Biologics in Plaque Psoriasis - FMEC Responses to Questions From the Drug Programs - Table 1: Response Summary

Stakeholder input from patient organizations has asked to “expand the project scope to include an evaluation of the safety and efficacy of newer biologics compared to ‘pre-requisite therapies’.” Has there been a change in the evidence to warrant a change in prerequisite therapies? If there is rationale to prioritize new-generation biologics FMEC noted that the rationale for the use of multiple (an. [...] Infliximab appears to stand out amongst the old- FMEC noted that they could not comment beyond the generation biologics (anti-TNF and anti-IL-12/23), yet data that suggested that there is comparable benefit there is a lack of direct evidence to support it and there under the parameters of the systematic review. [...] If the net price of old-generation biologics (anti-TNF and FMEC noted that although biosimilar costs for old- anti-IL-12/23 [e.g., biosimilars]) is lower than the net generation drugs may be lower, there is no reason to price of new-generation biologics (anti-IL-17 and anti-IL- prioritize them on the basis of cost alone, given the 12/23), is there reason to warrant a change in funding improved eff. [...] FMEC Responses to Questions From the Drug Programs on Biologics in Plaque Psoriasis 1 Drug program questions FMEC response One of the key findings from this streamlined class In the absence of a CUA, FMEC concluded that even if review was that a policy prioritizing the use of new- there was potentially no cost-savings or a slight cost generation biologics (anti-IL-17 and anti-IL-12/23) increase at. [...] If the net annual costs of new- generation biologics exceed the net annual costs of older-generation biosimilars, how would value be assessed, given there is no CUA in this case? Forcing prescribers to tier 1 biologic over another could FMEC concurs with the clinical experts that the be an implementation challenge.