Cost per Responder Analysis for Pegcetacoplan and Eculizumab in the Treatment of Adults with Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria

Background: In the absence of clinical guidelines for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH), the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) developed categories for classifying hematological response to complement inhibitor treatment (per Risitano AM, et al. Front Immunol. 2019;10:1157). These categories are: complete (no transfusions, normal stable Hb, and no evidence of hemolysis); major (no transfusions, normal Hb, but evidence of residual intravascular/extravascular hemolysis); good (no transfusions, but persistent chronic mild anemia); partial (persistent chronic moderate anemia and/or occasional red blood cell transfusions); minor (3-6 transfusions every 6 months); no response (>6 transfusions every 6 months). In the phase 3 PEGASUS trial (NCT03500549), 41 and 39 patients previously treated with C5 inhibitors with Hb<10.5 were randomized for treatment with pegcetacoplan or eculizumab, respectively. In a post hoc analysis of the 16-week PEGASUS data, patients were classified by EBMT category to compare hematologic responses of each treatment (per Risitano AM, et al. Blood. 2020; 136(Suppl1):44-5). Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the number needed to treat (NNT) and treatment costs of pegcetacoplan and eculizumab using EBMT response criteria. Methods: The analysis used a United States payer perspective and included drug acquisition costs and associated intravenous or subcutaneous administration costs. Drug costs were calculated using dosages for each treatment as given in the PEGASUS trial, including dosage and frequency escalations. Weekly dosages were multiplied by each drug's wholesale acquisition costs from RedBook (2020 United States dollars). We calculated the following outcomes over 16 weeks and by treatment: NNT to achieve each level of response, mean cost per treated patient, total costs, mean cost per treated patient per week, cost per complete responder, cost per good responder, and cost spent on patients with partial/minor/no response. Additional analyses were conducted to calculate outcomes for treatment-naïve patients treated with pegcetacoplan using similar post hoc analyses of combined 16-week data from the phase 1b-2a PADDOCK/PALOMINO (NCT02588833 and NCT03593200) trials. Results: Results are summarized in Table 1. Based on response rates, patients with PNH treated with pegcetacoplan had a lower NNT (1.4) to achieve good-to-complete response compared with eculizumab (19.5). NNT to achieve complete response was 2.6 for pegcetacoplan; no patients treated with eculizumab achieved complete response at 16 weeks. For the PEGASUS trial, mean cost per treated patient was $182,762 (with C5 inhibitor loading dose) and $176,504 over 16 weeks for pegcetacoplan and eculizumab, respectively. Among the 41 pegcetacoplan-treated patients, the total costs were $7,493,256 over 16 weeks. Of 41 pegcetacoplan patients, 16 achieved a complete response, and their total costs were $2.9 million over the 16-week period ($468,328 per complete responder). The total 16-week costs were $2.6 million for 14 patients with good response ($535,233 per good responder). For the 39 eculizumab-treated patients, total 16-week costs were $6,883,637. Two of 39 patients achieved a good response, and their total costs were $353,007 ($3,441,818 per good responder). Of the 39 patients, 37 achieved partial, minor, or no response or discontinued treatment, for a total cost of $6.5 million. This resulted in 95% of total treatment costs being spent on inadequate or no response in the eculizumab arm compared with 27% in the pegcetacoplan arm. For treatment-naïve patients treated with pegcetacoplan, the mean cost per complete responder ($347,339) and per good responder ($496,198) over 16 weeks were both lower than the cost per responder for patients treated with either pegcetacoplan or eculizumab after previous C5 inhibitor treatment. Conclusion: Based on the treatment response observed in PEGASUS, the NNT and cost to achieve good or good-to-complete response was lower for pegcetacoplan-treated patients than eculizumab-treated patients, according to EBMT consensus-based hematological response categories. PNH treatment with pegcetacoplan allowed more patients to achieve EBMT defined good-to-complete response and better overall response and is a more efficient use of spending with lower cost per responder in all response categories. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Anderson: Apellis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Talbird: Apellis: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fishman: Apellis: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company.

A real-world economic analysis of biologic therapies for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Italy: results of the CANOVA observational longitudinal study

Background Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated inflammatory skin disease which can also involve joints. It is often associated with burdensome comorbidities which negatively impact prognosis and quality of life (QoL). Biologic agents have been shown to be effective in controlling disease progression, but their use is associated with higher costs compared with traditional systemic treatments. The economic analysis of the CANOVA (EffeCtiveness of biologic treAtmeNts for plaque psOriasis in Italy: an obserVAtional longitudinal study of real-life clinical practice) study aims to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of biologics in a real-world context in Italy. Methods The annualised overall direct costs of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis management, the annualised cost of biologic drugs and the cost per responder in the Italian National Health System perspective were assessed. More specifically, the cost per response and cost per sustained response of the most prescribed biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis within the CANOVA study were assessed using the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) at several score levels (75, 90 and 100%). Results The most frequently used biologic therapies for plaque psoriasis were secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab originator, and ixekizumab. Cost of biologics was the driver of expenditure, accounting for about 98% of total costs. Adalimumab originator was the biologic with the lowest cost per responder ratio (range: €7848 - €31,378), followed by secukinumab (range: €9015 - €33,419). Ustekinumab (range: €11,689 – €39,280) and ixekizumab (range: €11,092 – €34,289) ranked respectively third and fourth, in terms of cost-effectiveness ratio. As concerns the cost per sustained response analysis, secukinumab showed the lowest value observed (€21,375) over the other options, because of its high response rate (86% vs. 60–80%), which was achieved early in time. Conclusion Biologic therapy is a valuable asset for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Concomitant assessment of treatment costs against the expected therapeutic response over time can provide physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions.

Cost per responder for risankizumab vs secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Italy

Purpose: The objective of this analysis was to compare the cost per responder between risankizumab and secukinumab among patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Italy. Methods: The clinical efficacy was assessed based on IMMerge study of published efficacy data as measured by Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response (PASI 90 and PASI 100) for risankizumab and secukinumab. The treatment cost was based on the number of administrations dispensed in the first (induction plus maintenance period) and the second (maintenance period only) year of treatment and the ex-factory price of each treatment. The cost per responder was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator. Results: Independently of the PASI response (PASI 90 and PASI 100) used and the year of treatment considered, the cost per responder was consistently lower for risankizumab compared to secukinumab in all clinical measures. For example, considering the first-year costs and PASI 100, the cost per responder for risankizumab was € 24,506.83 compared to € 38,000.00 for secukinumab. The differences in the cost per responder between risankizumab and secukinumab increased when higher PASI response levels were considered. Conclusion: This economic evaluation suggested that the cost per responder is consistently lower for risankizumab compared to secukinumab from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

Cost per responder for upadacitinib vs abatacept in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy

Purpose: The objective of this economic evaluation was to compare the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (intravenous [iv] or subcutaneous [sc]) in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) in Italy. Methods: The clinical efficacy was assessed based on SELECT-CHOICE study results. The clinical efficacy of upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) was measured by Clinical Remission (CR), Low Disease Activity (LDA) and American College of Rheumatology response (ACR20, 50 and 70). The treatment cost was based on the number of administrations dispensed at 12 or 24 weeks. The cost per responder was adopted as a cost-effectiveness indicator. Results: Independent of the clinical efficacy measure used and the duration of treatment considered, the cost per responder was consistently lower for upadacitinib compared to abatacept (iv or sc) across all clinical measures. For example, considering the CR at 24 weeks, the cost per responder for upadacitinib was € 9,417 compared to € 17,817 for abatacept sc or to € 23,110 for abatacept iv. The differences in the cost per responder between upadacitinib and abatacept (iv or sc) increased when higher ACR response levels were considered. Conclusions: These results suggested that upadacitinib is a cost-effectiveness option compared to abatacept (iv or sc) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service in patients with moderate-to-severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Italy.

Cost-effectiveness of moderate-to-severe psoriasis biologic treatments in Brazilian private healthcare system: cost-per-responder results derived from a network metanalysis

Objective: To assess the cost-per-responder (CpR) of biologic therapies available in Brazil to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) from the private healthcare system’s perspective. Methods: Number needed to treat (NNT) and (CpR) analyses were performed to evaluate biologic therapies’ cost-effectiveness for moderate-to-severe PsO available in Brazil. The effectiveness of biologic treatments for moderate-to-severe PsO was assessed based on a previously published metanalysis, which included studies considering PsO patients and outcomes of interest (PASI 75, 90, and 100). The clinical efficacy data in terms of estimated NNT based on the network metanalysis (NMA) results were combined with drug treatment costs to determine the CpR for each treatment arm in 3-time horizons: the primary response period, 1-year, and 2-years. Results: Risankizumab was the most cost-effective option when NMA base case scenario data was used to calculate NNT in all PASI response for both the primary response period and 1- and 2-years follow-up durations. Differences in CpR between risankizumab and other biologic drugs increased with more significant PASI improvements. CpR sensitivity analysis also confirmed these findings, indicating that risankizumab has a better performance for PASI 100, and both risankizumab and guselkumab are very similar in terms of cost per additional PASI 75 and PASI 90 responder. Conclusions: Risankizumab was estimated to have a lower cost per PASI 75, 90, and 100 responders in most simulated scenarios (primary response period [12-16 weeks], 1-year and 2-years), among the evaluated biologic therapies.