Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluates the budget impact of bimekizumab across multiple reimbursed inflammatory indications in France using a cross-indication modelling approach. The aim is to assess the synergistic benefits of treating concurrent inflammatory diseases with a single therapy.
METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to analyse the change in healthcare expenditure and productivity associated with bimekizumab in France. Two scenarios were compared: 1. Single-indication approach: indications considered are modelled independently and aggregated. 2. Cross-indication approach: all reimbursed indications per therapy are assumed to treat concurrent diseases in the same patient to capture synergistic benefits. The model adopts a 5-year time horizon from a French societal perspective. Indications considered in the model were: psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. Published rates of concurrent inflammatory diseases were applied to the eligible population to estimate the number of patients with concurrent diseases. Patients were assumed to receive a single therapy treating concurrent diseases at the highest reimbursed dose per therapy. Synergies impact drug-acquisition costs and productivity; administration, monitoring, and adverse event costs remain unchanged.
RESULTS: From a societal perspective and over the 5-year time horizon, bimekizumab generated total savings of €95,214,856 in France in the single-indication scenario, driven partly by improved productivity. In the cross-indication scenario capturing synergistic benefits, the total spending across all indications with bimekizumab was reduced by 30.5%, relative to the single-indication scenario. The synergistic reduction in spending was 4.5% greater with bimekizumab versus secukinumab, which is reimbursed in similar indications in France.
CONCLUSIONS: The budget impact with bimekizumab in France was lower using a cross-indication modelling approach capturing synergistic benefits compared with a single-indication analysis, highlighting the economic benefits of therapies with multiple reimbursed indications. These results suggest that single-indication budget impact analyses likely overestimate the impact of therapies reimbursed for multiple diseases which can occur and be treated concurrently.