A Cost-Utility Analysis of Switching from Reference to Biosimilar Infliximab Compared to Maintaining Reference Infliximab in Adult Patients with Crohn’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Lower-cost biosimilar infliximab may address affordability concerns in the treatment of adults with Crohn's disease (CD), however, evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of switching from reference to biosimilar is warranted. The aim of this research was to assess the incremental cost of switching from treatment with reference infliximab to biosimilar compared with maintaining reference infliximab in adults with CD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. METHODS: A probabilistic cohort Markov model with 8-week cycle lengths was constructed to estimate the incremental costs and effects of switching over a 5-year time horizon from a public payer perspective. Base-case clinical inputs were obtained from NOR-SWITCH subgroup analyses and other published trials. Costs were obtained from Canadian sources. A total of 10,000 simulations were run. Sensitivity analysis was used to test the robustness of the results to variations in uncertain parameters. RESULTS: Switching to biosimilar infliximab was less costly but also less effective with incremental savings of $46,194 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $42,420, $50,455) and a loss in QALYs of -0.13 (95% CI: -0.16, -0.07). Eighty-three per cent of the simulations demonstrated incremental cost savings and an incremental loss of effectiveness. The model was sensitive to differences in rates of disease worsening between reference and biosimilar infliximab. CONCLUSIONS: While biosimilar infliximab is associated with incremental savings for patients on maintenance therapy who are switched from reference infliximab, funding decision makers must decide whether a small loss of effectiveness is justified. Further evidence will help to inform reimbursement policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".