Budget impact model in moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris assessing effects of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate foam on per-patient standard of care costs

Aims: To develop a budget impact model (BIM) for estimating the financial impact of formulary adoption and uptake of calcipotriene and betamethasone dipropionate (C/BD) foam (0.005%/0.064%) on the costs of biologics for treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis vulgaris in a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million members.

Methods: This BIM incorporated epidemiologic data, market uptake assumptions, and drug utilization costs, simulating the treatment mix for patients who are candidates for biologics before (Scenario #1) and after (Scenario #2) the introduction of C/BD foam. Predicted outcomes were expressed in terms of the annual cost of treatment (COT) and the COT per member per month (PMPM).

Results: At year 1, C/BD foam had the lowest per-patient cost ($9,913) necessary to achieve a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI)-75 response compared with etanercept ($73,773), adalimumab ($92,871), infliximab ($34,048), ustekinumab ($83,975), secukinumab ($113,858), apremilast ($47,960), and ixekizumab ($62,707). Following addition of C/BD foam to the formulary, the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis would decrease by $36,112,572 (17.91%, from $201,621,219 to $165,508,647). The COT PMPM is expected to decrease by $3.00 (17.86%, from $16.80 to $13.80).

Limitations: Drug costs were based on Medi-Span reference pricing (January 21, 2016); differences in treatment costs for drug administration, laboratory monitoring, or adverse events were not accounted for. Potentially confounding were the definition of “moderate-to-severe” and the heterogeneous efficacy data. The per-patient cost for PASI-75 response at year 1 was estimated from short-term efficacy data for C/BD foam and apremilast only.

Conclusions: The introduction of C/BD foam is expected to decrease the annual COT for moderate-to-severe psoriasis treatable with biologics by $36,112,572 for a hypothetical US healthcare plan with 1 million plan members, and to lower the COT PMPM by $3.00.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK

Aims: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK.

Materials and methods: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy.

Results: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.

Limitations: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab.

Conclusion: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.     

Cost per additional responder for ixekizumab and other FDA-approved biologics in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Background: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited.

Objective: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO.

Methods: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs.

Results: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80?mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45?mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300?mg and ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100.

Conclusion: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.     

The budget impact of brodalumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis on US commercial health plans

Introduction: Brodalumab is a new biologic approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of moderate-severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the impact of the introduction of brodalumab on the pharmacy budget on US commercial health plans.

Methods: An Excel-based health economic decision analytic model with a US health plan perspective was developed. The model incorporated published moderate-to-severe psoriasis prevalence data; market shares of common biologic drugs, including adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept, used for the treatment of moderate–severe psoriasis; 2017-year Wholesale Acquisition Costs for the biologic drugs; drug dispensing fee; patient co-pay; and drug contracting discount. Total annual health plan costs for the biologic drugs were estimated. Scenarios with different proportions of patients treated with brodalumab were compared to a control scenario when no brodalumab was used.

Results: In a hypothetical commercial health plan covering two million members, 7,038 moderate-to-severe psoriasis patients were estimated to be eligible for treatment with brodalumab. Prior to brodalumab approval, the proportions of patients treated by other biologics were estimated at 50.8% for adalimumab, 13.5% for ustekinumab, 14.1% for secukinumab, 4.4% for ixekizumab, and 17.2% for etanercept. With a 20% drug price discount applied to all biologics, the annual health plan costs for brodalumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab, and etanercept were estimated at $37,224, $49,166, $55,084, $56,061, $64,396, and $57,170, respectively. When no brodalumab is used, the total annual pharmacy budget for the biologics used among these patients was estimated at $414,362,647. Among scenarios where the proportions of brodalumab usage were 3%, 8%, 16%, and 30%, the total annual pharmacy cost was estimated to be reduced by $3,698,129, $9,861,677, $19,723,355, and $36,981,290, respectively.

Conclusion: Based on the economic model, brodalumab has the potential to substantially reduce pharmacy expenditures for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the US.     

Comorbidity and economic burden among moderate-to-severe psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis patients in the US Department of Defense population

Aims: To examine the comorbidity and economic burden among moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients in the US Department of Defense (DoD) population.

Materials and methods: This retrospective cohort claims analysis was conducted using DoD data from November 2010 to October 2015. Adult patients with ≥2 diagnoses of PsO and/or PsA (cases) were identified, and the first diagnosis date from November 2011 to October 2014 was defined as the index date. Patients were considered moderate-to-severe if they had ≥1 non-topical systemic therapy or phototherapy during the 12 months pre- or 1 month post-index date. Patients without a PsO/PsA diagnosis during the study period (controls) were matched to cases on a 10:1 ratio based on age, sex, region, and index year; the index date was randomly selected. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to compare study outcomes in the first year post-index date, including healthcare resource utilization (HRU), costs, and comorbidity incidence.

Results: A total of 7,249 cases and 72,490 controls were identified. The mean age was 48.1 years. After PSM, comorbidity incidence was higher among cases, namely dyslipidemia (18.3% vs 13.5%, p?<?.001), hypertension (13.8% vs 8.7%, p?<?.001), and obesity (8.8% vs 6.1%, p?<?.001). Case patients had significantly higher HRU and costs, including inpatient ($2,196 vs $1,642; p?<?.0016), ambulatory ($8,804 vs 4,642; p?<?.001), emergency room ($432 vs $350; p?<?.001), pharmacy ($6,878 vs $1,160; p?<?.001), and total healthcare costs ($18,311 vs $7,795; p?<?.001).

Limitations: Claims data are collected for payment purposes; therefore, such data may have limitations for clinical research.

Conclusions: During follow-up, DoD patients with moderate-to-severe PsO and/or PsA experienced significantly higher HRU, cost, and comorbidity burden.     

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriasis in the Italian setting

Abstract

Aims: The aim of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a budget impact analysis, on the use of apremilast for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (defined as a psoriasis area severity index [PASI]?≥?10), who failed to respond to, had a contraindication to, or were intolerant to other systemic therapies, within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Materials and methods: A Markov state-transition cohort model adapted to the Italian context was used to compare the costs of the currently available treatments and of the patients’ quality of life with two alternative treatment sequences, with or without apremilast as pre-biologic therapy. Moreover, a budget impact model was developed based on the population of patients treated for psoriasis in Italy, who would be eligible for treatment with apremilast.

Results: Over 5?years, the cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy was dominant compared with the sequence of biologic treatments without apremilast. In addition, it is important to underline that the use of apremilast slightly increases the quality-adjusted life years gained over 5?years. Furthermore, within the budget impact analysis, the strategy including apremilast would lead to a saving of €16 million within 3?years. Savings would mainly be related to a reduction in pharmaceutical spending, hospital admissions and other drug administration-related costs.

Conclusion: These models proved to be robust to variation in parameters and it suggested that the use of apremilast would lead to savings to the Italian healthcare system with potential benefits in terms of patients’ quality of life.     

Cost per responder analysis in patients with secondary hyperparathyroidism on dialysis treated with cinacalcet

Abstract

Background:

Growing financial pressure on US dialysis providers requires economic efficiency considerations. The objective of this study was to examine short-term economic efficiencies of a cinacalcet-based treatment approach for secondary hyperparathyroidism.

Methods:

This study retrospectively assessed cost per biochemical response of the OPTIMA trial. OPTIMA was conducted in end-stage renal disease patients to compare biochemical control in patients receiving cinacalcet in addition to vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders vs patients receiving vitamin D sterol and phosphate binders alone. It explored three laboratory measurement response definitions from baseline to week 23: (1) decreases in parathyroid hormone (PTH) ≥30%; (2) PTH?≤?300?pg/ml; and (3) PTH?≤?300?pg/mL, calcium <9.5?mg/dL and phosphorus <5.5?mg/dL. Medication use and costs were measured to calculate average costs and incremental cost per responder. Stratification by lower and higher baseline PTH assessed cost per response by disease severity.

Results:

There were 38–77% more responders with cinacalcet vs control, depending on response definition. Mean (SD) per patient total medication costs were $5423 ($3698) for cinacalcet and $2633 ($2334) for control, leading to a mean difference of $2790 over 23 weeks. When response was defined as a decrease in PTH?≥?30% from baseline, the average cost per responder was $11,266 for control vs $7027 for cinacalcet. The incremental cost per incremental responder ranged from $5186–$9168. Across all response measures, cost per responder was lower in patients with lower baseline PTH.

Conclusions:

Representing a more efficient allocation of economic resources over the short-term, cinacalcet-based treatment algorithm led to a lower cost per biochemical response, particularly in patients with lower disease severity, vs vitamin D sterols and phosphate binders alone. These findings should be interpreted alongside the study limitation of converting international trial-based medication utilization into US costs.     

Healthcare costs in psoriasis and psoriasis sub-groups over time following psoriasis diagnosis

Aims: To quantify healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis overall and in psoriasis patient sub-groups, by level of disease severity, presence or absence of psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics.

Methods: Administrative data from Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Database were used to select adult patients with psoriasis from January 2009 to January 2014. The first psoriasis diagnosis was set as the index date. Patients were required to have ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits pre-index and ≥12 months post-index. Patients were followed from index until the earliest of loss to follow-up or study end. All-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs were calculated for the overall psoriasis cohort and for the six different psoriasis patient sub-groups: (a) patients with moderate-to-severe disease and mild disease, (b) patients with psoriatic arthritis and those without, and (c) patients on biologics and those who are not. Costs are presented per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and by years 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of follow-up, expressed in 2014?US dollars.

Results: A total of 108,790 psoriasis patients were selected, with a mean age of 46.0 years (52.7% females). Average follow-up was 962 days. All-cause healthcare costs were $12,523 PPPY. Outpatient pharmacy costs accounted for 38.6% of total costs. All-cause healthcare costs were highest for patients on biologics ($29,832), then for patients with psoriatic arthritis ($23,427) and those with moderate-to-severe disease ($21,481). Overall, all-cause healthcare costs and outpatient pharmacy costs presented an upward trend over a 5-year period.

Conclusions: Psoriasis is associated with significant economic burden, which increases over time as the disease progresses. Patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, those with psoriatic arthritis, or use of biologics contributes to higher healthcare costs. Psoriasis-related pharmacy expenditure is the largest driver of healthcare costs in patients with psoriasis.     

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Objective: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics? claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12?months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a?>?60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients’ period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p?=?0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12?months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p?p?p?p?Limitations: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage.

Conclusion: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.     

Tofacitinib in the treatment of moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: a cost-effectiveness analysis compared with adalimumab in Taiwan

Aims: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of the second-line treatment with tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, both plus methotrexate (MTX), in patients with moderate-to-severe RA and an inadequate response to the first-line MTX, from a Taiwan National Health Insurance Administration perspective.

Materials and methods: A patient-level simulation model was used to project lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Base-case analysis compared second-line treatment with tofacitinib 5?mg twice daily plus MTX vs adalimumab 40?mg every 2?weeks plus MTX. Patients switched or discontinued treatment due to a lack or loss of effectiveness or a serious adverse event. Efficacy was measured by change in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score. HAQ-DI scores were used to predict mortality and resource utilization, and were mapped onto utility values to estimate QALYs. Efficacy and safety data were derived from clinical trials and other secondary sources. Uncertainty in model parameters was explored using one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results: Patients gained 0.09 more QALYs with second-line tofacitinib plus MTX compared with adalimumab plus MTX (5.13 vs 5.04, respectively) at an additional cost of New Taiwan Dollars (NT$) 12,881. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was NT$143,122/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case result was robust.

Limitations: The lack of available clinical data, particularly for HAQ-DI scores, may introduce some bias in the analysis. No patients were in an early stage of RA, which may limit the generalizability of these results. Base-case results from our study are not necessarily generalizable to countries with healthcare systems that differ considerably from Taiwan.

Conclusions: From a payer perspective, second-line treatment with tofacitinib plus MTX is a cost-effective treatment strategy, compared with adalimumab plus MTX, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA in Taiwan.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00853385.     

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine,in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK,Italy, and Spain

Objectives: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

Methods: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP?=?1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders.

Results: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively.

Limitations: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.     

Healthcare resource utilization and costs among psoriasis patients treated with biologics,overall and by disease severity

Aims: To describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs among biologic-treated psoriasis patients in the US, overall and by disease severity.

Materials and methods: IQVIA PharMetrics Plus administrative claims data were linked with Modernizing Medicine Data Services Electronic Health Record data and used to select adult psoriasis patients between April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014. Eligible patients were classified by disease severity (mild, moderate, severe) using a hierarchy of available clinical measures. One-year outcomes included all-cause and psoriasis-related outpatient, emergency department, inpatient, and pharmacy HCRU and costs.

Results: This study identified 2,130 biologic-treated psoriasis patients: 282 (13%) had mild, 116 (5%) moderate, and 49 (2%) severe disease; 1,683 (79%) could not be classified. The mean age was 47.6 years; 45.4% were female. Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had more median all-cause outpatient encounters (28.0 [mild] vs 32.0 [moderate], 36.0 [severe]), more median psoriasis-related outpatient encounters (6.0 [mild] vs 7.5 [moderate], 8.0 [severe]), and a higher proportion of overall claims for medications that were psoriasis-related (28% [mild] vs 37% [moderate], 34% [severe]). Relative to mild psoriasis patients, patients with moderate or severe disease had higher median all-cause total costs ($37.7k [mild] vs $42.3k [moderate], $49.3k [severe]), higher median psoriasis-related total costs ($32.7k [mild] vs $34.9k [moderate], $40.5k [severe]), higher median all-cause pharmacy costs ($33.9k [mild] vs $36.5k [moderate], $36.4k [severe]), and higher median psoriasis-related pharmacy costs ($32.2k [mild] vs $33.9k [moderate], $35.6k [severe]).

Limitations: The assessment of psoriasis disease severity may not have necessarily coincided with the timing of biologic use. The definition of disease severity prevented the assessment of temporality, and may have introduced selection bias.

Conclusions: Biologic-treated patients with moderate or severe psoriasis cost the healthcare system more than patients with mild psoriasis, primarily driven by higher pharmacy costs and more outpatient encounters.     

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

Abstract

Objectives:

No head-to-head trial has compared the efficacy of adalimumab vs etanercept and infliximab for psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study implements a matching-adjusted indirect comparison technique to address that gap.

Methods:

Patient-level data from a placebo-controlled trial of adalimumab (ADEPT) were re-weighted to match average baseline characteristics from pivotal published trials of etanercept and infliximab. ADEPT patients were re-weighted by odds of enrollment in comparator trials, estimated using logistic regression. Matched-on characteristics included PsA duration, age, gender, severity, active psoriasis, and concomitant treatment. After matching, placebo-adjusted treatment arms were compared at weeks 12 (or 14) and 24. Outcomes included ACR20/50/70, PsARC, HAQ, and modified TSS. PASI50/75/90 were compared for patients with active psoriasis. Cost per responder (CPR) was assessed in the US and Germany using matching-adjusted end-points and drug list prices. Statistical significance was assessed using weighted t-tests.

Results:

After matching, adalimumab-treated patients had greater placebo-adjusted rates of ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 at week 24 compared with etanercept (all p?<?0.05). Adalimumab patients had a higher placebo-adjusted rate of ACR70 than infliximab at week 14 (p?=?0.034). Adalimumab treatment had lower CPR for ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 compared with etanercept at week 24, in both the US and Germany (all p?<?0.02). Adalimumab had lower CPR than infliximab for all outcomes at week 24 (all p?<?0.05).

Conclusion:

Adalimumab is associated with higher ACR70 and PASI50/75/90 response rates than etanercept at week 24 and a higher ACR70 response rate than infliximab at week 14. Adalimumab has significant advantages over etanercept and infliximab in CPR across multiple end-points.

Key limitations:

The matching-adjusted indirect comparison method cannot account for unobserved differences in patient characteristics across trials, and only a head-to-head randomized clinical trial can fully avoid the limitations of indirect comparisons. CPR findings are limited to the US and German markets, and may not be generalizable to other markets with different relative pricing.     

Economic burden,work, and school productivity in individuals with tuberous sclerosis and their families

Aims: Tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) is a multi-organ autosomal-dominant, genetic disorder with incomplete penetrance. The multiple manifestations of TSC and impacts to numerous organ systems represent significant disease, healthcare, and treatment burden. The economic and employment burden of the disease on individuals and their families is poorly understood. This study assessed the cost of illness and work and school productivity burden associated with TSC in a cross-sectional web-survey sample.

Materials and methods: Eligible TSC individuals and caregivers were invited through the Tuberous Sclerosis Alliance advocacy group to complete a web-based survey about illness characteristics, treatment, disease burden, direct and indirect healthcare costs, work and school impairment.

Results: Data from 609 TSC adults or caregiver respondents with no cognitive impairments were analyzed. TSC adults (>18 years of age) had significantly higher direct out-of-pocket costs for ER visits, expenses for medical tests and procedures, alternative treatments, medications and lifetime cost of surgeries compared to TSC pediatric individuals. Both TSC adults and TSC caregivers reported work and school absenteeism and presenteeism; however, adults reported significantly higher absenteeism and presenteeism and overall activity impairment due to TSC, as might be expected, compared to TSC caregivers. TSC adults had significantly higher absenteeism and presenteeism rates compared to adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and muscular sclerosis.

Conclusions: TSC results in considerable direct out-of-pocket medical costs and impairment to work productivity, especially for adults. Future studies should include the comparator group and examine direct cost burden in the US using electronic medical records and insurance databases.     

Treatment patterns among patients with psoriasis using a large national payer database in the United States: a retrospective study

Aim: To characterize treatment patterns of psoriasis patients in a large US managed care database.

Materials and methods: Adults with newly-diagnosed psoriasis were identified from July 3, 2006–August 31, 2014. Patients had continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥6 months prior to and ≥1 year following the index date. The index date was the point at which any of the following inclusion criteria were satisfied: first psoriasis diagnosis by a dermatologist, ≥ 2 psoriasis diagnoses ≥30 days apart, or a diagnosis of psoriasis followed by a claim for psoriasis therapy. Of primary interest was to measure and describe the following psoriasis treatment patterns: utilization rates, time to treatment discontinuation, and lines of therapy for various therapeutic classes of pharmacologic therapies.

Results: From the 128,308 patients identified, 53% were female, mean?±?SD age was 50?±?16 years, with median 3 years follow-up. Topicals were received by 86% of patients, non-biologic systemics by 13%, biologics by 6%, phototherapy by 5%, and 13% received no psoriasis-related medication. Median time from index to first treatment was 0 days for topical, 6 months for non-biologic systemic, and 6 months for biologic. Of those treated, first-line therapies included topical (95%), non-biologic systemic (4%), and biologic (2%). For those with second-line treatment, non-biologic systemic (71%) and biologic (30%) therapies were more common. The most common treatment pattern was topicals only (83%), while all other patterns comprised <5% of the treatment patterns observed.

Limitations: Like other observational studies, limitations to consider when interpreting results include the 6-month pre-index period of no psoriasis or the psoriasis medication claim may not perfectly select only incident user of psoriasis medications, claims-based algorithms may not accurately represent true treatment patterns, absence of over-the-counter medications data, and having no trend analyses over time or between groups.

Conclusions: While the majority of patients with psoriasis initiated a pharmacological therapy, a significant portion did not have a claim for any psoriasis medication. Topical treatments are the most commonly used treatments for psoriasis. Non-biologic systemic and biologic therapies were rarely used first line, but became more common in later lines of treatment.     

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab in moderate-to-severe psoriasis: a Japanese perspective

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, compared to other clinically used biologics (adalimumab, infliximab, and ustekinumab) in Japan for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis from the healthcare system (total costs) and patient co-payment (using different frequencies of drug purchase) perspectives.

Methods: A decision-tree (first year)/Markov model (subsequent years), with an annual cycle, was developed. The model adopted a 5-year time horizon. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison analysis, and other model inputs were collected from published literature and local Japanese sources. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in terms of cost per QALY gained. The annual discounting rate of 2% was applied to both costs and outcomes.

Results: Results for the healthcare system perspective showed that secukinumab had the highest number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (4.07) vs other biologics, dominated ustekinumab and infliximab, and the ICER of secukinumab compared to adalimumab was ¥8,418,222/QALY gained. In the patient co-payment perspective with the monthly purchase of drugs, ustekinumab had the lowest co-payment cost, followed by infliximab, adalimumab, and secukinumab. In the patient co-payment perspective with a once every 3 months purchase of secukinumab and adalimumab, the co-payment costs of secukinumab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab became comparable, and infliximab had the highest co-payment cost.

Limitations: Only short-term efficacy data was modeled, as there was a lack of data on long-term outcomes. Treatment sequencing was restricted to first-line biologic treatment. Drop-out rates for comparators were assumed to be equivalent to secukinumab in the absence of available data.

Conclusions: Secukinumab is a cost-efficient treatment for moderate-to-severe psoriasis, providing greater health outcomes to patients at lower total costs compared to infliximab and ustekinumab, as well as comparable patient co-payment relative to other biologic treatments.     

Cost-efficacy analysis of biological treatments in psoriasis: an 18-month assessment

Summary

This study compared the cost-efficacy of the following approved biological treatment strategies for plaque psoriasis over 18 months: (1) alefacept 15 mg intramuscularly weekly for two 12-week courses; (2) efalizumab 1 mg/kg subcutaneously (SC) weekly; and (3) etanercept 50 mg SC twice weekly for 12 weeks followed by a maintenance dose of 50 mg weekly. Direct utilisation-related costs included drug costs, office fees, injection fees and costs incurred due to adverse events and laboratory monitoring. Efficacy was based on response rates from large-scale clinical trials. At 18 months, total utilisation-related costs for alefacept, efalizumab and etanercept were $26,667, $33,365 and $32,962, respectively. Cost-efficacy, calculated using the corresponding response rates for the three therapies, was comparable ($66,669, $75,828 and $61,041, respectively). Thus, for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who have responded to therapy, two 12-week courses of alefacept 7 months apart, or weekly maintenance treatment with efalizumab or etanercept, resulted in comparable total cost-efficacy.