PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 823–839 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of Moderate to Severe Psoriasis Therapy with Etanercept and Ustekinumab in the United States

  • Reginald Villacorta
  • Joel W. Hay
  • Andrew Messali
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.

Objective

Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained.

Results

For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg.

Conclusion

Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasis patients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patient psoriasis severity and time horizon.

Notes

Author Contributions

Mr. Reginald Villacorta, and Drs. Joel Hay and Andrew Messali had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Villacorta, Hay, Messali. Acquisition of data: Villacorta. Analysis and interpretation of data: Villacorta, Hay, Messali. Drafting of the manuscript: Villacorta, Hay, Messali. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Villacorta, Hay, Messali. Statistical analysis: Villacorta, Hay, Messali.

Funding/Support

None.

Role of the Sponsors

No sponsors were involved in this study.

Statement on Financial Disclosure/Conflict of Interest

Mr. Villacorta was a part-time employee for Johnson & Johnson. Drs. Hay and Messali have no conflicts of interest to declare. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceuticals did not sponsor this study, nor did they have any part in the preparation, design, analysis, review or interpretation of this study. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Nestle F, Kaplan D, Barker J. Mechanisms of disease psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:496–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Menter A, Gottlieb A, Feldman S, Van Voorhees A, Leonardi C, Gordon K, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis Section 1. Overview of psoriasis and guidelines of care for the treatment of psoriasis with biologics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58:826–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets C, Feldman SR, Gelfand JM, Gordon KB, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis Section 6. Guidelines of care for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: case-based presentations and evidence-based conclusions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:137–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frankel A, Lebwohl M. Treatment options for psoriasis patients who have failed at least one biological therapy. Adv Psor Inflamm Skin Dis 2010;1(4):119–24.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leonardi C, Kimball A, Papp K, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 76-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 1). Lancet. 2008;371:1665–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Papp K, Langley R, Lebwohl M, et al. Efficacy and safety of ustekinumab, a human interleukin-12/23 monoclonal antibody, in patients with psoriasis: 52-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (PHOENIX 2). Lancet. 2008;371:1675–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Griffiths C, Strober B, van de Kerkhof P, et al. Comparison of ustekinumab and etanercept for moderate to severe psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:118–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miller DW, Feldman SR. Cost-effectiveness of moderate to severe psoriasis treatment. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2006;7(2):157–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Neumann PJ, Rosen AB, Weinstein MC. Medicare and cost-effectiveness analysis. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1516–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Detsky AS, Laupacis A. Relevance of cost-effectiveness analysis to clinicians and policy makers. JAMA. 2007;298:221–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martin S, Feldman SR, Augustin M, Szapary P, Schenkel B. Cost per responder analysis of ustekinumab and etanercept for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. J Dermatol Treat. 2011;22:138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pan F, Brazier N, Shear N, et al. Cost utility analysis based on a head-to-head phase 3 clinical trial comparing ustekinumab and etanercept in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: a Canadian perspective. Value Health. 2011;14:652–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brazier J, Ratcliffe J, Salomon JA, et al., editors. Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development, World Health Organization. 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    United States of America, Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html. Accessed September 2011.
  17. 17.
    Carlin CS, Feldman SR, Krueger JG, Menter A, Krueger GG. A 50% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) is a clinically significant endpoint in the assessment of psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;50:859–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gelfand J, Troxel A, Lewis J, et al. The risk of mortality in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(12):1493–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woolacott N, Hawkins N, Mason A, Kainth A, Khadjesari Z, Bravo Vergel Y, et al. Etanercept and efalizumab for the treatment of psoriasis: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2006;10(46):1–233, i–iv.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sterry W, Barker J, Boehncke WH, Bos JD, Chimenti S, Christophers E, et al. Biological therapies in the systemic management of psoriasis: International Consensus Conference. Br J Dermatol. 2004;69:3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griffiths CE, Dubertret L, Ellis CN, Finlay AY, Finzi AF, Ho VC, et al. Ciclosporin in psoriasis clinical practice: an international consensus statement. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150:11–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pariser DM, et al. Integrated safety analysis: short- and long-term safety profiles of etanercept in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67(2):245–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reich K, et al. An update on long-term safety experience of ustekinumab: results from the psoriasis clinical development program with up to four years of follow-up. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(3):300–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Etanercept prescribing indications and medication guide. www.enbrel.com. Accessed July 2011.
  25. 25.
    Ustekinumab prescribing indications and medication guide. www.stelarainfo.com. Accessed July 2011.
  26. 26.
    Schmitt J, Meurer M, Klon M, et al. Assessment of health states utilities of controlled and uncontrolled psoriasis and atopic eczema: a population-based study. Br J Dermatol. 2008;158:351–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Currie C, Conway P. Evaluation of the association between EQ5D utility and dermatology life quality index (DLQI) score in patients with psoriasis. Value Health. 2007;10(6):A470–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krueger GG, et al. Position paper. Two considerations for patients with psoriasis: What defines mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis? What constitutes a clinically significant improvement when treating psoriasis? J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43:281–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katugampola R, Lewis V, Finlay A. The Dermatology Life Quality Index: assessing the efficacy of biological therapies for psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:945–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nelson AA, Pearce DJ, Fleischer AB, Balkrishnan R, Feldman SR. Cost-effectiveness of biologic treatments for psoriasis based on subjective and objective efficacy measures assessed over a 12-week treatment period. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58:125–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Beck J, Kassirer J, Pauker S. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”) I. Validation of the method. Am J Med. 1982;73:883–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Beck J, Pauker S, Gottlieb J, et al. A convenient approximation of life expectancy (the “DEALE”) II. Use in medical decision-making. Am J Med. 1982;73:889–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Papp K, Tyring S, Lahfa M, et al. A global phase III randomized controlled trial of etanercept in psoriasis: safety, efficacy, and effect of dose reduction. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:1304–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tyring S, Gottlieb A, Papp K, Gordon K, Leonardi C, Wang A, et al. Etanercept and clinical outcomes, fatigue, and depression in psoriasis: double-blind placebo-controlled randomized phase III trial. Lancet. 2006;367:29–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elewski B, Leonardi C, Gottlieb AB, Strober BE, Simiens MA, Dunn M, et al. Comparison of clinical and pharmacokinetic profiles of etanercept 25 mg twice weekly and 50 mg once weekly in patients with psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156:138–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leonardi CL, Powers JL, Matheson RT, Goffe BS, Zitnik R, Wang A, et al. Etanercept as monotherapy in patients with psoriasis. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2014–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hankin CS, Feldman SR, Szczotka A, Stinger RC, Fish L, Hankin DL. A cost comparison of treatments of moderate to severe psoriasis. Drug Benefit Trends. 2005;17:200–14.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2011 Medicare Part B Drug Average Sales Price. http://www.cms.gov/McrPartBDrugAvgSalesPrice/01a18_2011ASPFiles.asp#TopOfPage. Accessed July 2011.
  39. 39.
    Drugstore.com. http://www.drugstore.com. Accessed July 2011.
  40. 40.
    Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Physician Fee Schedule. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/license-agreement.aspx. Accessed July 2011.
  41. 41.
    National Compensation Survey, All United States, December 2009–January 2011. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb1476.pdf. Accessed July 2011.
  42. 42.
    Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor. www.bls.gov/data/. Accessed July 2011.
  43. 43.
    Kivitz A, Cohen S, Dowd JE, Edwards W, Thakker S, Wellborne FR, et al. Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH Trial. Clin Ther. 2007;28(10):1619–29.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Yu A, Tang J, Xie J, et al. Economic burden of psoriasis compared to the general population and stratified by disease severity. Curr Med Res Opin. 2009;25(10):2429–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Crown WH, Bresnahan BW, Orsini LS, et al. The burden of illness associated with psoriasis: cost of treatment with systemic therapy and phototherapy in the US. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(12):1929–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kimball AB, Guerin A, Tsaneva M, et al. Economic burden of comorbidities in patients with psoriasis is substantial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011;25:157–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fowler JF, Duh MS, Rovba L, et al. The impact of psoriasis in health care costs and patient work loss. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;59(5):772–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Krueger GG, Langley RG, Finlay AY, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of psoriasis improvement with etanercept therapy: results of a randomized phase III trial. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153:192–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Chilton F, et al. Treatment choices, preferences and decision-making by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskelet Care. 2008;6(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Report: US Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011. Source: US National Center for Health Statistic. National Vital Statistics Reports, Deaths: Final Data for 2007. Vo. 58, No. 19, May 2010.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Tyring S, Gordon KB, Poulin Y, Langley RG, Gottlieb AB, Dunn M, Jahreis A. Long-term safety and efficacy of 50 mg of etanercept twice weekly in patients with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143:719–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Anis AH, Bansback N, Sizto S, Gupta SR, Willian MK, Feldman SR. Economic evaluation of biologic therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis in the United States. J Dermatol Treat. 2011;22:65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moore A, Gordon KB, Kang S, Gottlieb A, Freundlich B, Xia A, et al. A randomized, open-label trial of continuous versus interrupted etanercept therapy in the treatment of psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56:598–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ortonne JP, Griffiths CEM, Dauden E, Strohal R, Robertson D, Pederson R, et al. Efficacy and safety of continuous versus paused etanercept treatment in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis over 54 weeks: the CRYSTEL study. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2008;3(6):657–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Reginald Villacorta
    • 1
  • Joel W. Hay
    • 1
  • Andrew Messali
    • 1
  1. 1.Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and EconomicsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations