DOP67 First-line infliximab is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in paediatric Crohn’s Disease – Results from the TISKids study

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background First-line infliximab (FL-IFX) induction treatment combined with azathioprine (AZA) is more effective to achieve clinical remission without treatment escalation at week 52 compared to conventional induction treatment (CONV) (Exclusive Enteral Nutrition or prednisone) combined with AZA in children with moderate-to-severe Crohn’s disease (CD). FL-IFX may lead to higher treatment costs compared to conventional treatment. However, data on cost-effectiveness of FL-IFX in children with CD is still limited. Therefore, our aim is to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FL-IFX in comparison with CONV. We hypothesized that cost effectiveness of FL-IFX is comparable to CONV in children with newly diagnosed moderate-to-severe CD in the first two years after treatment. Methods We included patients from the TISKids international randomized controlled trial in which children with moderate-to-severe CD were treated with either FL-IFX (Inflectra, biosimilar of IFX) or CONV.(1) Patients included outside of the Netherlands (n=6) or patients with serious comorbidity besides CD were excluded from this analysis (n=2). Data on healthcare consumption and costs were obtained per hospital for all included patients until week 104. Direct health-related costs were collected, including hospital visits, drug costs, laboratory tests, endoscopies and surgeries. The effectiveness of treatment was assessed by mean weighted paediatric CD activity index (wPCDAI) and faecal calprotectin (fcal) levels (µg/g) measured over time until week 104. This analysis was performed by a mixed model. Moreover, time to additional anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF) treatment up to 104 weeks after inclusion was assessed. Results In this analysis, 89 patients were included, 44 in the FL-IFX group and 45 in the conventional treatment group. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline. Interestingly, the mean costs were similar for FL-IFX (€34,783) and CONV (€34,923) after two years, p=0.97 (Figure 1). Mean fcal levels were lower for FL-IFX compared to CONV over two years (416 vs. 625, p=0.03). The mean wPCDAI scores over two years were numerically lower for FL-IFX compared to CONV (5.95 vs. 10.34, p=0.01), but this difference became smaller over time. Furthermore, the time to (re)start anti-TNF treatment was significantly longer in the FL-IFX group (median 68 weeks) compared to the conventional treatment group (median 32 weeks) (p=0.02) (Figure 2). Conclusion Treatment with FL-IFX is cost-effective compared to conventional treatment in the first two years after diagnosis in children with moderate-to-severe CD. Reference 1. Jongsma MME et al. Gut. 2020 Dec 31; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020–322339. / PMID: 33384335

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.