Understanding Predictors of Response to Repository Corticotropin Injection Treatment Among Patients With Advanced Symptomatic Sarcoidosis

Anti-inflammatory Therapy for Sarcoidosis

Over 50% of patients with sarcoidosis will require anti-inflammatory therapy at some point in their disease course. Indications for therapy are to improve health-related quality of life, prevent or arrest organ dysfunction (or organ failure) or avoid death. Recently published treatment guidelines recommended a stepwise approach to therapy however there are some patients for whom up front combination or more intense therapy maybe reasonable. The last decade has seen an explosion of studies and trials evaluating novel therapeutic agents and treatment strategies. Currently available anti-inflammatory therapies and several novel therapies are discussed here.

Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Advanced Symptomatic Sarcoidosis

Introduction

Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, inflammatory, systemic granulomatous disease with unknown etiology. Despite the current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar® Gel (repository corticotropin injection) versus SoC in patients with advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis from the United States (US) payer and societal perspectives over 2 and 3 years.

Methods

A probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach was used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients were monitored at the end of a 3-month cycle for the attainment of partial or complete response. Patients in the partial, complete, or no-response state were allowed to transition in each of these states at each 3-month cycle. Following the attainment of response, patients could have a durable response or relapse to a no-response state. Patients in a no-response state received treatment and could transition into a response or no-response state based on the probability of treatment success with the respective treatment. Clinical parameters and health utility data were sourced from the Acthar Gel in Participants with Pulmonary Sarcoidosis (PULSAR) trial (NCT03320070) and healthcare utilization, costs, and disutilities were sourced from the published literature. Base case analysis considered a payer perspective over 2 years.

Results

From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $134,796 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $39,179 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $117,622 per QALY and $21,967 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the base case.

Conclusion

The results from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis compared to the SoC from the US payer and societal perspectives.

Quality of life in sarcoidosis

Having sarcoidosis often has a major impact on quality of life of patients and their families. Improving quality of life is prioritized as most important treatment aim by many patients with sarcoidosis, but current evidence and treatment options are limited. In this narrative review, we describe the impact of sarcoidosis on various aspects of daily life, evaluate determinants of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and provide an overview of the different patient-reported outcome measures to assess HRQoL in sarcoidosis. Moreover, we review the current evidence for pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to improve quality of life for people with sarcoidosis.

Acthar Gel (RCI): A Narrative Literature Review of Clinical and Economic Evidence

Acthar^® Gel (repository corticotropin injection [RCI]) is a naturally sourced complex mixture of adrenocorticotropic hormone analogs and other pituitary peptides used to treat patients with serious and rare inflammatory and autoimmune conditions. This narrative review summarizes the key clinical and economic findings among 9 indications: infantile spasms (IS), multiple sclerosis (MS) relapses, rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), dermatomyositis and polymyositis (DM/PM), ocular inflammatory diseases (primarily uveitis and severe keratitis), symptomatic sarcoidosis, and proteinuria in nephrotic syndrome (NS). Key studies of clinical efficacy and healthcare resource utilization and cost from 1956 to 2022 are discussed. Evidence supports the efficacy of RCI across all 9 indications. RCI is recommended as first-line treatment for IS and is associated with improved outcomes for the other 8 indications, including increased recovery rates in MS relapse; improved disease control in RA, SLE, and DM/PM; real-world effectiveness in patients with uveitis and severe keratitis; improved lung function and reduced corticosteroid use in symptomatic sarcoidosis; and increased rates of partial remission of proteinuria in NS. For many indications, RCI may improve clinical outcomes during exacerbations or when conventional treatments have failed to show a benefit. RCI is also associated with a reduction in the use of biologics, corticosteroids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Economic data suggest RCI is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for MS relapse, RA, and SLE. Other economic benefits have been demonstrated for IS, MS relapses, RA, SLE, and DM/PM, including reduced hospitalizations, lengths of stay, inpatient and outpatient services, and emergency department visits. RCI is considered safe and effective and features economic benefits for numerous indications. Its ability to control relapse and disease activity makes RCI an important nonsteroid treatment option that could help preserve functioning and well-being among patients with inflammatory and autoimmune conditions.