BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of biologic agents is not well delineated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of biologic agents in cost per patient achieving a minimally important difference in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI MID) and cost per patient achieving a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI-75), assessed over a 12-week period. METHOD: Efficacies of the agents were determined through a literature review; treatment paradigms and associated costs were determined. The cost-effectiveness of the agents was determined and sensitivity analysis performed. RESULTS: Etanercept at a dose of 25 mg administered subcutaneously (SQ) once weekly was the most cost-effective agent in cost per patient achieving DLQI minimally important difference; infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg administered intravenously (IV) for 3 infusions, adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg SQ every other week, and etanercept at a dose of 25 mg SQ twice weekly were the next most cost-effective agents in cost per patient achieving the DLQI minimally important difference. Intravenous infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg was the most cost-effective agent in terms of cost per patient achieving PASI-75 improvement; intravenous infliximab at a dose of 5 mg/kg and adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg SQ every other week were the next most cost-effective agents in cost per patient achieving PASI-75 improvement. LIMITATIONS: This study had a limited time horizon of 12 weeks; generalizing the results to longer treatment periods may not be accurate and is not advisable. Additionally, when sensitivity analyses were performed, multiple agents had overlapping cost-effectiveness ratios at relatively low levels of variance; thus it may not be accurate to differentiate the cost-effectiveness of these agents. CONCLUSIONS: Different biologic agents for psoriasis appear to have different cost-effectiveness values; within the limitations of the available data, infliximab and adalimumab appear to be the most cost-effective agents.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of biologic agents is not well delineated. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of biologic agents in cost per patient achieving a minimally important difference in Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI MID) and cost per patient achieving a 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI-75), assessed over a 12-week period. METHOD: Efficacies of the agents were determined through a literature review; treatment paradigms and associated costs were determined. The cost-effectiveness of the agents was determined and sensitivity analysis performed. RESULTS: Etanercept at a dose of 25 mg administered subcutaneously (SQ) once weekly was the most cost-effective agent in cost per patient achieving DLQI minimally important difference; infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg administered intravenously (IV) for 3 infusions, adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg SQ every other week, and etanercept at a dose of 25 mg SQ twice weekly were the next most cost-effective agents in cost per patient achieving the DLQI minimally important difference. Intravenous infliximab at a dose of 3 mg/kg was the most cost-effective agent in terms of cost per patient achieving PASI-75 improvement; intravenous infliximab at a dose of 5 mg/kg and adalimumab at a dose of 40 mg SQ every other week were the next most cost-effective agents in cost per patient achieving PASI-75 improvement. LIMITATIONS: This study had a limited time horizon of 12 weeks; generalizing the results to longer treatment periods may not be accurate and is not advisable. Additionally, when sensitivity analyses were performed, multiple agents had overlapping cost-effectiveness ratios at relatively low levels of variance; thus it may not be accurate to differentiate the cost-effectiveness of these agents. CONCLUSIONS: Different biologic agents for psoriasis appear to have different cost-effectiveness values; within the limitations of the available data, infliximab and adalimumab appear to be the most cost-effective agents.
Authors: N H Shear; M Hartmann; M E Toledo-Bahena; M Gilbert; A Katsambas; R Yao; Z Popmihajlov Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-02-11 Impact factor: 4.147