Budget impact analysis of subcutaneous infliximab (CT-P13 SC) for treating inflammatory bowel disease in Saudi Arabia: Analysis from payer perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) has approved the subcutaneous (SC) administration of infliximab, presenting a more convenient alternative with reduced outpatient visits and diminished expenses compared to the intravenous (IV) administration. However, the financial implications of this formulation have not been examined from the perspective of Saudi payers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A prevalence-based budget impact model was developed to evaluate the financial effects of introducing "environment without" versus "with infliximab SC." The model's time horizon spanned over 2 years (2021-2023), aligning with the biennial national pharmaceutical procurement cycle. The comparison focused on infliximab SC versus all available formulations of infliximab IV in the Saudi market for two inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD): Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn's Disease (CD). Treatment comparators' comparability and dose escalations were substantiated by published studies, utilizing dosing information from the summary of product characteristics. Drug acquisition costs were derived from SFDA registered prices, with IV formulation administration costs included. Scenario analysis assessed the budget impact of infliximab SC introduction at uptake rates ranging from 0% to 100%. RESULTS: Introducing infliximab SC demonstrated cost-saving potential in the treatment of IBD. At 100% uptake with UC patients for 2 years, infliximab SC resulted in savings of -SAR-31.9 million (-SAR29,145 per patient). Similarly, for CD, introducing infliximab SC at 100% uptake over 2 years yielded savings of -SAR106.2 million (-SAR36,585 per patient). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that infliximab SC is associated with cost-saving potential when compared to infliximab IV formulations available in Saudi Arabia. Future research should address uncertainties related to real-world comparative effectiveness, the convenience of administration, patient tolerability, and physician acceptance of the SC formulation of infliximab, alongside comparisons with other TNF-alpha inhibitors.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".