Cost per response analysis of deucravacitinib versus apremilast and first-line biologics among patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economic value of deucravacitinib and apremilast could assist treatment decision-making for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the cost per response (CPR) for US patients initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: A CPR model using pharmacy and administration costs was developed from a US payer perspective. Response was defined as a 75% reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75) at weeks 16 and 24. Long-term response was defined as the cumulative benefit over 52 weeks, measured as area under the curve; subsequent treatment was included. Scenario analyses explored varying the efficacy measure or choices of subsequent treatments and limiting discontinuation. RESULTS: The CPR for deucravacitinib versus apremilast was lower at 16 weeks (difference: -$3796 [95% confidence interval (CI): -$6140 to -$1659]) and 24 weeks (difference: -$12,784 [95% CI: -$16,674 to -$9369]). At 52 weeks, the cost per cumulative benefit was lower for patients who initiated deucravacitinib, regardless of initial treatment period duration (16 or 24 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Scenario analyses found mainly consistent results. This study showed that the CPR is lower when initiating deucravacitinib versus apremilast in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.

Evaluating prevalence and consequence of residual disease in individuals with psoriasis receiving apremilast treatment: results from a US patient survey.

Purpose: This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey estimated the prevalence and consequences of residual disease in apremilast-treated US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Materials and Methods: Residual disease was defined as experiencing moderate, severe, or very severe psoriasis over the past week or having ≥3% body surface area affected, despite treatment. Factors associated with residual disease and its effects on flare-ups, humanistic burden, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) were evaluated. Results: Of the 344 apremilast users (mean age, 44.9 years; female, 65.4%), 174 (50.6%) had residual disease. It was more prevalent in Black versus White participants (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.2), those receiving apremilast for ≥1 versus <1 year (OR, 16.5; 95% CI, 7.9-34.4), those reporting ≥2 versus 0 to 1 flare-ups during the past 3 months (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 5.0-20.1), and those with ≥4 versus 1 to 3 body regions affected at time of survey (OR, 8.6; 95% CI, 3.8-19.8). Participants with versus without residual disease self-reported more psoriasis flare-ups over the past 3 months (mean, 4.7 vs 0.9; p < .001) and more anxiety (89.7% vs 50.0%; p < .001) and depression (69.0% vs 23.6%; p < .001) over the past 30 days. Conclusion: Generally, participants with versus without residual disease also had significantly more comorbidities and greater HCRU.

Cumulative Benefit Over 52 Weeks With Deucravacitinib Versus Apremilast in Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: POETYK PSO-1 Post Hoc Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Deucravacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy to apremilast in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 clinical trials. In the study reported here, we aimed to determine the overall 52-week cumulative clinical benefit of treatment initiated with deucravacitinib versus apremilast and to compare the 52-week cumulative benefit of initiating and staying on deucravacitinib versus initiating apremilast and continuing or switching to deucravacitinib at week 24 of treatment. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of POETYK PSO-1 data (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03624127) determined the cumulative clinical benefit of deucravacitinib 6 mg once daily and apremilast 30 mg twice daily in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Patients treated with apremilast who did not achieve a 50% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) at week 24 were switched to deucravacitinib. The cumulative clinical benefit of deucravacitinib versus apremilast over 52 weeks was based on cumulative measures of ≥ 75% improvement from baseline in PASI score (PASI 75) and the proportion of patients with a static Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (sPGA 0/1). Ratios of area under the curve estimates between treatments were calculated and compared based on analysis of covariance regression models. RESULTS: Patients initiating deucravacitinib (N = 332) had a greater cumulative benefit as measured by the PASI 75 and sPGA 0/1 than those initiating apremilast (N = 168). Over 52 weeks, those initiating deucravacitinib experienced 50% more benefit as measured by PASI 75 and 58% more benefit as measured by sPGA 0/1 than those initiating apremilast. Results were consistent with the primary analysis when patients were classified by prior systemic and prior biologic therapy exposure. CONCLUSION: Results from this analysis corroborate the primary efficacy analysis supporting the use of deucravacitinib compared with apremilast for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, regardless of prior systemic or biologic use.

Evaluating Treatment Choice in Patients with Moderate to Severe Psoriasis in the United States: Results from a US Patient Survey.

INTRODUCTION: While multiple treatments are available for moderate to severe psoriasis, patient preferences are rarely systematically studied. This study aims to identify factors associated with choice of a new once-daily oral psoriasis treatment, elicit patient views on treatment characteristics, and rank treatment characteristics by importance. METHODS: This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey study, conducted from December 2021 to June 2022, recruited US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perspectives on psoriasis treatment were collected. Factors associated with the choice of a new oral treatment were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Treatment characteristics and reasons for treatment choice were ranked using bivariate comparisons. RESULTS: The study included 882 participants [mean (standard deviation; SD) age, 45.7 (12.8) years; female, 67.7%; White, 74.9%]; 92.7% were currently receiving treatment [mean (SD) duration, 2.9 (4.8) years]. Half of participants rated their psoriasis symptoms over the past week as mild, very mild, or nonexistent; 36.5% as moderate; and 12.7% as severe or very severe. Most (66.5%) indicated willingness to start a new oral treatment; 65.0% indicated that the new oral treatment would cause less anxiety than injections/infusions. Participants were significantly more likely to start the new oral treatment if they were currently receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [odds ratio (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-3.1] or ustekinumab (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.6-5.0) versus apremilast (P < 0.001) or if they reported mild (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 2.0-4.9), moderate (OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 3.1-8.2), or severe (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 3.9-15.0) psoriasis symptoms compared with those who reported no symptoms in the past week (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants indicated willingness to start a new once-daily oral treatment, viewing it as less anxiety provoking than injections/infusions. Current treatment and psoriasis severity affected participants' willingness to start a new oral treatment.

Patients with psoriasis have multiple treatment options available to them. We surveyed 882 adults with moderate to severe psoriasis in the US to assess their perspectives and the values placed on treatment characteristics that are most important to them when making treatment-related decisions. Participants were assigned to one of five groups based on their psoriasis treatment at the time of the survey: (1) apremilast (oral), (2) a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment (injectable), (3) ustekinumab (injectable), (4) a topical therapy or phototherapy, or (5) over-the-counter medications or participants who were untreated (this group included those who were not currently using a psoriasis treatment). The extent of skin clearance associated with a drug, how a drug is taken, and a drug's safety profile were among the top-ranked treatment characteristics that are important to survey participants when they choose a psoriasis treatment. Most participants (66.5%) were willing to start a new oral treatment, with 65.0% indicating that the new oral treatment would cause less anxiety than injections or infusions. Participants were more willing to switch to a new oral psoriasis treatment if they were currently receiving an injectable treatment, such as ustekinumab or a TNFi, compared with those who were already taking an oral treatment. These findings suggest that, when prescribing treatments for psoriasis, health care providers should consider the treatment characteristics that are important to their patients and consider that patients generally prefer an oral versus injectable drug.