Inpatient management of psoriasis: a multicentre service review to establish national admission standards

Adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab for treating plaque psoriasis in children and young people: systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease that predominantly affects the skin. Adalimumab (HUMIRA^®, AbbVie, Maidenhead, UK), etanercept (Enbrel^®, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) and ustekinumab (STELARA^®, Janssen Biotech, Inc., Titusville, NJ, USA) are the three biological treatments currently licensed for psoriasis in children.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab within their respective licensed indications for the treatment of plaque psoriasis in children and young people.

DATA SOURCES

Searches of the literature and regulatory sources, contact with European psoriasis registries, company submissions and clinical study reports from manufacturers, and previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technology appraisal documentation.

REVIEW METHODS

Included studies were summarised and subjected to detailed critical appraisal. A network meta-analysis incorporating adult data was developed to connect the effectiveness data in children and young people and populate a de novo decision-analytic model. The model estimated the cost-effectiveness of adalimumab, etanercept and ustekinumab compared with each other and with either methotrexate or best supportive care (BSC), depending on the position of the intervention in the management pathway.

RESULTS

Of the 2386 non-duplicate records identified, nine studies (one randomised controlled trial for each drug plus six observational studies) were included in the review of clinical effectiveness and safety. Etanercept and ustekinumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than placebo at 12 weeks' follow-up. The magnitude and persistence of the effects beyond 12 weeks is less certain. Adalimumab resulted in significantly greater improvements in psoriasis symptoms than methotrexate for some but not all measures at 16 weeks. Quality-of-life benefits were inconsistent across different measures. There was limited evidence of excess short-term adverse events; however, the possibility of rare events cannot be excluded. The majority of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the use of biologics in children and young people exceeded NICE's usual threshold for cost-effectiveness and were reduced significantly only when combined assumptions that align with those made in the management of psoriasis in adults were adopted.

LIMITATIONS

The clinical evidence base for short- and long-term outcomes was limited in terms of total participant numbers, length of follow-up and the absence of young children.

CONCLUSIONS

The paucity of clinical and economic evidence to inform the cost-effectiveness of biological treatments in children and young people imposed a number of strong assumptions and uncertainties. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) gains associated with treatment and the number of hospitalisations in children and young people are areas of considerable uncertainty. The findings suggest that biological treatments may not be cost-effective for the management of psoriasis in children and young people at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, unless a number of strong assumptions about HRQoL and the costs of BSC are combined. Registry data on biological treatments would help determine safety, patterns of treatment switching, impact on comorbidities and long-term withdrawal rates. Further research is also needed into the resource use and costs associated with BSC. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials (including comparisons against placebo) could substantially reduce the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of biological treatments in biologic-experienced populations of children and young people, particularly in younger children. Such trials should establish the impact of biological therapies on HRQoL in this population, ideally by collecting direct estimates of EuroQol-5 Dimensions for Youth (EQ-5D-Y) utilities.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039494.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Biological therapies for the treatment of severe psoriasis in patients with previous exposure to biological therapy: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapies have revolutionised the care of patients with psoriasis, although they come at significant extra cost. Guidance on their use in the UK National Health Service (NHS) has so far focused on patients who are "biologic naive", yet a minority of patients have poor response and require further treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the potential cost effectiveness of sequential biologic therapies in patients with psoriasis who have been exposed to previous biologic therapy.

METHODS

A two-part model with a 10-year time horizon was built to model an initial 13.5-week "trial" phase and a longer-term "treatment" period with annual Markov cycles. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) response rates from subgroup analyses of three randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating biologic agents were considered. A meta-analysis of these data provided probabilities of achieving PASI response (50/75/90) in the short term, and published evidence and assumptions were used to predict outcomes over the longer term. Benefits were measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs (2013-14) to the UK NHS included drugs, administration, monitoring, and hospitalisation. Costs and benefits were discounted 3.5 % per annum. Cost effectiveness of sequential biologic therapy was measured using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared to best supportive care (BSC). Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of alternative assumptions on the results.

RESULTS

Results indicate that over 10 years, switching to a second biologic following intolerance to or failure of a first is likely to generate more QALYs than BSC, but at a higher cost. Base case results suggest the ICER of the second biologic compared to BSC is £17,681 per QALY; however, sensitivity analyses indicate that changes in the efficacy of BSC, drug costs, dropout rates, and rates of hospitalisation have a significant impact, causing the ICER to range from less than £10,000 to over £50,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Further biologic therapy for patients with psoriasis who have previously been treated with biologic therapy may be cost effective, although there is considerable uncertainty in the results. Future studies should be designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of biologic therapies in this subgroup with particular attention given to short-term and longer-term responses.

A retrospective cohort study of the impact of biologic therapy initiation on medical resource use and costs in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Biologic therapy has become established as an important treatment option in patients with severe psoriasis, but is significantly more expensive in terms of drug costs than traditional treatment options. Relatively little is known about the total healthcare cost of treating severe psoriasis in daily clinical practice and what the budgetary impacts of such high-cost drugs are when compared with standard systemic therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the impact of biologic therapy introduction on the use of medical resources, costs and where available, outcomes in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

METHODS

Data were extracted from case notes of a sequential patient cohort with psoriasis attending a tertiary referral severe psoriasis service and initiated on biologics (adalimumab, efalizumab, etanercept or infliximab) for treatment of their psoriasis. Data on hospital resource use (inpatient, outpatient, day ward, accident and emergency visits and phototherapy sessions) and drug usage (systemic nonbiologic and biologic psoriasis therapies and supportive drugs) were collected for 12 months prior to, and at least 6 months following initiation of biologic therapy. Outcome was measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Differences in resource use and associated costs and outcomes, between 12 months before and after initiation of biologic therapy, were tested using Wilcoxon paired sign tests for continuous data and the McNemar test for categorical data. Confidence intervals (CI) around treatment costs were constructed using a 5000-sample bootstrap analysis.

RESULTS

The primary analysis population comprised 76 patients completing 12 months of biologic therapy: 71% males; mean age at time of study 47·3 years (range 23-74); mean duration of psoriasis 24·7 years (range 5·3-45·5). Significant reductions (P < 0·05) in the year following initiation of biologic therapy were observed for all hospital resource use categories, with mean annual costs reduced by £1682 (95% CI -3182 to -182·2; P = 0·05). Mean annual drug costs increased by £9456 (95% CI 8732-10,182; P < 0·001). Mean PASI fell by 8·9 points from 18·7 to 9·8 (95% CI -10·8 to -7·1; P < 0·001).

CONCLUSIONS

Total healthcare costs associated with treatment of severe psoriasis with biologic therapy are significantly greater than with traditional systemic therapy. However, some of these are offset by substantial reductions in the number and length of hospital admissions and use of photo- and systemic therapy, and result in significantly improved patient outcome (as inferred by improvement in PASI).

Care in the Context of the Complexity of Psoriasis

Previous research has demonstrated the multidimensional challenges of living with psoriasis and dermatology wards provide a unique setting in which to reach people strongly affected by this disease. The aim of this study is to determine the components of care that psoriasis patients and dermatology nurses consider to be important during hospitalization. A purposeful sample of seven psoriasis inpatients and seven dermatology nurses were interviewed in depth during a 3-month period in 2006-2007. The data are analyzed with a modified version of Giorgi’s phenomenological method. Patients consider hospitalization a relief from everyday life with psoriasis and describe its treatment as the focus of nursing care. Despite their knowledge of the psychosocial aspects of psoriasis, nurses consider the physical manifestations of the disease most important. The patients’ descriptions of the challenges in their everyday lives illustrate an area of concern among psoriasis inpatients that is not actively addressed by nursing care.