Cost-per-Event Analysis of Risankizumab in Comparison to Ustekinumab for the Treatment of Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Crohn’s Disease in Brazil
Author(s)
Renata D. Froes, PhD1, Munique K. de Mello, MD2, Fernando J. Nóbrega, MD3, Cintia Del Rey, PharmD4, Ana Elisa R. Caon, MD4, Thais R. Barros, MBA, MSc4, Giovanna R. Puopolo, Postgraduate4;
1Gastromed, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Itajaí, SC, Brazil, 3Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Joao Pessoa, PB, Brazil, 4AbbVie, Sao Paulo, Brazil
1Gastromed, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Itajaí, SC, Brazil, 3Universidade Federal da Paraíba, Joao Pessoa, PB, Brazil, 4AbbVie, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Crohn’s disease (CD) is a chronic disease that requires lifetime treatment and has an important social and economic impact on patients and healthcare systems. This study aims to evaluate the cost-per-event (clinical remission, endoscopic response and endoscopic remission) of risankizumab (RZB) versus ustekinumab (UST) over 52 weeks (induction and maintenance) for the treatment of patients with active moderate-to-severe CD who have failed tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (iTNF) therapy.
METHODS: A cost-per-event (CPE) model was developed to estimate the average cost for one patient with CD to achieve the outcomes in the Brazilian private healthcare system. Efficacy inputs were obtained from phase 3b SEQUENCE trial comparing efficacy of RZB Q8W vs UST Q8W. Treatment costs were based on RZB and UST dosage in the head-to-head trial (average 71kg patient weight) and drug acquisition on Brazilian list price, tax rate 18%. Exploratory budget impact analysis considering fixed budget was performed based on 100 patients treated.
RESULTS: RZB demonstrated significantly higher rates (P<.0001) of clinical remission (60.8% vs 40.8%), endoscopic response (45.1% vs 21.9%); and endoscopic remission (31.8% vs 16.2%) compared to UST, in the SEQUENCE trial. Modelling the cost-per-event compared to UST, RZB revealed a lower cost per patient to achieve each outcome: −34% for endoscopic response, −30% for endoscopic remission, and −9% for clinical remission. From a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) perspective with 100 CD patients, RZB represents 30% lower cost per endoscopic remission vs UST and this economic saving could represent 43 new patients treated with RZB achieving endoscopic remission.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Brazilian healthcare system, RZB was associated with lower cost-per-event compared to UST for patients with moderate-to-severe CD who have failed iTNF therapy. These findings indicate that resource allocation strategies could increase the number of patients receiving effective therapy for CD with RZB compared to UST.
METHODS: A cost-per-event (CPE) model was developed to estimate the average cost for one patient with CD to achieve the outcomes in the Brazilian private healthcare system. Efficacy inputs were obtained from phase 3b SEQUENCE trial comparing efficacy of RZB Q8W vs UST Q8W. Treatment costs were based on RZB and UST dosage in the head-to-head trial (average 71kg patient weight) and drug acquisition on Brazilian list price, tax rate 18%. Exploratory budget impact analysis considering fixed budget was performed based on 100 patients treated.
RESULTS: RZB demonstrated significantly higher rates (P<.0001) of clinical remission (60.8% vs 40.8%), endoscopic response (45.1% vs 21.9%); and endoscopic remission (31.8% vs 16.2%) compared to UST, in the SEQUENCE trial. Modelling the cost-per-event compared to UST, RZB revealed a lower cost per patient to achieve each outcome: −34% for endoscopic response, −30% for endoscopic remission, and −9% for clinical remission. From a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) perspective with 100 CD patients, RZB represents 30% lower cost per endoscopic remission vs UST and this economic saving could represent 43 new patients treated with RZB achieving endoscopic remission.
CONCLUSIONS: In the Brazilian healthcare system, RZB was associated with lower cost-per-event compared to UST for patients with moderate-to-severe CD who have failed iTNF therapy. These findings indicate that resource allocation strategies could increase the number of patients receiving effective therapy for CD with RZB compared to UST.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
EE141
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Gastrointestinal Disorders, STA: Biologics & Biosimilars