Cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severe Crohn’s disease in Sweden

Abstract Background Human monoclonal antibody ustekinumab is a novel Crohn’s disease (CD) treatment blocking pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-12 and 23. The study’s objective was to assess cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab in moderate to severely active CD in Sweden. Methods A cost-effectiveness model with an induction phase decision-tree structure and a maintenance phase Markov cohort structure was constructed. CD was represented by five health-states: remission, mild, moderate-severe, surgery and death. Ustekinumab was compared to adalimumab in patients who had failed conventional care, some of which had tried TNF-alpha-inhibitor(s) without experiencing treatment failure or side effects (“conventional care failure population”) and to vedolizumab in patients previously failing TNF-alpha-inhibitor treatment. Discontinuation probabilities, utilities and ustekinumab induction efficacy were sourced from phase-III trials. Maintenance and comparator efficacy came from network-meta and treatment-sequence analyses. Resource use and unit costs were derived from literature and validated by clinical experts. The analysis had a societal perspective, a life-time time-horizon, and 2-year treatment duration. The results robustness was tested in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results Ustekinumab dominated adalimumab in conventional care failure population (costs: − €6984, QALYs: + 0.232). In TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population ustekinumab accrued 0.133 more QALYs than vedolizumab, yielding a €30,282 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results were sensitive to decreasing the time horizon and increased treatment duration. At Swedish reference willingness-to-pay of €63,000 (SEK 600,000), ustekinumab had 94% probability of being cost-effective versus adalimumab, and 72% versus vedolizumab. Conclusions Results indicate ustekinumab dominates adalimumab in conventional care failure population, and is cost-effective versus vedolizumab in TNF-alpha-inhibitor failure population

Persistence of biologic treatments in psoriatic arthritis : a population-based study in Sweden

Objectives: TNF inhibitors (TNFis) and IL inhibitors are effective treatments for PsA. Treatment non-persistence (drug survival, discontinuation) is a measure of effectiveness, tolerability and patient satisfaction or preferences in real-world clinical practice. Persistence on these treatments is not well understood in European PsA populations. The aim of this study was to compare time to non-persistence for either ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor) or secukinumab (IL-17 inhibitor) to a reference group of adalimumab (TNFi) treatment exposures in PsA patients and identify risk factors for non-persistence. Methods: A total of 4649 exposures of adalimumab, ustekinumab, and secukinumab in 3918 PsA patients were identified in Swedish longitudinal population-based registry data. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to measure treatment-specific real-world risk of non-persistence and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were estimated to identify risk factors associated with non-persistence. Results: Ustekinumab was associated with a lower risk of non-persistence relative to adalimumab in biologic-naive [hazard ratio (HR) 0.48 (95% CI 0.33, 0.69)] and biologic-experienced patients [HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.56, 0.76)], while secukinumab was associated with a lower risk in biologic-naive patients [HR 0.65 (95% CI 0.49, 0.86)] but a higher risk of non-persistence in biologic-experienced patients [HR 1.20 (95% CI 1.03, 1.40)]. Biologic non-persistence was also associated with female sex, axial involvement, recent disease onset, biologic treatment experience and no psoriasis. Conclusion: Ustekinumab exhibits a favourable treatment persistency profile relative to adalimumab overall and across lines of treatment. The performance of secukinumab is dependent on biologic experience. Persistence and risk factors for non-persistence should be accounted for when determining an optimal treatment plan for patients.A correction has been published: Rheumatology Advances in Practice, Volume 5, Issue 1, 2021, rkab005, https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkab005</p