Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab for the treatment of active psoriatic arthritis: a Canadian perspective

Cost per Responder Analysis of Secukinumab versus Adalimumab in the Treatment of Psoriatic Disease

BACKGROUND

The EXCEED study evaluated the efficacy and safety of secukinumab versus adalimumab in psoriatic arthritis, but it did not include a pharmacoeconomic analysis. The objective of this study was to compare the cost per responder of secukinumab versus adalimumab in patients with psoriatic disease.

METHODS

The cost per responder was calculated by multiplying the cost of treatment by the number needed to treat for each therapy. The 52-week primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology response rate (ACR) 20; secondary endpoints were ACR 50, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90, and minimal disease activity (MDA).

RESULTS

The cost per responder for ACR 20 was €19,846 versus €19,766 for secukinumab and adalimumab, respectively, whereas the costs per responder for ACR 50 and PASI 90 were €27,820 versus €27,384 and €22,102 versus €32,375 for secukinumab and adalimumab, respectively. The cost per MDA responder was €34,072 and €38,906 for secukinumab versus adalimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The costs per responder associated with the psoriatic arthritis end points were similar for adalimumab and secukinumab; conversely, the costs for psoriasis and composite end points were lower for secukinumab.

Model to Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Psoriasis Patients for Psoriatic Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

Screening psoriasis patients for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is intended to identify patients at earlier stages of the disease. Early treatment is expected to slow disease progression and delay the need for biologic therapy. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of screening for PsA in patients with psoriasis in Canada.

METHODS

A Markov model was built to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of screening tools for PsA in psoriasis patients. The screening tools included the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation, and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (EARP) questionnaires. States of health were defined by disability levels as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire. State transitions were modeled based on annual disease progression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits were estimated. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken to account for parameter uncertainty and to test model assumptions.

RESULTS

Screening was cost-effective compared to no screening. The EARP tool had the lowest total cost ($2,000 per patient per year saved compared to no screening) and the highest total QALYs (additional 0.18 per patient compared to no screening). The results were most sensitive to test accuracy and the efficacy of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). No screening was cost-effective (at $50,000 per QALY) relative to screening when DMARDs failed to slow disease progression.

CONCLUSION

If early therapy with DMARDs delays biologic treatment, implementing screening in patients with psoriasis in Canada is expected to represent a cost savings of $220 million per year and improve the quality of life.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sequential Biologic Therapy with Ixekizumab Versus Secukinumab in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis with Concomitant Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the UK

BACKGROUND

Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) antagonists are a recent innovation for treating psoriatic arthritis (PsA). There are currently no cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing the IL-17A antagonists ixekizumab and secukinumab in PsA from a UK perspective.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a CEA from the UK National Health Service perspective to compare ixekizumab versus secukinumab in patients with PsA and concomitant moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed based on the widely accepted York model. In biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD)-naïve patients, ixekizumab → ustekinumab → best supportive care (BSC) was compared with secukinumab → ustekinumab → BSC. For bDMARD-experienced patients, ixekizumab → BSC was compared with secukinumab → BSC. At the end of the bDMARD trial period, Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) responders continued to receive the bDMARD in the continuous treatment period. PsARC nonresponders and patients who ceased continuous treatment transitioned to the trial period of the next treatment.

RESULTS

Ixekizumab was less costly and provided more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than secukinumab in bDMARD-naïve and -experienced patients based on list prices, although cost savings and QALY gains were small to modest. In bDMARD-naïve patients, total costs were £155,455 compared with £155,530 for secukinumab (year 2017 values). Total QALYs were 8.127 versus 7.989. In bDMARD-experienced patients, the corresponding values were £140,051 versus £140,264 for total costs and 3.996 versus 3.875 for total QALYs.

CONCLUSION

Ixekizumab provided more QALYs at a marginally lower cost than secukinumab, and the results were most sensitive to changes in drug costs. Other factors, such as patient preferences for the number of injections and confidential price discounts, may be important considerations in clinical decision-making.

Health technology assessment of biosimilars worldwide: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Health technology assessment (HTA) should provide an assessment of a technology's effects on health and of the related social, economic, organisational and ethical issues. HTA reports on biosimilars can specifically assess their immunogenicity, their extrapolation to one or more conditions, and the risks of interchangeability and substitution. We aimed to complete a scoping review within the context of HTA organisations to synthesise HTA reports on biosimilars and to map the extension, scope and methodological practices.

MAIN BODY

A scoping review methodology was applied. The sources for biosimilars HTA reports were database searches and grey literature from HTA organisation websites up to June 2019. HTA reports of biosimilars were classified as full HTA, mini-HTA or rapid reviews. Data were extracted and recorded on a calibrated predefined data form. We identified 70 HTA reports of biosimilars of 16 biologic products (65.71% in 2015-2018) produced by 13 HTA organisations from 10 countries; 2 full HTAs, 4 mini-HTAs and 64 rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. Almost all the rapid reviews gave no information regarding any evidence synthesis method and approximately half of the rapid reviews did not appraise the risk of bias of primary studies or the overall quality of evidence. All full-HTAs and mini-HTAs addressed organisational, ethical, social and legal considerations, while these factors were assessed in less than half of the rapid reviews. The immunogenicity and extrapolation of one or more conditions were often considered. The majority of full-HTAs and mini-HTAs contained an assessment of switching and a discussion of an educational approach about biosimilars. No HTA report rejected the adoption/reimbursement of the biosimilar assessed.

CONCLUSION

HTA of biosimilars are emerging in the context of HTA organisations and those that exist often duplicate reports of the same biosimilar. Most HTA reports of biosimilars do not conduct a systematic literature review or consider economic issues. No report has rejected the adoption/reimbursement of biosimilars. There is a need to standardise the minimum criteria for the development of HTA on biosimilars to ensure a better understanding and better decision-making.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab Versus Other Biologics and Apremilast in the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory arthritis that occurs in people affected by the autoimmune disease psoriasis. The cost effectiveness of secukinumab in PsA has not been evaluated in Germany.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of secukinumab in three adult populations with active PsA in Germany: biologic naïve without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, biologic naïve with moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, and biologic experienced. Comparators included other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including biosimilar versions as well as standard of care.

METHODS

The analysis took the viewpoint of the German statutory health insurance. We adapted a decision analytic semi-Markov model to evaluate the cost effectiveness of secukinumab over a lifetime horizon. Treatment response was assessed based on PsA Response Criteria at 12 weeks. Nonresponders or patients discontinuing the initial-line DMARD were allowed to switch to subsequent-line DMARDs. Model input parameters (Psoriasis Area Severity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), withdrawal rates, costs, and resource use) were collected from clinical trials, published literature, and official reports. Health benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and benefits. The robustness of the study findings was evaluated via sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the biologic-naïve population without moderate or severe plaque psoriasis, secukinumab 150 mg either strictly dominated other DMARDs (certolizumab pegol, golimumab, and ustekinumab) or yielded favorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (vs. etanercept, adalimumab, and infliximab). In the biologic-naïve population with concomitant moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and in the biologic-experienced population, secukinumab 300 mg was more effective and had a lower ICER than other DMARDs, thus leading to extended dominance. Deterministic sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were most sensitive to the discount rate for costs and health outcomes as well as the HAQ score as an input to utility values.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab appears to be cost effective compared with other DMARDs for the treatment of active PsA in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of secukinumab versus other biologics and apremilast in the treatment of active Psoriatic arthritis: a Finnish perspective

OBJECTIVE

To study cost-effectiveness of an interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor secukinumab, with other biologics and apremilast in patients with Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) from payer perspective in Finland.

METHODS

In this semi-Markov model, subcutaneous (SC) secukinumab was compared with SC treatments etanercept and its biosimilar, certolizumab pegol, adalimumab and its biosimilar, golimumab, ustekinumab, intravenous (IV) treatment infliximab, as well as oral non-biologic apremilast. Patients without prior exposure (naïve) to biologics and without moderate to severe psoriasis were considered for secukinumab 150 mg group. Secukinumab 300 mg group included naïve patients with moderate to severe psoriasis and all patients with prior biologic exposure. The PsA Response Criteria (PsARC) at 12-week was primary criteria for treatment response. Other clinical as well as cost related model inputs were derived from relevant clinical trials as well as Finnish publications. The key model outcomes were quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. An annual 3% discount rate was applied to all future costs and benefits. Model input variations were assessed through sensitivity analyses and alternative scenario analyses.

RESULTS

For a lifetime horizon (60 years), secukinumab 150 mg dominated all branded SC biologics and apremilast with highest QALY of 8.01 and lowest lifetime cost of €187,776, while it was cost-effective against IV infliximab among biologic-naïve patients without moderate to severe psoriasis. Secukinumab 300 mg was cost-effective against all branded SC biologics and apremilast and dominated IV infliximab among biologic-naïve patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, while it was cost-effective in biologic experienced patients. With the one-way sensitivity analysis, PsARC response, drug acquisition cost, and health assessment questionnaire score were the most important parameters affecting the outcomes. Across all treatment groups, patients on secukinumab were most likely to achieve highest net monetary benefit than other competitors in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. With alternative scenario analysis, results largely remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab is a cost-effective treatment for PsA patients from a Finnish payer's perspective.

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.

Budget impact model of secukinumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis in Italy: a cross-indication initiative

Objective

Secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively neutralizes the proinflammatory cytokine IL-17A, has been approved in Europe in 2015 for the treatment of adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). This analysis assessed the budget impact of introduction of secukinumab to the Italian market for all three indications from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

Materials and methods

A cross-indication budget impact model was developed and included biologic-treated adult patients diagnosed with psoriasis, PsA, and AS. The analyses were conducted over a 3-year time horizon and included direct costs (drug therapy costs, administration costs, diseases-related costs, and adverse events costs). Model input parameters (epidemiology, market share projections, resource use, and costs) were obtained from the published literature and other Italian sources. The robustness of the results was tested via one-way sensitivity analyses: secukinumab cost, secukinumab market share, intravenous administration costs, and adverse events costs were varied by ±10%.

Results

The total patient population for secukinumab over the 3-year timeframe was projected to be 6,648 in the first year, increasing to 12,001 in the third year, for all three indications combined (psoriasis, PsA, and AS). Compared to a scenario without secukinumab in the market, the introduction of secukinumab in the market for the treatment of psoriasis, PsA, and AS showed a cumulative 3-year incremental budget impact of −5%, corresponding to savings of €66.1 million and per patient savings of about €1,855. The majority of the cost savings came from the adoption of secukinumab in AS (58%), followed by PsA (29%) and psoriasis (13%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

Results from this cross-indication budget impact model show that secukinumab is a cost-saving option for the treatment of PsA, AS, and psoriasis patients in Italy.

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab for the Treatment of Active Psoriatic Arthritis in the UK

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to determine the cost effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human interleukin-17A inhibitor, for adults in the UK with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who are tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) naïve and without concomitant moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and who have responded inadequately to conventional systemic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs).

PERSPECTIVE AND SETTING

The study took the perspective and setting of the UK National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

The model structure was a 3-month decision tree leading into a Markov model. Separate analyses based on the number of prior csDMARDs (one and  two or more) were conducted, with secukinumab 150 mg compared to standard of care (SoC) and TNFis, respectively, for each subpopulation. Clinical parameters, including response at 3 months, were from the FUTURE 2 trial and a network meta-analysis. Outcomes included total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over the 40-year time horizon (3.5% annual discount for both outcomes; cost year 2017), and incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

The ICER for secukinumab 150 mg versus SoC was £28,748 per QALY gained (one prior csDMARD). Secukinumab 150 mg dominated golimumab, certolizumab pegol and etanercept, and had an ICER of £5680 per QALY gained versus adalimumab and > £1 million saved per QALY foregone versus infliximab (two or more prior csDMARDs). Valuing one QALY at between £20,000 and £30,000, the probability of secukinumab having the highest net monetary benefit was 48.9% (one prior csDMARD) and 88.9% (two or more prior csDMARDs). Parameters related to Health Assessment Questionnaire scores were most influential.

CONCLUSIONS

Secukinumab 150 mg at list price appears to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources for adults with PsA who have responded inadequately to one or two or more prior csDMARDs.

Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Psoriatic arthritis is a long-term inflammatory arthropathy occurring in a subgroup of patients with psoriasis. In addition to irreversible bone erosions, joint destruction, and skin manifestations, psoriatic arthritis is associated with numerous comorbid conditions. Over the last 5 years, new treatments emerged; the analysis and comparisons of their additional costs and the added benefits have become increasingly important to optimize the limited resources available.

METHODS

A systematic literature review covering PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed from May 2012 to October 2017 focusing on the most recent evidence of costs, benefits, and burden of psoriatic arthritis and its treatments. All economic evaluations assessing the burden of patients with psoriatic arthritis and written in English were eligible for inclusion. We also performed an assessment of the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Of the 1652 references found in the literature search, nine cost-effectiveness analyses and 12 cost-of-illness studies were included in the current review. Patients with psoriatic arthritis incur substantially higher direct and indirect costs, as compared with patients with psoriasis without arthritis or patients with other inflammatory diseases. The cost of treatment with biologic therapies is the major predictor of the total cost. However, individuals with psoriatic arthritis are also affected by substantial productivity losses and indirect costs. Biologic therapies are generally cost effective vs. conventional therapies (e.g., synthetic drugs) for treating psoriatic arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Psoriatic arthritis is associated with a significant economic burden and biologic therapies contribute significantly to these costs. Biologic therapies are more effective than disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for the symptoms and signs of psoriatic arthritis and for improving quality of life and inhibiting structural radiological damage. Therefore, biologic therapies are cost effective compared with conventional therapies: the increased direct cost associated with biologic drugs is offset by the significant improvement in the efficacy of treatments and in patient management of psoriatic arthritis.