Budget impact analysis of ustekinumab in the management of moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece

The cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab for moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Given its chronicity and impact on quality of life, psoriasis is a costly disease. As new and better treatments are developed, the cost of treating psoriasis has risen. In this drug profile, the authors discuss ustekinumab, its pharmacokinetics, safety profile, and direct and indirect costs to determine its cost-efficacy. The authors searched PubMed with specific search phrases for clinical trials investigating this issue over 5 years. Eleven articles analyzed cost-effectiveness of ustekinumab, and the references of these articles were included. Studies limited to 12 weeks reported that ustekinumab may not be cost-effective as it has high cost per injection and is costly when loading doses are required. Studies that went beyond 12 weeks documented that, with ustekinumab's infrequent dosing, it is cost-effective during the maintenance period.

Annual biologic treatment cost for new and existing patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece

Aim

The aim of the present study was to estimate the annual per-patient cost of treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, and ustekinumab by response status for new and existing patients with moderate to severe psoriasis in Greece.

Methods

An economic analysis was developed from a national health care perspective to estimate the direct cost of treatment alternatives for new and existing patients within a 1-year time horizon. The model included drug acquisition and administration costs for responders and nonresponders. Real-world treatment pattern and resource use data were extracted through nationwide field research using telephone-based interviews with a representative sample of dermatologists. Unit costs were collected from official sources in the public domain.

Results

The mean annual cost of treatment for new patients who responded (or did not respond) to treatment was as follows: adalimumab €10,686 (€3,821), etanercept €10,415 (€3,224), infliximab €14,738 (€7,582), and ustekinumab €17,155 (€9,806). For existing patients the mean annual cost was €9,916, €9,462, €12,949, and €17,149, respectively. Results did not change significantly under several one-way sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion

Under the base-case scenario, the cost of treatment with etanercept is lower than that of the other biological agents licensed for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Greece, for both new and existing patients, irrespective of response status.

A critical systematic review of budget impact analyses on drugs in the EU countries

BACKGROUND

Budget impact analysis (BIA) is a relatively recent technique that is supposed to be complementary to more established economic evaluations (EEs).

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed the BIAs published on drugs in the EU since December 2008, to assess whether these studies have improved in quality in the last few years.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on the international databases PubMed and EMBASE. The selected articles were screened using a two-step approach to assess (1) their main methodological characteristics and (2) the level of adherence to the latest BIA definition. The assessment was made by two independent reviewers and any disagreement was resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Eventually, 17 articles were reviewed. Thirteen referred to a stand-alone BIA not accompanying a full EE, only nine focussed on a new treatment, 15 were sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug of reference, all but one claiming savings for healthcare budgets. The quality of methods was poor in many of the studies, and only a few of them attempted to estimate real local costs in a credible way. Therefore, the crucial items that in theory make a BIA different from other types of EEs were often the major points of weakness of the studies reviewed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review confirmed that the BIA is not yet a well-established technique in the literature and many published studies still fail to reach an acceptable quality. In particular, BIAs funded by pharmaceutical companies appear to be tailored to show short-term savings induced by new, highly priced products.