Biosimilars for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: economic considerations

Figures & data

Figure 1. The relationship between functional status (measured using the Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ]) and a generic health-related quality of life measure (EQ-5D) in rheumatoid arthritis. As HAQ increases (i.e., outcomes worsen), so quality of life (determined by EQ-5D) also decreases [9,10].

Figure 2. The annual costs of rheumatoid arthritis within Europe and the USA, subdivided into categories.

Figure 3. The relationship between access to biologic therapies for rheumatoid arthritis and per-capita GDP within the WHO European Region (international dollars). The size of the bubbles is proportional to each country’s population.

Table 1. Predicted budget impact of introduction of CT-P13 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the UK, Italy, France and Germany, based on three different scenarios regarding discount relative to the ‘reference medicinal product’ and percentage market uptake.

Year	Saving in scenario 1 (€) (10% discount, 20% market uptake)	Saving in scenario 2 (€) (20% discount, 30% market uptake)	Saving in scenario 3 (€) (30% discount, 40% market uptake)
2015	12,880,000	25,750,000	38,630,000
2016	15,450,000	33,490,000	64,630,000
2017	18,560,000	43,550,000	75,740,000
2018	22,260,000	56,610,000	106,050,000
2019	26,710,000	73,600,000	148,470,000

Data from [51].

Table 2. Predicted budget impact of the introduction of CT-P13 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovakia based on two different scenarios over 3 years.

Year	Saving in scenario 1 (€)	Saving in scenario 2 (€)
2015	945,241	2,394,545
2016	4,782,462	6,968,620
2017	9,612,331	11,463,059

In the first scenario, only patients with no prior history of biologic therapy received CT-P13. In the second scenario, substitution of the RMP with CT-P13 was permitted from 6 months of the start of treatment and 80% of the patients were assumed to switch.

Data from [52].

RMP: Reference medicinal product.

Furneri G, Mantovani LG, Belisari A, et al. Systematic literature review on economic implications and pharmacoeconomic issues of rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:S72-84

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Brodszky V, Bálint P, Géher P, et al. Disease burden of psoriatic arthritis compared to rheumatoid arthritis, Hungarian experiment. Rheumatol Int 2009;30:199-205

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Putrik P, Ramiro S, Kvien TK, et al. Inequities in access to biologic and synthetic DMARDs across 46 European countries. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:198-206

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim J, Hong J, Kudrin A. 5 year budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in UK, Italy, France and Germany. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;11(Suppl):S512 (abstract 1166)

 Google Scholar

Brodszky V, Baji P, Balogh O, Pentek M. Budget impact analysis of biosimilar infliximab (CT-P13) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in six Central and Eastern European countries. Eur J Health Econ 2014;15(Suppl 1):S65-71

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar