Overview of alopecia areata for managed care and payer stakeholders in the United States.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease with a complex pathophysiology resulting in nonscarring hair loss in genetically susceptible individuals. We aim to provide health care decision makers an overview of the pathophysiology of AA, its causes and diagnosis, disease burden, costs, comorbidities, and information on current and emerging treatment options to help inform payer benefit design and prior authorization decisions. Literature searches for AA were conducted using PubMed between 2016 and 2022 inclusive, using search terms covering the causes and diagnosis of AA, pathophysiology, comorbidities, disease management, costs, and impact on quality of life (QoL). AA is a polygenic autoimmune disease that significantly impacts QoL. Patients with AA face economic burden and an increased prevalence of psychiatric disease, as well as numerous systemic comorbidities. AA is predominantly treated using corticosteroids, systemic immunosuppressants, and topical immunotherapy. Currently, there are limited data to reliably inform effective treatment decisions, particularly for patients with extensive disease. However, several novel therapies that specifically target the immunopathology of AA have emerged, including Janus kinase (JAK) 1/2 inhibitors such as baricitinib and deuruxolitinib, and the JAK3/tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (TEC) family kinase inhibitor ritlecitinib. To support disease management, a disease severity classification tool, the Alopecia Areata Severity Scale, was recently developed that evaluates patients with AA holistically (extent of hair loss and other factors). AA is an autoimmune disease often associated with comorbidities and poor QoL, which poses a significant economic burden for payers and patients. Better treatments are needed for patients, and JAK inhibitors, among other approaches, may address this tremendous unmet medical need. DISCLOSURES: Dr King reports seats on advisory boards for and/or is a consultant and/or clinical trial investigator for AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics Inc, AltruBio Inc, Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bioniz Therapeutics, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals Inc, Dermavant Sciences Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Equillium, Incyte Corp, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma, Otsuka/Visterra Inc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, TWi Biotechnology Inc, and Viela Bio; and speakers bureaus for AbbVie, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Pezalla is a paid consultant to Pfizer for market access and payer strategy concerns; Fung, Tran, Bourret, Takiya, Peeples-Lamirande, and Napatalung are employees of Pfizer and hold stock in Pfizer. This article was funded by Pfizer.

An economic evaluation of tofacitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis: modeling the cost of treatment strategies in the United States.

Aims: To evaluate the cost differences between a treatment strategy including tofacitinib (TOFA) vs treatment strategies including adalimumab (ADA), golimumab (GOL), infliximab (IFX), and vedolizumab (VEDO) among all patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) (further stratified by patients naïve/exposed to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors [TNFis]). Materials and methods: An Excel-based decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate costs from the perspective of a third-party US payer over 2 years. Efficacy and safety parameters were taken from prescribing information and published trials. All patients started induction therapy on the first treatment in the strategy and continued if efficacy criteria were met and no major adverse event occurred (in which cases they proceeded to the next treatment in the strategy). Results: The cost per member per month (PMPM) of the TOFA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.11) was lower than that of the ADA->IFX->VEDO->GOL strategy ($1.34; Δ = $-0.23) among the TNFi-naïve population (n = 204 patients out of a plan of one million members). Similarly, the use of TOFA before ADA (i.e. TOFA->ADA->IFX-> VEDO) was also associated with lower PMPM costs than the use of ADA before TOFA (i.e. ADA->TOFA->IFX->VEDO): $1.15 vs $1.25 (Δ = $-0.10). Similar, and often larger, differences were observed in both the overall moderate-to-severe population and the TNFi-exposed population. Sensitivity analyses resulted in the same conclusions. Limitations: Our model relied on efficacy data from prescribing information and published trials, which were not head-to-head and slightly differed with respect to methods. Additionally, our model used representative minor and major ADRs (and the associated costs) to represent toxicity management, which was a simplifying assumption. Conclusions: This analysis, the first of its kind to evaluate TOFA vis-à-vis other advanced therapies in the US, suggests the early use of TOFA among both TNFi-naïve and TNFi-failure patients results in lower PMPM costs compared with other treatment alternatives.