Ulcerative colitis (UC) & Crohn’s disease (CD) are common inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) currently affecting the lives of 1.6 million Americans. The introduction of new biologics has changed the face of treatment for moderate-to-severe patients and biologic switching in both UC and CD over the past 12 months is predictive of future market shape and brand shares.
RealWorld Dynamix™: Biologic/Small Molecule Switching in IBD (US) will help you to understand the drivers of treatment switches in this volatile market. The study continues the annual audit series, trending data from 2016 and 2017 studies and blends physician attitudes (“what they say”) with patient record data (“what they do”) to understand which products are positioned by the doctor in which patient. By analyzing only recent switches, real insights into prescribing behavior can be unearthed at the most dynamic end of the market. The resulting dataset is a rich source of information and has multiple applications, including the quantitative definition of the winners and losers, by patient segment and recent therapy switches. An excellent augmentation to claims data, this report also captures the clinician’s perspective on why the switch was made and the new brand was chosen, as well as future intentions should the response be suboptimal. Clinical assessments, diagnostic tests, and laboratory values are also included to provide insight into the clinical course of the disease.
RealWorld Dynamix™: Biologic Switching in IBD (US) is based on a robust and deep patient chart analysis of ~1000 IBD patients who were switched from one biologic to a different brand in the past three months. Each physician completes an in-depth medical history of their last 3 to 7 patients who meet the study inclusion criteria.
This is the second wave of the annual report (fielded 2017, 2018).
Learn more about RealWorld Dynamix™ reports here.
- Is the approach of sequencing two anti-TNFs before an alternate MOA changing as familiarity with newer agents grows?
- To what extent is Entyvio penetrating first line use in IBD?
- To what extent is Stelara penetrating first line use in CD?
- How are infliximab biosimilars impacting branded TNF use?
- Who is winning in the battle for preferred alternative MOA between Stelara, Entyvio and Xeljanz*?
- How is the approval of the IBD market’s first oral alternative to biologic agents, Xeljanz*, impacting prescribing patterns?
- What profile of IBD patients are being prescribed Xeljanz*?
- What role does market access play in driving brand switching? What role does the patient play in brand selection?
- To what extent is in-office infusion correlated with specific brand use?
- For brands indicated for both UC and CD, how are the patient profiles different?
- What is the next likely therapeutic move if the current biologic does not deliver an optimal response? In what timeframe?
*Dependent on 2018 approval of this agent for UC
AbbVie (Humira), Biogen (Tysabri), Janssen (Remicade, Stelara), Merck (Renflexis [infliximab biosimilar]), Pfizer (Inflectra [infliximab biosimilar]), Takeda (Entyvio), UCB (Cimzia)
AbbVie (upadacitinib), Arena Pharma (etrasimod), Celgene (Otezla, ozanimod), Eli Lilly (mirikizumab), Gilead (filgotinib), Pfizer (Xeljanz), Roche/Genentech (etrolizumab)