The Cost-Effectiveness of Anti-IL17 Biologic Therapies for Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Treatment in Italy and Germany: A Sequential Treatment Analysis

Objective

The objective of this study was to optimise the cost-effectiveness of different anti-IL17 treatment sequences used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Italy and Germany over a five-year time horizon.

Methods

We adjusted a previously published treatment sequence model for biologic drugs used in psoriasis treatment to an Italian and German setting, respectively. The model included all anti-IL17 biologics currently available in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the markets of scope (secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab and bimekizumab). Real-world discontinuation rates were used to model switches between the four anti-IL17 biologics included in the study. The treatment costs were based on label dosing recommendations for each drug, including induction and maintenance therapy, and the manufacturer prices of each drug in Italy and Germany, respectively. We used long-term Psoriasis Area and Severity Index 100 (PASI100) measures to inform the model on the efficacy for each treatment. The cost-effectiveness in the analysis was evaluated based on the cost per PASI100-responder.

Results

We found that the most cost-effective treatment sequence was achieved by using brodalumab as first-line treatment, bimekizumab as second-line treatment, ixekizumab as third-line treatment and secukinumab as fourth-line treatment in both Italy and Germany, which resulted in a total cost per responder of €128,200 and €138,212, respectively, over a five-year period. Several scenario analyses were also conducted and ensured that the results were robust to changes in key input parameters.

Conclusion

Our study showed that using brodalumab as a first-line therapy to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis in both Italy and Germany leads to the most cost-effective treatment sequence, when compared to all possible combinations of anti-IL17s over a five-year time horizon. In addition, we found that treatment discontinuation and switching are important factors when assessing the cost-effectiveness of biologic therapies.

Cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray versus standard of care for treatment-resistant depression

Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK + oral AD) versus oral AD plus nasal placebo (oral AD + PBO) among patients with treatment-resistant depression. Patients & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD versus oral AD + PBO over 52 weeks from multiple US payer perspectives. Clinical end points and cost inputs were derived from clinical trials and the literature, respectively. Results: Under the base-case scenario, the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD and oral AD + PBO were as follows: Commercial: US$85,808 versus US$100,198; Medicaid: US$76,236 versus US$96,067; Veteran's Affairs: US$77,765 versus US$104,519; and Integrated Delivery Network: US$103,924 versus US$142,766. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK + oral AD is a cost-efficient alternative treatment for treatment-resistant depression compared with oral AD + PBO.