Cost-effectiveness analysis of TNF-alpha blockers for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis in the perspective of the Italian health-care system

Biologicals and small molecules in psoriasis: A systematic review of economic evaluations

Biological therapy for moderate-to-severe psoriasis is highly effective but cost-intensive. This systematic review aimed at analyzing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of biological treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. A literature search was conducted until 30/06/2017 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and EconLit. The quality of identified studies was assessed with the checklist by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance. Out of 482 records, 53 publications were eligible for inclusion. Half of the studies met between 20 and 25 of the quality checklist items, displaying moderate quality. Due to heterogeneity of studies, a qualitative synthesis was conducted. Cost ranges per outcome were enormous across different studies due to diversity in assumptions and model design. Pairwise comparisons of biologicals revealed conflicting results. Overall, adalimumab appeared to be most cost-effective (100% of all aggregated pairwise comparisons), followed by ustekinumab (66.7%), and infliximab (60%). However, in study conclusions most recent publications favored secukinumab and apremilast (75% and 60% of the studies investigating these medications). Accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds varied between 30,000 and 50,000 USD/Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY). Three-quarters of studies were financially supported, and in 90% of those, results were consistent with the funder's interest. Economic evaluation of biologicals is crucial for responsible allocation of health care resources. In addition to summarizing the actual evidence this review highlights gaps and needs for future research.

Health economic analyses of psoriasis management: a systematic literature search

In the course of the chronic skin disease psoriasis, where a variety of treatment interventions is available, a strong growth of health economic studies comparing treatment costs and benefits can be noticed. The objective was to identify health economic evaluations of psoriasis treatments that have been published to date. Of particular interest were the mostly used analysis and outcome parameters, the compared treatments, and the question, if available health economic studies may be used to perform a meta-analysis of qualitative findings. A systematic literature search using PubMed Medline, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane Library was performed for articles, published and available until mid of January 2016. Among the key words were the terms "psoriasis" and "cost-effectiveness". The search resulted in 318 articles without duplicates. Thereof 60 health economic analyses in psoriasis management were identified. Most of these are cost-effectiveness evaluations (45). The clinical parameter PASI (Psoriasis Area Severity Index) is the most often used cost-effectiveness outcome (33) followed by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (6). In case of cost-utility analyses, QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years) were mostly generated with the help of EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) (12), which was partly based on PASI and DLQI values. The majority of health economic studies is focusing on the direct medical and non-medical costs without consideration of productivity losses. Almost 70 % of 60 publications were conducted in Europe. Overall, most considered systemic treatments were the biological agents etanercept (36), adalimumab (27), and infliximab (26) followed by ustekinumab (17) and phototherapy (incl. UV-B, PUVA/psoralen combined with UV-A) (14). Comparisons including only topical treatments mostly focused on vitamin D treatment (14), corticosteroids (13), and coal tar products (6) followed by dithranol (5) and tazarotene (4). Given the setting, compared treatments, and study conditions, different results can be found for medical decision-making. Thereby, it can be noted that there are no standards on methods and outcomes measures available. This leads to a very limited comparability of health economic studies and presents no comfortable basis to examine a meta-analysis of health economic results. The presented systematic review shows the need for nationwide data and interpretation.

The Budget Impact of Biosimilar Infliximab (Remsima®) for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases in Five European Countries

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory autoimmune diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis) have a considerable impact on patients' quality of life and healthcare budgets. Biosimilar infliximab (Remsima(®)) has been authorized by the European Medicines Agency for the management of inflammatory autoimmune diseases based on a data package demonstrating efficacy, safety, and quality comparable to the reference infliximab product (Remicade(®)). This analysis aims to estimate the 1-year budget impact of the introduction of Remsima in five European countries.

METHODS

A budget impact model for the introduction of Remsima in Germany, the UK, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium was developed over a 1-year time horizon. Infliximab-naïve and switch patient groups were considered. Only direct drug costs were included. The model used the drug-acquisition cost of Remicade. The list price of Remsima was not known at the time of the analysis, and was assumed to be 10-30% less than that of Remicade. Key variables were tested in the sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The annual cost savings resulting from the introduction of Remsima were projected to range from €2.89 million (Belgium, 10% discount) to €33.80 million (Germany, 30% discount). If any such savings made were used to treat additional patients with Remsima, 250 (Belgium, 10% discount) to 2602 (Germany, 30% discount) additional patients could be treated. The cumulative cost savings across the five included countries and the six licensed disease areas were projected to range from €25.79 million (10% discount) to €77.37 million (30% discount). Sensitivity analyses showed the number of patients treated with infliximab to be directly correlated with projected cost savings, with disease prevalence and patient weight having a smaller impact, and incidence the least impact.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of Remsima could lead to considerable drug cost-related savings across the six licensed disease areas in the five European countries.

FUNDING

Mundipharma International Ltd.

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness analyses of treatments for psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the skin that has a major effect on an individual's physical and mental function. The disease is associated with increased healthcare resource use and costs, therefore cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) can be used to assist decision makers with determining which treatments are optimal within a constrained healthcare system budget.

OBJECTIVES

Our aim was to systematically review the current literature on the CEA of existing treatment options for psoriasis, assess the quality of these studies, and summarize the evidence on the drivers of cost effectiveness.

METHODS

A literature search using Medical Subject Headings and keywords was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Health Technology Assessment databases, as well as the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database; the CEA Registry was searched using keywords only. All references within the relevant review articles were examined manually. Two researchers independently determined the final articles and a third researcher resolved any discrepancies. We evaluated study quality in terms of the study perspective, effectiveness measures, cost measures, economic model, and time horizon. Any sensitivity analyses conducted in the studies were examined to identify the drivers of cost effectiveness, which included any variables leading to changes in the study conclusions.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were included in our final review: 70% did not explicitly include costs related to adverse events; approximately one-quarter used quality-adjusted life-years; and 34% applied a time horizon under 1 year. In 18 of the 38 studies that conducted a sensitivity analysis, the cost-effectiveness results were impacted by uncertainty. The main key drivers of cost effectiveness were the costs related to the treatment, values and choice of efficacy, utility values, hospitalization for non-responders, time horizon, model structure, and utility mapping method.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality cost-effectiveness studies are required to facilitate resource allocation decision making. To improve study quality, future research should provide evidence on the long-term experience with psoriasis treatments, and resolve the uncertainty associated with key drivers of cost effectiveness.

Treatment sequencing after failure of the first biologic in cost-effectiveness models of psoriasis: a systematic review of published models and clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the treatment sequencing assumptions after failure on a first-line biologic in cost-effectiveness models of treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, and to compare them with the most recent treatment guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, EconLit and the Cochrane Library databases used free text and Medical Subject Headings terms including psoriasis, biologic therapies indicated for psoriasis, and all types of economic evaluations. Two researchers performed 2-level abstract screening for articles meeting pre-specified inclusion criteria. Assumptions about treatment pathways after first-line biologic failure in the cost-effectiveness models were analysed. A second systematic search was performed for psoriasis clinical practice guidelines. Sequence assumptions were compared with treatment guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 25 cost-effectiveness modelling studies identified, ten estimated the incremental cost per responder; time horizons varied (12 weeks-18 months) and treatment sequencing was not considered. In 15 studies where treatment sequencing was considered, with time horizons up to 10 years, five studies included only a switch to nonsystemic therapy or best supportive care after first-line biologic failure. Another five of the 15 treatment-pathway studies were available only as abstracts with no details of the sequence assumptions. In five of the 15 studies, first-line biologic failure was followed by second-line biologic monotherapy, one of the recommendations in current treatment guidelines. In only one of these five studies was the efficacy of the second-line biologic adjusted downwards, compared with first-line treatment. Only one of these studies considered dose titration with a first-line biologic and none combination therapy (biologic plus methotrexate or phototherapy) after first-line biologic failure, as recommended in some treatment guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Cost-effectiveness models of first-line biologics for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis either do not include subsequent treatment regimens or include only some of the regimens recommended in current treatment guidelines. Results may be sensitive to assumptions about treatment sequencing and the choice and efficacy of subsequent treatment regimens.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Etanercept and Adalimumab for Plaque Psoriasis not Associated with Arthritis

Introduction

Pharmacoeconomic studies examining the cost-effectiveness of biological agents to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis in real-life clinical practice are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency, in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness, of etanercept and adalimumab in a real clinical setting.

Methods

Direct and indirect costs were assessed from a Spanish societal perspective in a historical hospital cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis attending a tertiary referral hospital over a 1-year period. The data examined included drug-related variables, use of health-care resources, transportation and work productivity losses. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of patients achieving a reduction of at least 75% with respect to the baseline value for the Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 75) during the first 52 weeks of treatment.

Results

No statistically significant differences in effectiveness between etanercept (n = 135) and adalimumab (n = 48) were found (PASI 75 80% vs. 85.7%; RR = 1.07 [0.90, 1.27]; RRA = 5.7 [−8.9, 20.2]; p = 0.943). There were no significant differences in total cost per patient with etanercept as compared to adalimumab (14,843.73 ± 6,178.98 € vs. 15,405.91 ± 9,106.50 €; p = 0.768).

Conclusion

Under conditions of daily clinical practice in our hospital, total health-care costs associated with the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis with etanercept appear to be equivalent to those with adalimumab in the first year of treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13555-013-0030-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.