Cost-effectiveness of apremilast in moderate to severe psoriasis in the United Kingdom

Modification of treatment-sequence model with a customizable number of treatments to better reflect contemporary and future clinical practice in moderate to severe psoriasis

AIMS

Existing treatment-sequence models for psoriasis are limited by lines of treatments included. We sought to more accurately capture the patient experience with an increasing number of treatments while maintaining the complexity and transparency of current models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We adapted a standard treatment-sequence model for psoriasis with two lines of active treatments followed by best supportive care (BSC). The first line was used to model the targeted treatments for comparison (Biologic A or B). The second line was used potentially to model all treatments (excluding the first-line treatment) before BSC, termed the basket of biologics (BoB). First-line treatment and the BoB were modeled with an induction and maintenance phase. The BoB efficacy was assumed to be the average of all treatments included and the BoB annual discontinuation rate was based on the number of treatments included and their individual annual discontinuation rate. A varying number of treatments in the BoB were tested (1, 5, 10). Model inputs were from published literature.

RESULTS

In our example, when the number of treatments in the BoB increased from 1 to 10, the annual discontinuation rate of the BoB dropped from 16.5% to 1.2%. Time on BoB increased from 4.16 to 19.16 years and the time on BSC decreased from 28.28 to 13.29 years. Total costs and quality-adjusted life years increased with an increasing number of treatments in the BoB.

LIMITATIONS

The properties of the BoB were simplified in order to maintain the transparency of the model. Results may differ if individual treatments in the BoB are modeled line by line.

CONCLUSIONS

Modification with the BoB allows a greater number of treatments within the model, providing a closer reflection of clinical reality, and has implications for evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of psoriasis treatments.

A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis in Italy

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 psoriatic arthritis (PsA), within the Italian National Health Service (NHS).Methods: A Markov state transition cohort model, which was 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 PsA in Italy, who can be eligible for treatment with apremilast. The eligible population was represented by adult patients with PsA who had an inadequate response to or were intolerant to previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), for the approved indication, and for the treatment studied in the economic analytic model.Results: This cost-effectiveness analysis estimated that the strategy of using apremilast before biologic therapy is cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €32,263.00 per QALY gained which is slightly over the normal threshold found in other Italian economic studies, which usually considers a 40-year-period. Conversely, the budget impact analysis was conducted over 3 years, and it led to an estimated annual saving of €1.6 million, €4.6 million and €5.5 million in the first, second and third year of apremilast commercialization, respectively, for a total saving of €11.75 million in 3 years.Limitations: Limitations of this analysis include the absence of head-to-head trials comparing therapies included in the economic model, the lack of comparative long-term data on treatment efficacy, and the assumption of complete independence between the considered response rates to therapy.Conclusion: The use of apremilast as a first option before the use of biologic agents may represent a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with PsA who fail to respond to, or are intolerant to, previous DMARD therapy. In addition, based on a budget impact perspective, the use of apremilast may lead to cost savings to the Italian healthcare system.

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

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.