The final report includes voting results from a December 2019 meeting of one of ICER’s independent evidence appraisal panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), plus policy recommendations from an expert roundtable.
The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent research institute that assesses drugs, tests, and other healthcare technologies, recently released its final report and policy recommendations on the clinical effectiveness and economic value of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for treating rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
ICER reviewed clinical data comparing JAK inhibitors tofacitinib (Xeljanz), baricitinib (Olumiant), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq) to conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) or to the TNF inhibitor adalimumab (Humira).
The final report includes voting results from a December 2019 meeting of one of ICER’s independent evidence appraisal panels, the California Technology Assessment Forum (CTAF), plus policy recommendations from an expert roundtable.
With regard to clinical effectiveness and safety, CTAF votes supported the conclusions of the draft evidence report originally issued in October 2019:
In the draft evidence report, ICER’s review of long-term economic value concluded upadacitinib provided “marginal clinical benefit” compared to adalimumab at higher costs, however, meeting commonly cited cost-effectiveness thresholds.
The value-based price benchmark for upadacitinib (vs. adalimumab) to treat the entire eligible population across all prices did not exceed the threshold of $819 million. Discounts of 25% to 26% from the list price of upadacitinib would be required to reach the $100,000 to $150,000 per QALY threshold prices. The estimated cost of upadacitinib vs. adalimumab was $600 per month while in remission; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $92,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
Despite meeting cost-effectiveness thresholds, CTAF member votes were split between “low” and “intermediate” long-term economic value for upadacitinib, citing a potential lack of generalizability to the real-world patient population, as the exclusion criteria for the only phase 3 clinical trial on this JAK inhibitor would have excluded “a significant portion” of patients with RA. Insufficient data were available to compare tofacitinib or baricitinib to adalimumab in terms of cost-effectiveness.
ICER cautioned that its economic value model may be complicated by the price of adalimumab, which previous assessments by the organization suggested may be above commonly cited cost-effectiveness thresholds.
Julie Reed: Why 2024 Is Important for Biosimilars
April 17th 2024Julie Reed, executive director of the Biosimilars Forum, showcases how the biosimilar industry is expected to develop throughout 2024, including major policy changes and hope for continued improvement in market share for adalimumab biosimilars.
Decoding the Patent Puzzle: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Biosimilars
March 17th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, Ha Kung Wong, JD, an intellectual patent attorney and partner at Venable LLP, details the confusing landscape that is the US patent system and how it can be improved to help companies overcome barriers to biosimilar competition.
Alvotech’s Stelara Biosimilar, Selarsdi, Receives FDA Approval
April 16th 2024Alvotech’s Selarsdi (ustekinumab-aekn), a biosimilar referencing Stelara (ustekinumab), gained FDA approval, making it the second ustekinumab biosimilar and second for the company to be given the green light for the American market.
Biosimilars Rheumatology Roundup for February 2024—Podcast Edition
March 3rd 2024On this episode of Not So Different, The Center for Biosimilars® revisited all the major rheumatology biosimilar news from February 2024, including the FDA approval of the 10th adalimumab biosimilar, the promise for an oral delivery system for ustekinumab, and the impact of adalimumab products on COVID-19 antibodies.
Biosimilars Council: PBM Rebate Schemes Cost Americans, Payers $6 Billion
April 10th 2024A report from the Biosimilars Council evaluating IQVIA data found that rebate schemes orchestrated by pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) are costing US patients and payers billions of dollars by suppressing biosimilar adoption.