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

Cost per response analysis of deucravacitinib versus apremilast and first-line biologics among patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the United States

BACKGROUND

Understanding the economic value of deucravacitinib and apremilast could assist treatment decision-making for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

This study compared the cost per response (CPR) for US patients initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

A CPR model using pharmacy and administration costs was developed from a US payer perspective. Response was defined as a 75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at weeks 16 and 24. Long-term response was defined as the cumulative benefit over 52 weeks, measured as area under the curve; subsequent treatment was included. Scenario analyses explored varying the efficacy measure or choices of subsequent treatments and limiting discontinuation.

RESULTS

The CPR for deucravacitinib versus apremilast was lower at 16 weeks (difference: -$3796 [95% confidence interval (CI): -$6140 to -$1659]) and 24 weeks (difference: -$12,784 [95% CI: -$16,674 to -$9369]). At 52 weeks, the cost per cumulative benefit was lower for patients who initiated deucravacitinib, regardless of initial treatment period duration (16 or 24 weeks).

CONCLUSIONS

Scenario analyses found mainly consistent results. This study showed that the CPR is lower when initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Dose reduction is a feasible strategy in patients with plaque psoriasis who achieve sustained response with secukinumab: a retrospective, multicenter cohort study in daily practice setting

BACKGROUND

Biological therapy dose modification is a common practice in the long-term treatment of plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to determine prevalence, characteristics of patients, effectiveness, treatment survival of secukinumab dose reduction (SEC-DR) strategy and assess its safety and cost implications.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients with plaque psoriasis treated with secukinumab and up to 2 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

In 63/347 patients with an initial standard dose regimen, SEC-DR was tried at any moment in 18.2% of them after sustained response. In 51 patients, the interval between administrations was increased while in 12 patients, monthly dose was reduced to 150 mg. Successful SEC-DR was achieved in 77.8% of the patients, with sustained PASI response to the end of the study. Survival of secukinumab treatment and safety profile were not compromised by DR. The use of DR saved 33% of the cost, including failures in which standard treatment was resumed.

LIMITATIONS

The proper of the study designed and the arbitrary definition of "DR success."

CONCLUSION

Off-label SEC-DR strategy was used in patients with sustained response to standard dose regimen; this strategy showed long-term efficacy without compromising treatment survival or worsening the safety profile while also being cost saving.

Real-world evidence for ixekizumab in the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: literature review 2016-2021

OBJECTIVES

To describe the results of a structured literature review of real-world outcomes with ixekizumab in patients with psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODS

Literature databases, conference proceedings and additional sources were searched for relevant publications. Real-world studies of ≥25 ixekizumab-treated patients with PsO and/or PsA were included. Data on clinical effectiveness, treatment persistence/patterns, economic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and safety were extracted.

RESULTS

Fifty-one publications were included. Most studies focused on patients with PsO, and the number of publications with a focus on PROs was low. Studies of treatment patterns found that in general, ixekizumab had similar or better persistence versus other biologics, and rates or risk of switching similar to or less than comparator drugs. Adherence to ixekizumab was high, and patients were less likely to discontinue ixekizumab than other biologics. Ixekizumab was effective in the real world, with a safety profile consistent with that reported in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-world use of ixekizumab in PsO and PsA is effective and safe, with generally high treatment persistence and adherence. Further work is required to determine the impact of ixekizumab on PROs in PsO, and to gather more data on real-world use of ixekizumab in PsA.

Cost per responder of biologic drugs used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in France and Germany

OBJECTIVE

The treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has seen significant improvements in recent years with the advent of biologic drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of anti-IL17 drugs and other biologic therapies used to treat moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in France and Germany over a one-year time horizon.

METHODS

We developed a cost per responder model for biologic drugs used in psoriasis treatment. The model included anti-IL17s (brodalumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab and bimekizumab), anti-TNFs (adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and infliximab), an anti-IL12/23 (ustekinumab), and anti-IL23s (risankizumab, guselkumab and tildrakizumab). Efficacy estimates were collected through a systematic literature review of network meta-analyses on long-term Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) measures. Dose recommendations and country-specific prices were used to calculate drug costs. Biosimilar drug prices were used when available as a substitute for the originator drugs.

RESULTS

After one year, brodalumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder in both France (€20,220) and Germany (€26,807) across all available biologic treatments. Among the anti-IL17s, brodalumab had a 23% lower cost per PASI100-responder vs. the nearest comparator in France (bimekizumab, €26,369), and 30% lower vs. nearest comparator in Germany (ixekizumab, €38,027). Brodalumab also had the lowest cost per PASI75- and PASI90-responder among the anti-IL17s in both France and Germany after one year. Adalimumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder among the anti-TNFs in both France (€23,418) and Germany (€38,264). Among the anti-IL-23s, risankizumab had the lowest cost per PASI100-responder in both France (€20,969) and Germany (€26,994).

CONCLUSION

Driven by its lower costs and high response rates, brodalumab was the most cost-effective treatment option for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis over a one-year time-horizon within the anti-IL17 class and when compared to all other biologics in France and Germany.

Estimate of the cost per responder for treatment with biological therapies of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Colombia for first-year and maintenance periods

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease manifesting as erythematous and desquamative dermatoses.

OBJECTIVES

This study estimated the cost per responder (CPR) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis with biologic therapies approved by the Colombian regulatory agency.

METHODS

This secondary study used a modelling based CPR estimation to evaluate psoriasis therapies in Colombia. We calculated CPR of achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores of 75, 90, and 100 for biological treatments based on the number needed to treat (NNT), reported in previously published network meta-analyses. We calculated CPR for the first year and for the maintenance period. We ranked alternatives using the estimated CPR from each literature source using the Borda count method.

RESULTS

Adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept were the least expensive alternatives. Ixekizumab, guselkumab and secukinumab were the treatments with the lowest NNT for PASI 75, 90, and 100. For both first year and maintenance periods, adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR. Sensitivity analyzes showed consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of CPR analysis of biologics to treat plaque psoriasis demonstrated that adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR in the first year of treatment and during the maintenance period.

Comparison of Real-World Costs, Healthcare Resource Utilization, and Comorbidity-Related Costs Between Ixekizumab and Secukinumab Among Biologic-Experienced Patients with Psoriasis Over 18 Months in the USA

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Data on real-world healthcare costs for ixekizumab (IXE) and secukinumab (SEC) in biologic-experienced patients with psoriasis are limited. This study compared real-world costs and healthcare resource utilization between IXE and SEC in biologic-experienced patients with psoriasis over an 18-month follow-up period in the USA.

METHODS

Adult patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis between 1 March, 2015 and 31 October, 2019 were identified using health insurance claims data from IBM Watson Health MarketScan^®. The index date was the date of the first IXE or SEC claim. Biologic-experienced patients with one or more pre-period claims for biologic drugs were identified. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to reduce cohort imbalances. All-cause and psoriasis-related direct healthcare costs along with index drug costs were estimated during the follow-up and reported as per patient per month. Discount factors published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review were applied to psoriasis-related biologics to adjust pharmacy costs.

RESULTS

A total of 411 IXE and 780 SEC users were included. After weighting, all-cause inpatient admissions were similar between IXE (9.5%) and SEC users (10.3%). Weighted, mean ± standard deviation per patient per month all-cause healthcare costs were higher in IXE users ($6670 ± $2910) than in SEC users ($6239 ± $3903; p = 0.049). Psoriasis-related and monthly index drug costs were higher in IXE users ($5609 ± $2009; p < 0.001 and $4688 ± $1994; p < 0.001, respectively) than in SEC users ($5095 ± $2291 and $3853 ± $1977, respectively). After Institute for Clinical and Economic Review adjustment, mean per patient per month all-cause ($4363 ± $2576 vs $4398 ± $3517) and psoriasis-related costs ($3302 ± $1264 vs $3253 ± $1504) were similar between the groups. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review- and adherence-adjusted mean per patient per month index drug costs were similar between IXE and SEC users (p = 0.339).

CONCLUSIONS

Institute for Clinical and Economic Review-adjusted all-cause and psoriasis-related costs were comparable between IXE and SEC users among biologic-experienced patients over an 18-month follow-up period.

Healthcare Costs Among Patients with Psoriasis Treated with Ixekizumab Versus Secukinumab in Real-World Settings Over 24 Months

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare healthcare costs between ixekizumab (IXE)-treated and secukinumab (SEC)-treated patients with psoriasis over a 24-month follow-up period in the United States.

METHODS

Patients with psoriasis diagnosis were identified from IBM Watson Health MarketScan^® Research Databases; those with one or more claim for index drug (IXE or SEC) between March 1, 2016 and October 31, 2019 were included. Included patients were ≥ 18 years old and had continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy benefits ≥ 6 months before and ≥ 24 months after index date. Patients were classified as IXE or SEC users based on drug received at index. Per patient per month (PPPM) all-cause, psoriasis-related, and index drug costs for IXE and SEC users were estimated over 24 months of follow-up. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) discount factors were applied to adjust pharmacy costs. Index drug costs were additionally adjusted for adherence. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to address cohort imbalances. Chi-square/t tests were used to compare IXE versus SEC users; p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Overall, 1461 patients (IXE users, n = 471; SEC users, n = 990) were included. IXE versus SEC users had higher weighted PPPM all-cause, psoriasis-related, and index drug costs (p ≤ 0.001). IXE versus SEC users had comparable ICER-adjusted mean PPPM all-cause costs (US$4172 ± 3349 vs US$3978 ± 2619; p = 0.227) and psoriasis-related costs (US$2950 ± 1332 vs US$2899 ± 1152; p = 0.447). After applying ICER and adherence adjustments, index drug costs were similar between IXE and SEC users (US$3794 ± 1822 vs US$3766 ± 1973; p = 0.795).

CONCLUSIONS

All-cause and psoriasis-related costs were comparable between IXE and SEC users after ICER adjustments; index drug costs were similar after ICER and adherence adjustments.

Pharmacoeconomic aspects of the targeted drugs use in psoriatic arthritis in context of the Russian healthcare system

Objective: to study the clinical and economic aspects of the use of biological disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic DMARDs (tsDMARDs), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Patients and methods. The study included adult patients (age ≥18) with active PsA, bionaive or previously treated with bDMARDs. Comparison technologies included: adalimumab (ADA), guselcumab, golimumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab (SEC), tofacitinib (TOFA), certolizumab pegol (CZP), upadacitinib (UPA), ustekinumab, etanercept. The efficacy and safety of the bDMARDs and tsDMARDs included in the study were evaluated based on the results of a systematic search and analysis of data on the comparative clinical efficacy and safety of their use. First of all, the results of phase III randomized controlled trials of drugs that are used to treat active PsA in adult patients as active treatment compared with placebo or with another active drug, or systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MA) and network MA based on them, were considered. The period from the 12th to the 24th week after the start of therapy was taken as the time point for assessing the clinical efficacy of drugs, and the frequency of achieving the ACR20/50/70 criteria was taken as the performance indicator. Cost per responder (СpR), calculated on the basis of the cost of PsA therapy by the time a response is achieved according to the ACR20/50/70 criteria, was used as a criterion for clinical and economic efficiency and to analyze the impact on the budget.

Results and discussion. The data of the performed MA indicate a significantly greater effectiveness of the analyzed bDMARDs and JAKi compared to placebo in terms of the frequency of achieving a response according to the ACR20/50/70 criteria both in the group of bionaive patients and in the group of PsA patients, previously treated with bDMARDs. There were no differences between the drugs included in the study in terms of the frequency of achieving ACR20/50/70 response during the treatment of PsA. According to the study, by the 24th week of therapy, ADA, UPA and SEC 150 mg were characterized by the lowest costs to achieve the ACR20/50/70 criteria in bionaive patients and ACR20/50 in patients who were previously treated with bDMARDs. A low CpR value was determined in cases of ADA 40 mg and UPA 15 mg use for the treatment of patients with PsA who had not previously received bDMARDs. Among interleukin inhibitors, the lowest CpR value was registered for SEC 150 mg. By the 12th week of treatment, the CpR of TOFA 5 mg was higher compared to that of UPA 15 mg. CpR indicators for achieving ACR20/50 criteria in patients who were previously treated with bDMARDs were lower in UPA 15 mg and CZP compared to other drugs.

Conclusion. The results of the study demonstrate the clinical and economic feasibility of introducing different bDMARDs and JAKi into real practice of PsA treatment. At the same time, the use of original drugs is not always associated with significant costs per 1 patient who responded to treatment. In the absence of direct comparisons, real clinical practice provides important information about the relative efficacy and safety of alternative therapies in the management of PsA patients.

Overlapping network meta-analyses on psoriasis systemic treatments: an overview, quantity does not make quality

BACKGROUND

Network Meta-analyses (NMAs) have become successful in addressing gaps in the comparative effectiveness of systemic treatments in moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, their increasing number carries both a risk of overlap and reproducibility issues that can hamper clinical decision-making. In this overview, we aimed to assess redundancy across these NMAs and to describe their characteristics.

METHODS

We considered all systematic reviews with NMAs of randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of systemic treatments compared with placebo or with an active comparator. PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and the Evidence Update of the Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology of the University of Nottingham were searched up to 25 February 2021. Our main outcome was the number per year of redundant NMAs and the extent of their overlap. We also described their features, especially, the confidence in the results of the reviews, the studies' funding and the presence of spin (a description that overstates efficacy and/or understates harm), reporting issues and methodological characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 47 redundant NMAs were included. Only 2/47 (4%) included all available treatments. Both efficacy and safety were evaluated in 14/47 (30%) NMAs and both short and long-term evaluations were assessed in 5/47 (11 %). Confidence in the results was critically low for 39/47 (83%) NMAs and only 10/47 (23 %) registered a protocol. 26/47 NMAs (55%) received pharmaceutical funding. CROs were involved in 19/47 (40%) NMAs. Reporting was poor across most of the NMAs' abstracts and spin was present in all of the abstracts. Almost half of the NMA failed to consider important limitations such as heterogeneity (32%) or consistency (66%).

DISCUSSION

In addition to a duplication of efforts, our overview showed heterogeneous methods and poor confidence in the results in a majority of the included NMAs, further distorted by reporting issues and spin. Clinicians need to interpret NMAs with caution when looking for the most reliable and comprehensive evidence.

Cost per cumulative clinical benefit of biologic therapies for patients with plaque psoriasis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Measuring cumulative clinical treatment benefit over time captures speed and magnitude of effects. Assessing the cost of biologics relative to their cumulative clinical benefits versus a single time point represents an alternative to evaluate the value of a given biologic used to treat psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: To compare cumulative benefit and cost per cumulative benefit of biologics in treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis from a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Biologics included in the analysis were ixekizumab, adalimumab, guselkumab, ustekinumab, secukinumab, risankizumab, and certolizumab pegol. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) responses over the initial 16-week treatment period were obtained from 31 articles. Cumulative benefits for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 responses were measured as area under the curve (AUC) using the trapezoidal method. Bayesian-based NMA modeled percent maximum AUC through week 16 (%Max_AUCW16). The AUC estimates over 16 weeks were converted to total skin clearance threshold days achieved for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 with each biologic. Cost per cumulative benefit was estimated by multiplying number of doses (per FDA label) by nationally representative discounted wholesale acquisition costs (WACs) for 16 weeks of treatment divided by %Max_AUCW16. The primary cost analysis used WACs, including week 16 doses. Co-primary cost analysis used discounted WACs, including week 16 doses. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using WACs and discounted WACs, excluding doses administered at week 16. RESULTS: Among biologics with available week 16 AUC data for PASI 90 and PASI 100, cumulative benefits over the initial 16-week treatment period ranged from 20.2% (certolizumab pegol) to 47.0% (ixekizumab) for PASI 90 and from 7.4% (adalimumab) to 22.2% (ixekizumab) for PASI 100. The total number of estimated PASI 90 and PASI 100 days achieved over the first 16 weeks of treatment was highest with ixekizumab (53 days and 25 days, respectively). In the primary analysis, guselkumab had the lowest cost per cumulative benefit (95% credible interval [CrI]; $99,742 [$89,941-$111,653]), followed by ixekizumab ($108,906 [$95,928-$126,093]) and adalimumab ($111,233 [$97,549-$129,022]) for PASI 90, and ixekizumab had the lowest cost per cumulative benefit ($230,884 [$191,611-$291,115]), followed by secukinumab ($238,945 [$204,029-$288,072]) and risankizumab ($279,968 [$250,683-$316,872]) for PASI 100 responses. In the co-primary analysis, ixekizumab had the lowest discounted cost per AUC (95% CrI; $60,988 [$53,719-$70,612]), followed by guselkumab ($66,827 [$60,260-$74,807]) and secukinumab ($69,622 [$61,783-$79,786]) for PASI 90, and ixekizumab had the lowest cost per cumulative benefit ($129,295 [$107,302-$163,024]), followed by secukinumab ($148,146 [$126,498-$178,605]) and guselkumab ($188,190 [$166,791-$215,969]) for PASI 100 responses. Conclusions: Among biologics studied, ixekizumab demonstrated the greatest cumulative clinical benefit, maintaining the lowest cost per cumulative benefit for PASI 100 responses and lowest discounted cost per cumulative benefit for PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses for moderate to severe psoriasis over the initial 16-week treatment period. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN). Blauvelt has served as a scientific adviser and/or clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Aclaris, Almirall, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Forte, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Leo, Novartis, Ortho, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sun Pharma, and UCB Pharma and as a paid speaker for AbbVie. Burge, Zhu, Malatestinic, Brnabic, Guo, and Janardhanan are employees and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company.

Cost per responder analysis of guselkumab versus targeted therapies in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany

BACKGROUND

The fully human monoclonal antibody guselkumab is an effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the cost per responder of guselkumab compared with other targeted therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany.

METHODS

A one-year cost per responder model was developed based on efficacy and safety data from a published network meta-analysis. Drug, treatment administration, resource use, and adverse event costs were included in the analysis. The primary analysis assessed the cost per Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 responder at week 16. Additional analyses were conducted at year 1. In the year 1 analyses, treatment response was assessed at the end of the induction period (week 16) to determine which patients continued onto maintenance therapy (responders) and which patients moved onto a subsequent adalimumab or secukinumab therapy (non-responders).

RESULTS

At week 16, the cost per PASI 90 responder was lower for guselkumab than all comparators except adalimumab and brodalumab. Similarly, in the year 1 analyses, guselkumab had a lower cost per PASI 90 responder than all comparators except brodalumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Guselkumab is a cost-effective therapy option in Germany.

Cost per responder for guselkumab versus secukinumab in the United States based on a head-to-head trial of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J DERMATOL TREAT 2020;33:518-524. [PMID: 32479140 DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2020.1770172] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

Aims: To estimate cost per response (CPR) in the United States and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) among subjects receiving guselkumab or secukinumab for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.Materials and methods: Results from ECLIPSE, a double-blind, head-to-head, 48-week study of guselkumab compared with secukinumab were used to estimate 48-week, annual induction, and maintenance year CPRs for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responses for all patients and for PASI 90 response in patients according to previous systemic treatment.Results: Week 48 PASI 90 response rates were 84.5% for guselkumab and 70.0% for secukinumab. The CPR for PASI 90 response at 48 weeks was $89,960 for guselkumab versus $110,977 for secukinumab, and for the maintenance year it was $77,109 for guselkumab versus $88,781 for secukinumab. The NNT for a PASI 90 response was 1.18 for guselkumab and 1.43 for secukinumab. CPR and NNT values were also lower for guselkumab than for secukinumab, for PASI 75 and PASI 100 for the three time periods, and for PASI 90 at 48-weeks, regardless of previous systemic treatment.Conclusions: Results from a head-to-head study showed that, compared with secukinumab, guselkumab had lower NNTs and CPRs for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 responses.

Comparison of Health Care Costs Among Patients with Psoriasis Initiating Ixekizumab, Secukinumab, or Adalimumab

BACKGROUND

As more biologics become available for the treatment of psoriasis (PsO), there is a lack of direct comparisons of health care costs between patients who are treated by different medications, including ixekizumab (IXE), secukinumab (SEC), and adalimumab (ADA).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the real-world health care costs of patients with PsO initiating IXE with those of patients initiating either SEC or ADA.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with PsO between July 1, 2015, and May 31, 2018, were identified from the IBM MarketScan commercial and Medicare databases. Two weighted patient sample sets were constructed based on drug claims between March 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018: IXE versus SEC and IXE versus ADA. Within each sample, the first claim of eligible drugs was set as the index date. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years and had ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility before and after the index date. Patients with other indications for the index drug in the preperiod or with use of the index drug within 90 days before the index date were excluded. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was employed to balance cohorts. All-cause and PsO-related health care costs per member per month (PMPM) incurred during the 12-month follow-up period were assessed. Monthly PsO-related pharmacy costs were adjusted using drug discount rates published by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Annual index drug costs were estimated by adjusting for medication possession ratio and ICER discount rates. All costs were weighted by IPTW.

RESULTS

Two study samples were identified: 357 IXE users were compared with 763 SEC users, and 388 IXE users were separately compared with 2,578 ADA users. Before weighting, IXE users were demographically and clinically similar to SEC users but were older and had worse health status than ADA users. Cohorts were balanced postweighting. After weighting, mean monthly all-cause health care costs were $7,313 and $6,477 (P = 0.002) and mean PsO-related costs were $6,303 and $5,437 (P < 0.001), for IXE and SEC users, respectively. Similarly, mean monthly all-cause health care costs were $6,535 and $5,557 (P = 0.026) and mean PsO-related costs were $5,792 and $4,754 (P = 0.017), for IXE and ADA users, respectively. After applying ICER adjustments, mean monthly PsO-related costs were comparable between groups: $3,637/IXE versus $3,443/SEC (P = 0.132) and $3,320/IXE versus $3,287/ADA (P = 0.907).

CONCLUSIONS

After adjusting for drug discount programs (through application of ICER discount rate), this real-world study estimated that average monthly PsO-related costs during the first year of treatment were similar between patients treated with IXE compared with those treated with SEC or ADA.

DISCLOSURES

Funding for this study was provided to IBM Watson Health by Eli Lilly and Company. The analysis was conducted independently by IBM Watson Health. Eli Lilly and Company and IBM Watson Health collaborated on study design and interpretation of results. Shi, Lew, and Zimmerman were employed by IBM Watson Health and received funding from Eli Lilly and Company to conduct this study. Zhu, Burge, Malatestinic, Lin, Goldblum, and Murage were employed by Eli Lilly and Company while this study was conducted. Blauvelt has served as a scientific adviser and/or clinical study investigator for AbbVie, Aclaris, Akros, Allergan, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Athenex, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, FLX Bio, Galderma, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Leo, Meiji, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Purdue Pharma, Regeneron, Revance, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, Sienna Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharma, UCB Pharma, Valeant, and Vidac, and as a paid speaker for AbbVie, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. A portion of these results were presented at the 2019 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual Meeting; May 18-22, 2019; New Orleans, LA, and the 2019 Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Cost per response for guselkumab versus adalimumab in the United States using data from a head-to-head trial in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Aims: To estimate annual cost per response (CPR) in the US and number needed to treat (NNT) among patients receiving guselkumab or adalimumab treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).Materials and methods: Results from VOYAGE 1, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, head-to-head, 48-week study of guselkumab compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate-to-severe PsO were used to estimate annual CPR for Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responses. Drug dosing followed US label recommendations and drug costs were based on US annual wholesale acquisition costs. Number needed to treat (NNT) and annual CPR analyses were estimated, and week 48 response rates were assumed to be maintained for both the induction and maintenance years.Results: Week-48 PASI 90 response rates were 76.3% for guselkumab and 47.9% for adalimumab. The CPR for PASI 90 in the induction year for guselkumab was $113,861 vs $151,226 for adalimumab. Both drugs had lower CPRs for PASI 90 in the maintenance year: $85,395 for guselkumab and $140,424 for adalimumab for adalimumab. The NNT for a PASI 90 response was 1.3 for guselkumab and 2.1 for adalimumab; CPRs and NNT were also lower for guselkumab than for adalimumab for PASI 75 and PASI 100 for both induction and maintenance years.Limitations and conclusions: In this analysis, extrapolating 48-week results from a single head-to-head study, guselkumab was more cost-effective with lower NNT than adalimumab in both the induction and maintenance years for PASI 75, PASI 90, and PASI 100 responses.

A Cost-per-Number Needed to Treat Analysis Assessing the Efficiency of Biologic Drugs in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with an estimated prevalence in Spain of 2.3% of the population. Approximately 30% of patients have moderate-to-severe forms. Treatment with biologic agents is proving to be a step forward in the management of the disease, although these treatments are very expensive. The objective of this study was to determine the efficiency, in terms of cost per number needed to treat (NNT), of the biologic drugs available in Spain for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

NNT data were obtained from a network meta-analysis that included all randomized clinical trials of biologic drugs sold in Spain. The cost of each treatment was calculated based on the approved dosage for the first year of treatment, as indicated in the Summary of Product Characteristics. These data were used to calculate the cost per NNT of the drugs for various PASI scores (75, 90, and 100). A sensitivity analysis was performed taking into consideration only the PASI-response measurement time (after 10, 12, or 16 weeks, depending on the drug).

RESULTS

The order of efficiency, from most to least efficient, in the case of a PASI 75 response was ixekizumab > ustekinumab 45mg > ustekinumab 90mg > secukinumab > infliximab > etanercept > adalimumab. The order for PASI 90 was ixekizumab >secukinumab >ustekinumab 45mg > ustekinumab 90mg > infliximab > adalimumab > etanercept. The order for PASI 100 was ixekizumab > secukinumab > infliximab > ustekinumab 90mg > ustekinumab 45mg > adalimumab > etanercept. The sensitivity analysis showed some changes in the order, depending on the response-assessment period.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show a link between the efficacy of the biologic therapies available in Spain for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and their efficiency. Ixekizumab had the lowest cost per NNT for all PASI-response scores (75, 90, and 100) during the first year of treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of secukinumab as first biologic treatment, compared with other biologics, for moderate to severe psoriasis in Germany

BACKGROUND

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively neutralizes interleukin 17A, has demonstrated strong and sustained efficacy in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis compared the cost per responder of secukinumab as first biologic treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis, with adalimumab, infliximab, etanercept and ustekinumab in Germany.

METHODS

A 52-week decision-tree model was developed. Response to treatment was assessed based on the likelihood of achieving a predefined Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response to separate the cohort into responders (PASI ≥75), partial responders (PASI 50 to 74) and non-responders (PASI <50). Responders at week 16 continued initial treatment, whereas partial responders and non-responders were switched to standard of care, which included methotrexate, cyclosporine, phototherapy and topical corticosteroids. Sustained response was defined as 16-week response maintained at week 52. A German healthcare system perspective was adopted. Clinical efficacy data were obtained from a mixed-treatment comparison; 2016 resource unit costs from national sources; and adverse events and discontinuation rates from the literature. We calculated cost per PASI 90 responder over week 16 and week 52, as well as cost per sustained responder between weeks 16 and 52.

RESULTS

Secukinumab had the lowest cost per PASI 90 responder over 16 weeks (€18 026) compared with ustekinumab (€18 080), adalimumab (€23 499), infliximab (€29 599) and etanercept (€34 037). Over 52 weeks, costs per PASI 90 responder ranged from €42 409 (secukinumab) to €70 363 (etanercept). Likewise, secukinumab had the lowest cost per sustained 52-week PASI 90 responder (€22 690) compared with other biologic treatments. Sensitivity analyses, excluding patient copayments, showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

First biologic treatment with secukinumab for moderate to severe psoriasis is cost-effective, with lowest cost per responder compared with other biologic treatments in Germany.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head randomized studies comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis are not available.

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and quality of life using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for treatment with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab.

METHODS

Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement of at least 75%, 90% and 100% and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1 response rates for approved dosages of ixekizumab (160 mg at Week 0, then 80 mg every two weeks for the first 12 weeks) and secukinumab (300 mg at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, then 300 mg every 4 weeks) treatment were compared using data from active (etanercept and ustekinumab) and placebo-controlled studies. Comparisons were made using the Bucher (BU) method and two modified versions of the Signorovitch (SG) method (SG total and SG separate). Subsequently, results based on active treatment common comparators were combined using generic inverse-variance meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In the meta-analysis of studies with active comparators, PASI 90 response rates were 12·7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5·5-19·8, P = 0·0005], 10·0% (95% CI 2·1-18·0, P = 0·01) and 11·2% (95% CI 3·2-19·1, P = 0·006) higher and PASI 100 response rates were 11·7% (95% CI 5·9-17·5, P < 0·001), 12·7% (95% CI 6·0-19·4, P < 0·001) and 13·1% (95% CI 6·3-19·9, P < 0·001) higher for ixekizumab compared with secukinumab using BU, SG total and SG separate methods. PASI 75 results were comparable when SG methods were used and favoured ixekizumab when the BU method was used. Week 12 DLQI 0/1 response rates did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Ixekizumab had higher PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses at week 12 compared with secukinumab using adjusted indirect comparisons.