in algorithm-treated patients: $7,056 versus $17,776; p  < 0.001. Cost-reduction percentages remained stable throughout one year. Conclusion Economic benefit of algorithm-based interventions at infliximab failure is maintained throughout 1 year.

Monoclonal antibodies are widely used anticancer therapies. Increasing demand for ambulatory care necessitates exploration of efficiency measures. The primary objective was to evaluate the impacts on chair time and associated cost of priming IV administration sets with a bolus of the prescribed monoclonal antibody drugs. A secondary objective was to assess the associated incidence of hypersensitivity reactions. A large tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, conducted a randomized controlled trial (N = 128) with a two-arm design. Included monoclonal antibodies were daratumumab, obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab. There was a statistically significant reduction in chair time for obinutuzumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab compared with the control. Findings suggest that this priming intervention reduces chair time and cost for some monoclonal antibody drugs. Future research could assess this practice in other oncology therapies.

To analyse the cost-effectiveness of traditional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARDs) compared to biological therapies from the perspective of Chinese society. A mathematical model was developed by incorporating the clinical trial data and Chinese unit costs and treatment sequences from a lifetime perspective. Hypothetical cohorts with moderate to severe RA were simulated. The primary outcome measure-quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)-was derived from disease severity (HAQ scores). Primary analysis included drug costs, monitoring costs, and other costs. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Treatment sequences that included TNF antagonists and rituximab produced a greater number of QALYs than tDMARDs alone or TNF antagonists plus DMARDs. In comparison with tDMARDs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab without rituximab were $77,357.7, $26,562.4 and $57,838.4 per QALY and $66,422.9, $28,780.6 and $50,937.6 per QALY, for etanercept, infliximab, and adalimumab with rituximab. No biotherapy was cost-effective under the willingness to pay threshold when the threshold was 3 times the per capita GDP of China. When 3 times the per capita GDP of Shanghai used as the threshold, infliximab and rituximab could yield nearly 90% cost-effective simulations in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. tDMARD was the most cost-effective option in the Chinese healthcare setting. In some relatively developed regions in China, infliximab and rituximab may be a favorable cost-effective alternative for moderate to severe RA.

Biologics has been known to be effective for patients with psoriasis. However, optimal treatment pathways and their cost-effectiveness are limited in a resource-limited country. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different sequential biologics for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. A hybrid model from a societal perspective was used. Model inputs were derived from network meta-analysis, clinical trials, and published literature. Three different sequential biologic treatments were assessed; Sequence 1; 1st Interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor (secukinumab) followed by 2nd IL-17 inhibitors (ixekizumab or brodalumab), then 3rd IL-23 inhibitor (guselkumab), Sequence 2; ixekizumab followed by secukinumab or brodalumab, then guselkumab, and Sequence 3; brodalumab followed by ixekizumab or secukinumab, then guselkumab. Methotrexate or ciclosporin was used as standard of care (SoC). All three different sequential biologic therapies could gain total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), but they had higher cost than SoC. Sequence 1 had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to SoC at 621,373 THB/QALY (19,449 $/QALY). ICER for Sequence 2 was 957,258 THB/QALY (29,962 $/QALY), while that for Sequence 3 was 1,332,262 THB/QALY (41,700 $/QALY). Fully incremental analysis indicated that Sequence 3 was dominated by Sequence 1 and Sequence 2. ICER for Sequence 2 was 7,206,104 THB/QALY (225,551 $/QALY) when compared to Sequence 1. At the current willingness-to-pay of 160,000 THB/QALY, no sequential IL-17 inhibitor was cost-effective compared to SoC. Secukinumab followed by ixekizumab or brodalumab then guselkumab (Sequence 1) may be the most appropriate option compared with other treatments.

Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) is a chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy approved for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). In the phase 3 trial, CARTITUDE-4 (NCT04181827), cilta-cel demonstrated improved efficacy vs. standard of care (SOC; daratumumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone [DPd] or pomalidomide plus bortezomib and dexamethasone [PVd]) with a ≥ complete response (≥CR) rate of 73.1% vs. 21.8%. A cost-per-responder model was developed to assess the value of cilta-cel and SOC (87% DPd and 13% PVd) based on the CARTITUDE-4 trial data from a US mixed payer perspective (76.7% commercial, 23.3% Medicare). The model was developed using progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥CR endpoints from CARTITUDE-4 over a period of 25.4 months. Inpatient stays, outpatient visits, drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring costs were included. The base-case model assumed an inpatient setting for each cilta-cel infusion; another scenario included 30% outpatient and 70% inpatient infusions. Costs of managing grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) and grade 1-4 cytokine release syndrome and neurotoxicity were included. Subsequent therapy costs were incurred after disease progression; terminal care costs were considered upon death events. Outcomes included total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS between cilta-cel and SOC. Costs were adjusted to 2024 US dollars. Total cost per treated patient, total cost per complete responder, and total cost per month in PFS were estimated at $704,641, $963,941, and $30,978 for cilta-cel, respectively, and $840,730, $3,856,559, and $42,520 for SOC over the 25.4-month period. Cost drivers included treatment acquisition costs before progression and subsequent treatment costs ($451,318 and $111,637 for cilta-cel; $529,795 and $265,167 for SOC). A scenario analysis in which 30% of patients received an outpatient infusion (assuming the same payer mix) showed a lower cost per complete responder for cilta-cel ($956,523) than those with an infusion in the inpatient setting exclusively. This analysis estimated that cost per treated patient, cost per complete responder, and cost per month in PFS for cilta-cel were remarkably lower than for DPd or PVd, highlighting the substantial clinical and economic benefit of cilta-cel for patients with RRMM.

In patients with recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (R/M HNSCC), the KESTREL study evaluated durvalumab with or without tremelimumab, as well as the EXTREME regimen (platinum, 5-fluorouracil, and cetuximab). In the first-line treatment of R/M HNSCC, no data are available regarding the cost-effectiveness of these immunotherapeutic agents. Based on third-party payers' perspectives in the United States, we compared durvalumab and tremelimumab in this setting. The projected costs and outcomes over a 12-year period were calculated using a three-state partitioned survival model with an annual discount of 3%. Long-term extrapolation of KESTREL was used to model progression-free and overall survival. Life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs), and incremental net health benefits (INHBs) were calculated. The uncertainty and stability of the model were examined using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. In the overall population, EXTREME was dominant compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab (Durva-Treme). Compared to durvalumab monotherapy (Durva-mono), EXTREME resulted in an increase of 0.037 life-years and 0.012 QALYs, as well as an increase in cost of $85,420 per patient. The corresponding ICER was $7,310,878/QALY, and the INHB and INMB values were negative at a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Furthermore, Durva-mono dominated EXTREME or Durva-Treme in patients with high PD-L1 expression. When compared with EXTREME, Durva-Treme had an ICER of $560,406/QALY. Durva-Treme was unlikely to be cost-effective. The HRs for OS, PFS, and drug costs (cetuximab, tremelimumab, and durvalumab) were most sensitive to the model. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, suggesting the robustness of the findings. Durva-mono is a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with R/M HNSCC, particularly in patients with high PD-L1 expression, compared with EXTREME or Durva-Treme. Cetuximab cost reduction may benefit the EXTREME regimen economically. Nevertheless, Durva-Treme provided fewer survival gains at substantial additional costs; therefore, it is unlikely to be a cost-effective option.

Treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) is challenging. Clinical trials have shown that Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab (STRIDE) offers clinical benefits as a first-line treatment for uHCC, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown in the USA. We aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE (tremelimumab plus durvalumab) versus sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC in the USA. A partitioned survival model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of STRIDE compared to sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy as the first-line treatment for uHCC from the US societal perspective. The time horizon was 48 months with 1-month cycles. Seven parametric survival functions replicated survival curves from clinical trials, with the best-fitting model used to calculate survival probabilities. Costs, health utilities, and adverse events were included, with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) as the primary effectiveness measure. Both costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3%. In the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was compared to a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of the model. In the base-case analysis, STRIDE was cost effective compared to sorafenib, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $97,995.51 per QALY gained, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per QALY gained. However, STRIDE was not cost effective compared to durvalumab monotherapy at the same threshold, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $754,408.92 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base-case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that STRIDE was more likely to be cost effective than sorafenib and durvalumab monotherapy when the willingness-to-pay exceeded $101,000 and $713,000, respectively. The STRIDE regimen appears to be cost effective compared to sorafenib but not compared to durvalumab for first-line uHCC treatment in the USA. However, durvalumab has not yet been approved for uHCC in the USA. Future research should focus on long-term data and economic evaluations of other recommended biologics.

Objective To estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of infliximab versus conventional combination treatment over 21 months in patients with methotrexate-refractory early rheumatoid arthritis. Methods In this multicentre, two-arm, parallel, randomised, active-controlled, open-label trial, rheumatoid arthritis patients with <1 year symptom duration were recruited from 15 rheumatology clinics in Sweden between October 2002 and December 2005. After 3–4 months of methotrexate monotherapy, patients not achieving low disease activity were randomised to addition of infliximab or sulfasalazine+hydroxychloroquine (conventional treatment group). Costs of drugs, healthcare use, and productivity losses were retrieved from nationwide registers, while EuroQol 5-Dimensions utility was collected quarterly. Results Of 487 patients initially enrolled, 128 and 130 were randomised to infliximab and conventional treatment, respectively. The infliximab group accumulated higher drug and healthcare costs (€27 487 vs €10 364; adjusted mean difference €16 956 (95% CI 14 647 to 19 162)), while productivity losses did not differ (€33 804 vs €29 220; €3961 (95% CI −3986 to 11 850)), resulting in higher societal cost compared to the conventional group (€61 291 vs €39 584; €20 916 (95% CI 12 800 to 28 660)). Mean accumulated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) did not differ (1.10 vs 1.12; adjusted mean difference favouring infliximab treatment 0.01 (95% CI −0.07 to 0.08)). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the infliximab versus conventional treatment strategy were €2 404 197/QALY from the societal perspective and €1 948 919/QALY from the healthcare perspective. Conclusions In early, methotrexate-refractory rheumatoid arthritis, a treatment strategy commencing with addition of infliximab, as compared to sulfasalazine+hydroxychloroquine, was not cost-effective over 21 months at willingness to pay levels generally considered acceptable. Trial registration number: NCT00764725.