Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Tofacitinib Compared with Biologics in Biologic-Naïve Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Ulcerative Colitis in Japan

OBJECTIVE: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of ulcerative colitis (UC). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tofacitinib versus current biologics, considering combinations of first-line (1L) and second-line (2L) therapies, from a Japanese payer’s perspective in patients with moderate-to-severe active UC following an inadequate response to conventional therapy and in those who were naïve to biologics. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted during the time horizon specified in the Markov model, which considers a patient’s lifetime as 60 years and an annual discount rate of 2% on costs and effects. The model compared tofacitinib with vedolizumab, infliximab, adalimumab, golimumab, and ustekinumab. The time of active treatment was divided into induction and maintenance phases. Patients not responding to their biologic treatment after induction or during the maintenance phase were switched to a subsequent line of therapy. Treatment response and remission probabilities (for induction and maintenance phases) were obtained through a systematic literature review and a network meta-analysis that employed a multinomial analysis with fixed effects. Patient characteristics were sourced from the OCTAVE Induction trials. Mean utilities associated with UC health states and adverse events (AEs) were obtained from published sources. Direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, administration, surgery, patient management, and AEs were derived from the JMDC database analysis, which corresponded with the medical procedure fees from 2021. The drug prices were adjusted to April 2021. Further validation through all processes by clinical experts in Japan was conducted to fit the costs to real-world practices. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed to confirm the accuracy and robustness of the base-case results. RESULTS: In the base-case, the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib was more cost-effective than vedolizumab, infliximab, golimumab, and ustekinumab for 1L therapies in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (based on the Japanese threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY [38,023 United States dollars {USD}/QALY]). The base-case results demonstrated that the incremental costs would be reduced for all biologics, and decreases in incremental QALYs were observed for all biologics other than adalimumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was found to be dominant for adalimumab; for the other biologics, it was found to be less costly and less efficacious. The efficiency frontier on the cost-effectiveness plane indicated that tofacitinib–infliximab and infliximab–tofacitinib were more cost-effective than the other treatment patterns. When infliximab–tofacitinib was compared with tofacitinib–infliximab, the ICER was 282,609,856 yen/QALY (2,149,157 USD/QALY) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) was −12,741,342 yen (−96,894 USD) with a threshold of 5,000,000 yen (38,023 USD) in Japan. Therefore, infliximab–tofacitinib was not acceptable by this threshold, and tofacitinib–infliximab was the cost-effective treatment pattern. CONCLUSION: The current analysis suggests that the treatment pattern including 1L tofacitinib is a cost-effective alternative to the biologics for patients with moderate-to-severe UC from a Japanese payer’s perspective. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40273-023-01254-x.