[State of knowledge: relevance of the prerequisite of the use of an immunosuppressant drug for the coverage of biologic agents (gastroenterology and dermatology)]
Lemieux G, Poisson C
Record ID 32018002379
French
Original Title:
État des connaissances: Pertinence de l’exigence d’un essai préalable avec un immunosuppresseur dans les indications de paiement des médicaments biologiques – gastroentérologie et dermatologie
Authors' objectives:
Over the past few years, biologic agents have been included in the therapeutic arsenal
for treating chronic inflammatory diseases. To ensure responsible use of these costly
drugs, their payment is currently only authorized following the use of conventional
treatments (notably immunosuppressants), except in the presence of intolerances or
contraindications. However, medical associations in gastroenterology and dermatology
report a disconnect between coverage information for biologic agents and best clinical
practices. At present, when biologic agents must be used without any prior trials of
immunosuppressants, patients can, under certain conditions, receive assistance from
biologic drug manufacturers for access through a patient support program. In the
treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, the early use of biologic agents through such
support programs appears to be an established and widespread practice for several
years.
With the coming into force of section 80.2 of the Act respecting prescription drug
insurance in April 2021, which prohibits the payment or reimbursement of a medication or
supply covered by the Public Prescription Drug Insurance Plan, medical associations
shared their concerns regarding access to biologic agents without any prior trials of
immunosuppressants with the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (department
of health issues and social services) (MSSS). It bears noting that biologic agents,
whether they are reference products or biosimilars, are included in the exceptions
provided for under the regulation.
To assess the relevance of the prerequisite of the use of an immunosuppressant for the
coverage of biologic agents, the MSSS asked the Institut national d’excellence en santé
et en services sociaux (INESSS) to draw on the existing knowledge regarding the role of
immunosuppressants and biologic agents in gastroenterology and dermatology.
Authors' results and conclusions:
RESULTS: The CPGs selected report a lack of quality studies on the best timing for incorporating
biologic agents into a treatment plan. However, according to available data and the
importance of several other factors, including the risk of complications, the severity of the
illness, the response to previous treatments and the associated costs, learned societies
made recommendations regarding various sequences of treatment with biologic agents,
both before and after a treatment with immunosuppressants.
For the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, most of the CPGs selected comprise
recommendations as to the use of biologic agents following a conventional treatment that
includes 5-ASA (aminosalicylic acids) and/or corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants.
Numerous CPGs, however, report a paradigm shift towards the use of biologic drugs as
the front-line treatment, especially for persons at risk of a poor prognosis, to prevent
complications, hospitalization and the need for surgery. Very few clinical trials have
compared the efficacy of biologic agents and immunosuppressants, and the ones
reported are not representative of current clinical practices with biologic agents.
Immunosuppressants are generally recommended to maintain complete remission and
could prove an acceptable treatment option once remission is achieved with
corticosteroids; however, concerns associated with their safety have been raised, notably
regarding the risk of hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma due to thiopurines, such as
azathioprine and mercatopurine.
There are few recommendations in the selected CPGs regarding the role of biologic
drugs in the treatment of plaque psoriasis. However, all of the CPGs selected agree in
recommending the use of biologic drugs following a treatment with conventional systemic
agents, which include immunosuppressants (primarily cyclosporine and methotrexate)
and acitretin. One CPG also suggests resorting to the early use of biologic agents in
special situations. The differential efficacy of biologic drugs and conventional systemic
agents was mainly established through indirect comparisons. A network meta-analysis
performed by Cochrane reports that most biologic drugs would be more effective than
conventional systemic agents at achieving a decrease of at least 90% on the Psoriasis
Area and Severity Index (PASI90). In addition, conventional systemic agents have certain
safety issues: ongoing treatment with cyclosporine is not recommended beyond one year
given the risks of nephrotoxicity, acitretin can cause mucocutaneous effects and
methotrexate can induce hepatotoxicity. CONCLUSION: The optimal timing for the introduction of biologics agents versus immunosuppressants in
the field of gastroenterology and dermatology has not been assessed in good quality
studies. Current research illustrates a discrepancy between actual clinical practices in
gastroenterology and the quality evidence-based data available. The clinical experience
using biologic drugs to treat inflammatory bowel diseases acquired over the past few
years has led gastroenterologists to favour their use without a preliminary treatment with
immunosuppressants. Clinicians consider that requiring such a prior treatment with
immunosuppressants in the payment indications of biologic drugs for inflammatory bowel
diseases should be ceased, mainly because immunosuppressants delay healing and
expose patients to risks that include toxicity and non-negligeable complications. And
while the circumstances are somewhat different in the field of dermatology, the clinicians
consulted also support the removal of this requirement from payment indications of
biologic drugs in the case of plaque psoriasis.
Given a lack of data, this work did not evaluate the economic impact of withdrawing the
requirement regarding prior treatment with immunosuppressants from the coverage
information for biologic agents. This would likely generate a significant increase in costs,
but the amounts involved should be compared to the cost of complications and other
avoidable consequences. It should also be noted that a large portion of these costs are
currently borne by the manufacturers, through patient support programs.
Authors' methods:
First, coverage information for biologic agents listed on Québec drug formulary (or for
which the Minister’s decision is pending) was compared with that in other Canadian
provinces. Then, a rapid review of the literature was performed to identify CPG (Clinical
practice guidelines) recommendations regarding the place of biologic agents and
immunosuppressants in the treatment algorithm of Crohn’s disease in adults and
children, ulcerative colitis in adults and plaque psoriasis in adults. Lastly, experience based and contextual knowledge was gathered through an invitation to receive feedback
on the INESSS’ work plan and from a consultation panel including gastroenterologists
and dermatologists.
Details
Project Status:
Completed
Year Published:
2022
English language abstract:
An English language summary is available
Publication Type:
Other
Country:
Canada
MeSH Terms
- Biological Products
- Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
- Crohn Disease
- Colitis
- Colitis, Ulcerative
- Psoriasis
- Immunosuppressive Agents
Contact
Organisation Name:
Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux
Contact Address:
L'Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux (INESSS) , 2021, avenue Union, bureau 10.083, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 2S9;Tel: 1+514-873-2563, Fax: 1+514-873-1369
Contact Name:
demande@inesss.qc.ca
Contact Email:
demande@inesss.qc.ca
Copyright:
L'Institut national d'excellence en sante et en services sociaux (INESSS)
This is a bibliographic record of a published health technology assessment from a member of INAHTA or other HTA producer. No evaluation of the quality of this assessment has been made for the HTA database.