A Cost-per-Number Needed to Treat Analysis Assessing the Efficiency of Biologic Drugs in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abrocitinib Compared with Other Systemic Treatments for Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by itchy, painful, and dry skin. Despite the great number of available therapies, economic evaluations are still needed to provide evidence on their cost efficiency. This research aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (200 mg) compared with dupilumab (300 mg), tralokinumab (300 mg), baricitinib (2 and 4 mg), and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) for the treatment of patients with severe AD from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A hybrid model consisting of a decision tree linked to a Markov model was developed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total years in response and incremental cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay [WTP] threshold: €25,000/QALY). Adults with severe AD entered the decision tree and response (75% reduction in baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, EASI-75) was considered at 16 and 52 weeks. After this time, patients entered the Markov model (remainder of the 10-year time horizon), which consisted of three health states: maintenance with active therapy, subsequent treatment, or death. All costs were presented in 2022 euros (€). Additionally, cost per number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated for abrocitinib and dupilumab based on a head-to-head post-hoc analysis.

RESULTS

Abrocitinib 200 mg was dominant (i.e., lower incremental costs and higher incremental benefit) compared with all studied alternatives (dupilumab 300 mg, tralokinumab 300 mg, baricitinib 2 and 4 mg, upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg) with a QALYs gain of 0.49, 0.60, 0.64, 0.43, 0.45, and 0.08, respectively, and per-person costs savings of €22,097, €24,140, €14,825, €7,116, €12,805, and €45,189, respectively. Considering the WTP threshold, abrocitinib was dominant or cost effective compared with all alternatives for most simulations. Additionally, abrocitinib was dominant compared with all alternatives when evaluating the cost effectiveness over a 5-year time horizon. NNT showed that abrocitinib was dominant versus dupilumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study show that abrocitinib is a cost-effective therapy compared with other JAK inhibitors and biological therapies from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Estimate of the cost per responder for treatment with biological therapies of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Colombia for first-year and maintenance periods

INTRODUCTION

Psoriasis is a chronic systemic inflammatory disease manifesting as erythematous and desquamative dermatoses.

OBJECTIVES

This study estimated the cost per responder (CPR) for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis with biologic therapies approved by the Colombian regulatory agency.

METHODS

This secondary study used a modelling based CPR estimation to evaluate psoriasis therapies in Colombia. We calculated CPR of achieving Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores of 75, 90, and 100 for biological treatments based on the number needed to treat (NNT), reported in previously published network meta-analyses. We calculated CPR for the first year and for the maintenance period. We ranked alternatives using the estimated CPR from each literature source using the Borda count method.

RESULTS

Adalimumab, infliximab and etanercept were the least expensive alternatives. Ixekizumab, guselkumab and secukinumab were the treatments with the lowest NNT for PASI 75, 90, and 100. For both first year and maintenance periods, adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR. Sensitivity analyzes showed consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of CPR analysis of biologics to treat plaque psoriasis demonstrated that adalimumab, infliximab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab had the lowest CPR in the first year of treatment and during the maintenance period.

Number needed to treat and associated cost analysis of cenobamate versus third-generation anti-seizure medications for the treatment of focal-onset seizures in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Epilepsy is a serious neurological disease, ranking high in the top causes of disability. The main goal of its treatment is to achieve seizure freedom without intolerable adverse effects. However, approximately 40% of patients suffer from Drug-Resistant Epilepsy (DRE) despite the availability of the latest options called third-generation Anti-Seizure Medications(ASMs). Cenobamate is the first ASM approved in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of Focal-Onset Seizures (FOS) in adult patients with DRE. The introduction of a new drug increases the number of therapeutic options available, making it important to compare it with existing alternatives in terms of clinical benefit and efficiency.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical benefit, in terms of the Number Needed to Treat (NNT), and the efficiency, in terms of Cost per NNT (CNT), associated with cenobamate versus third-generation ASMs used in Spain for the adjunctive treatment of FOS in patients with DRE.

METHODS

The Number Needed to Treat data was calculated based on the ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom endpoints (defined as the percentage of patients achieving 50% and 100% reduction in seizure frequency, respectively), obtained from pivotal clinical trials performed with cenobamate, brivaracetam, perampanel, lacosamide, and eslicarbazepine acetate. The NNT was established as the inverse of the treatment responder rate minus the placebo responder rate and was calculated based on the minimum, mid-range Daily Defined Dose (DDD), and maximum doses studied in the pivotal clinical trials of each ASM. CNT was calculated by multiplying the annual treatment cost by NNT values for each treatment option.

RESULTS

In terms of NNT, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest values at all doses for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom compared with the alternatives. In terms of CNT, for ≥50% responder rate, cenobamate was the ASM associated with the lowest CNT values at DDD and lacosamide and eslicarbazepine acetate at the minimum and maximum dose, respectively. For seizure freedom, cenobamate was associated with the lowest CNT value at DDD and the maximum dose and lacosamide at the minimum dose.

CONCLUSIONS

Cenobamate could represent the most effective ASM in all doses studied compared to the third-generation ASMs and the most efficient option at DDD for both ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom. This study could represent an important contribution towards informed decision-making regarding the selection of the most appropriate therapy for FOS in adult patients with DRE from a clinical and economical perspective in Spain.

Number Needed to Treat Network Meta-Analysis to Compare Biologic Drugs for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis

Introduction

Number needed to treat (NNT) estimates are a practical metric to help identify the most effective therapies. Our objective is to compare 11 biologic drugs for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in terms of NNT.

Methods

The NNT data were obtained from a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 42 double-blind, randomized, phase 3 clinical trials for 11 biologics (adalimumab, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab). We determined NNT to achieve Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75/90/100 responses at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, and 48/52 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) response 0, 1 at week 12.

Results

Highest efficacy (lowest NNT) was with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 90 at weeks 4, 8, and 12; ixekizumab for PASI 90/100 at week 16; and brodalumab for PASI 100 at week 12. After 48/52 weeks, risankizumab had the highest efficacy for PASI 90/100 overlapping with guselkumab, brodalumab, and ixekizumab for PASI 90 and with brodalumab and ixekizumab for PASI 100. Ixekizumab had the highest efficacy for DLQI (0,1) at week 12.

Conclusions

Brodalumab and ixekizumab had the lowest NNTs for achieving PASI responses at early time points and were not significantly different than risankizumab and guselkumab after 48/52 weeks.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02065-w.

Meta-analysis and Indirect Comparisons: on Methods, Paradigms, and Biologic Treatments for Psoriasis

Meta-analysis offers a way to assess the clinical efficacy of a treatment by combining the results of randomized clinical trials while maintaining randomization; the combined effects, with their confidence intervals, can be represented with a forest plot. The efficacy of several different treatment options can be assessed with either direct or indirect comparisons. Indirect comparisons may be placebo-anchored as well as network meta-analyses (NMA) that use either a frequentist or Bayesian approach, depending on the statistical framework and the definition of probability selected. Indirect comparisons may also adjust for covariates or utilize individual participant data. Bayesian NMA are able to establish a rank order of efficacy based on probabilities or credibility intervals, which can be described by the surface under the cumulative ranking curve(SUCRA). Statistical superiority is demonstrated by pairwise comparisons, which are generally presented in league tables. This review provides clinical practitioners with detailed descriptions of these methods, drawing on examples from recently published NMA that rank the relative efficacy of biologic treatments for moderate to severe psoriasis. According to NMA findings, the four most effective treatments in both the short term (10-16 weeks) and the long term (approximately one year) are, in rank order, risankizumab (first in all studies that include it), brodalumab, guselkumab, and ixekizumab. However, the between-treatment differences are not always significant.

Cost per responder analysis of guselkumab versus targeted therapies in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany

BACKGROUND

The fully human monoclonal antibody guselkumab is an effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to examine the cost per responder of guselkumab compared with other targeted therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany.

METHODS

A one-year cost per responder model was developed based on efficacy and safety data from a published network meta-analysis. Drug, treatment administration, resource use, and adverse event costs were included in the analysis. The primary analysis assessed the cost per Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 responder at week 16. Additional analyses were conducted at year 1. In the year 1 analyses, treatment response was assessed at the end of the induction period (week 16) to determine which patients continued onto maintenance therapy (responders) and which patients moved onto a subsequent adalimumab or secukinumab therapy (non-responders).

RESULTS

At week 16, the cost per PASI 90 responder was lower for guselkumab than all comparators except adalimumab and brodalumab. Similarly, in the year 1 analyses, guselkumab had a lower cost per PASI 90 responder than all comparators except brodalumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Guselkumab is a cost-effective therapy option in Germany.

Indoor salt water baths followed by artificial ultraviolet B light for chronic plaque psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Chronic plaque psoriasis is an immune-mediated, chronic, inflammatory skin disease, which can impair quality of life and social interaction. Disease severity can be classified by the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score ranging from 0 to 72 points. Indoor artificial salt bath with or without artificial ultraviolet B (UVB) light is used to treat psoriasis, simulating sea bathing and sunlight exposure; however, the evidence base needs clear evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of indoor (artificial) salt water baths followed by exposure to artificial UVB for treating chronic plaque psoriasis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trial registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies, recent reviews, and relevant papers for further references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of salt bath indoors followed by exposure to artificial UVB in adults who have been diagnosed with chronic plaque type psoriasis. We included studies reporting between-participant data and within-participant data. We evaluated two different comparisons: 1) salt bath + UVB versus other treatment without UVB; eligible comparators were exposure to psoralen bath, psoralen bath + artificial ultraviolet A UVA) light, topical treatment, systemic treatment, or placebo, and 2) salt bath + UVB versus other treatment + UVB or UVB only; eligible comparators were exposure to bath containing other compositions or concentrations + UVB or UVB only.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary efficacy outcome was PASI-75, to detect people with a 75% or more reduction in PASI score from baseline. The primary adverse outcome was treatment-related adverse events requiring withdrawal. For the dichotomous variables PASI-75 and treatment-related adverse events requiring withdrawal, we estimated the proportion of events among the assessed participants. The secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, (DLQI) pruritus severity measured using a visual analogue scale, time to relapse, and secondary malignancies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs: six reported between-participant data (2035 participants; 1908 analysed), and two reported within-participant data (70 participants, 68 analysed; 140 limbs; 136 analysed). One study reported data for the comparison salt bath with UVB versus other treatment without UVB; and eight studies reported data for salt bath with UVB versus other treatment with UVB or UVB only. Of these eight studies, only five reported any of our pre-specified outcomes and assessed the comparison of salt bath with UVB versus UVB only. The one included trial that assessed salt bath plus UVB versus other treatment without UVB (psoralen bath + UVA) did not report any of our primary outcomes. The mean age of the participants ranged from 41 to 50 years of age in 75% of the studies. None of the included studies reported on the predefined secondary outcomes of this review. We judged seven of the eight studies as at high risk of bias in at least one domain, most commonly performance bias. Total trial duration ranged between at least two months and up to 13 months. In five studies, the median participant PASI score at baseline ranged from 15 to 18 and was balanced between treatment arms. Three studies did not report PASI score. Most studies were conducted in Germany; all were set in Europe. Half of the studies were multi-centred (set in spa centres or outpatient clinics); half were set in a single centre in either an unspecified settings, a psoriasis daycare centre, or a spa centre. Commercial spa or salt companies sponsored three of eight studies, health insurance companies funded another, the association of dermatologists funded another, and three did not report on funding. When comparing salt bath plus UVB versus UVB only, two between-participant studies found that salt bath plus UVB may improve psoriasis when measured using PASI 75 (achieving a 75% or more reduction in PASI score from baseline) (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24 to 2.35; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Assessment was conducted at the end of treatment, which was equivalent to six to eight weeks after start of treatment. The two trials which contributed data for the primary efficacy outcome were conducted by the same group, and did not blind outcome assessors. The German Spas Association funded one of the trials and the funding source was not stated for the other trial. Two other between-participant studies found salt bath plus UVB may make little to no difference to outcome treatment-related adverse events requiring withdrawal compared with UVB only (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.64; 404 participants; low-certainty evidence). One of the studies reported adverse events, but did not specify the type of events; the other study reported skin irritation. One within-participant study found similar results, with one participant reporting severe itch immediately after Dead Sea salt soak in the salt bath and UVB group and two instances of inadequate response to phototherapy and conversion to psoralen bath + UVA reported in the UVB only group (low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Salt bath with artificial ultraviolet B (UVB) light may improve psoriasis in people with chronic plaque psoriasis compared with UVB light treatment alone, and there may be no difference in the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events requiring withdrawal. Both results are based on data from a limited number of studies, which provided low-certainty evidence, so we cannot draw any clear conclusions. The reporting of our pre-specified outcomes was either non-existent or limited, with a maximum of two studies reporting a given outcome. The same group conducted the two trials which contributed data for the primary efficacy outcome, and the German Spas Association funded one of these trials. We recommend further RCTs that assess PASI-75, with detailed reporting of the outcome and time point, as well as treatment-related adverse events. Risk of bias was an issue; future studies should ensure blinding of outcome assessors and full reporting.