A review of biosimilars in psoriasis: impacts on efficacy, safety, access, and a first-hand look at biosimilar cost savings within the department of veterans affairs.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated systemic disease whose treatment has been revolutionized due to the induction of monoclonal antibody-based biologics. However, access to these drugs has been limited due to their high cost. Biosimilars utilize reverse engineering to create a highly similar product to an originator drug following patent expiration and provide an avenue to reduce costs of biologic treatment. This review seeks to synthesize current knowledge about the development, efficacy, and established benefits of biosimilars, including cost savings and increased access to biologic medicines. RESULTS: In 2023, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) generated a cost avoidance of over 67 million dollars through use of 6 currently adopted biosimilars across all indications. There is an opportunity for further cost avoidance, with the pre-set percent discount of statutory contract prices necessary for the adoption of future biosimilars, including adalimumab and etanercept, set at over 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Biosimilars appear to offer an overall effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment method for patients with psoriasis and are already providing substantial cost savings within the VA. Additional education is needed to address sources of ambivalence for both patients and providers to assist in further uptake of biosimilars for the treatment of psoriasis.

The UPDATE trial (UVB Phototherapy in Dermatology for ATopic Eczema): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of narrowband UVB with optimal topical therapy versus optimal topical therapy in patients with atopic eczema.

BACKGROUND: Narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) phototherapy is commonly prescribed for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE). The efficacy of NB-UVB, however, has not yet properly been established, as current evidence is of low certainty. Our aim is to assess the short-term and long-term (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB in adult AE patients by performing a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) trial. This protocol outlines its methodology. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicenter, PROBE trial will be performed with 1:1 randomization of 316 adult patients with moderate-to-severe AE who have inadequate disease control with topical therapy and who are eligible for optimal topical therapy (OTT) or NB-UVB in combination with OTT as a next step. Participants in the interventional arm will receive a minimum of 3 months of OTT combined with 8 to 16 weeks of NB-UVB. The control group receives 3 months of OTT. Following the interventional phase, follow-up will continue for 9 months. Physician-reported and patient-reported outcomes (according to the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Core Outcome Set) and adverse events are assessed at 4 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. DISCUSSION: The UPDATE trial aims to provide high-quality evidence regarding the (cost-)effectiveness and safety of NB-UVB phototherapy in moderate-to-severe AE patients. Challenges that are addressed in the protocol include the possible bias arising from applying open-label treatment and the necessity of introducing OTT into the study design to prevent a high dropout rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05704205. Registered on December 8, 2022.

Rx -to- OTC switch increased access and lowered cost of topical adapalene.

Topical adapalene gel is an effective and well tolerated acne treatment that transitioned from prescription to over-the-counter (OTC) availability in 2016. Historically, prescription to OTC transitions have lowered costs to patients and payers and increased access to medications. This study used sales and prescriber data to assess access to topical retinoid therapies and their costs in the pre- and post- Rx-to-OTC transition. We demonstrate that the prescription to OTC transition of adapalene gel increased access to this medication, while lowering costs to patients and payers, including Medicare patients. These results provide a necessary call to action for future OTC shifts with other high safety profile, well-tolerated medications in ultimate efforts and hopes of cost savings for patients, insurers, and Medicare within our healthcare industry.

Evaluating the Cost Burden of Alopecia Areata Treatment: A Comprehensive Review for Dermatologists.

Alopecia areata (AA) is managed with prolonged medical treatments and cosmetic therapies, whose cost can be burdensome. We sought to identify the costs of AA treatment and consolidate the available data for the practicing dermatologist by performing a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE. Ten studies including approximately 16,000 patients with AA across a range of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence were included. Studies showed that despite the limited efficacy of many AA therapies, patients incurred substantial expenses to manage their AA.

Dermatology medications with the highest cost burden on Medicare Part D: Potential implications of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Signed into law in August 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act includes provisions requiring the federal government to negotiate prices for medications covered under Medicare Part D. Initial negotiations will target drugs with the highest total spending and price increases relative to inflation. In this study, we identify dermatology prescriptions with the highest cost burden on Medicare Part D and analyze recent trends in total spending and unit costs.

Abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

Background: Atopic dermatitis is a chronic relapsing inflammatory skin condition. One of the most common skin disorders in children, atopic dermatitis typically manifests before the age of 5 years, but it can develop at any age. Atopic dermatitis is characterised by dry, inflamed skin accompanied by intense itchiness (pruritus). Objectives: To appraise the clinical and cost effectiveness of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib within their marketing authorisations as alternative therapies for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis compared to systemic immunosuppressants (first-line ciclosporin A or second-line dupilumab and baricitinib). Data sources: Studies were identified from an existing systematic review (search date 2019) and update searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) to November 2021, from bibliographies of retrieved studies, clinical trial registers and evidence provided by the sponsoring companies of the treatments under review. Methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness literature was carried out and a network meta-analysis undertaken for adults and adolescents at different steps of the treatment pathway. The primary outcome of interest was a combined response of Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4; where this was consistently unavailable for a step in the pathway, an analysis of Eczema Area and Severity Index 75 was conducted. A de novo economic model was developed to assess cost effectiveness from the perspective of the National Health Service in England. The model structure was informed through systematic review of the economic literature and by consulting clinical experts. Effectiveness data were obtained from the network meta-analysis. Costs and utilities were obtained from the evidence provided by sponsoring companies and standard UK sources. Results: Network meta-analyses indicate that abrocitinib 200 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg may be more effective, and tralokinumab may be less effective than dupilumab and baricitinib as second-line systemic therapies. Abrocitinib 100 mg and upadacitinib 15 mg have a more similar effectiveness to dupilumab. Upadacitinib 30 and 15 mg are likely to be more effective than ciclosporin A as a first-line therapy. Upadacitinib 15 mg, abrocitinib 200 and 100 mg may be more effective than dupilumab in adolescents. The cost effectiveness of abrocitinib and upadacitinib for both doses is dependent on the subgroup of interest. Tralokinumab can be considered cost-effective as a second-line systemic therapy owing to greater cost savings per quality-adjusted life-year lost. Conclusions: The primary strength of the analysis of the three new drugs compared with current practice for each of the subpopulations is the consistent approach to the assessment of clinical and cost effectiveness. However, the conclusions are limited by the high uncertainty around the clinical effectiveness and lack of data for the primary outcome for comparisons with baricitinib and for the adolescent and adult first-line populations. Future work and limitations: The most significant limitation that Eczema Area and Severity Index 50 + Dermatology Life Quality Index ≥ 4 could not be obtained for the adolescent and adult first-line systemic treatment populations is due to a paucity of data for dupilumab and ciclosporin A. A comparison of the new drugs against one another in addition to current practice would be beneficial to provide a robust view on which treatments are the most cost-effective. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021266219. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: 135138) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 4. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Atopic dermatitis is one of the most common skin conditions in children but can also develop in adulthood. People with atopic dermatitis have dry, red (inflamed) skin that is also extremely itchy (pruritus). There is no cure for atopic dermatitis. Therapy starts with topical treatments that are applied to the skin, such as emollients. Severe forms of atopic dermatitis are often treated with systemic treatments, which are drugs that are provided as tablets or an injection. Ciclosporin A is often the first systemic therapy given. If atopic dermatitis does not get better with ciclosporin A, options available in the National Health Service are dupilumab and baricitinib. New therapies that have been evaluated in clinical trials for atopic dermatitis but have not been assessed for use in the National Health Service are abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib. The aim of this project is to review the medical benefits, risks and value for money for the National Health Service of abrocitinib, tralokinumab and upadacitinib for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in a multiple technology appraisal. Our review found that: For children aged between 12 and 18 years, abrocitinib and a low dose of upadacitinib (15 mg) are good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who need a first systemic treatment, upadacitinib is unlikely to be good value for money for the National Health Service. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could be good value for money for the National Health Service if they are used on their own. For adults who are still suffering from their atopic dermatitis after having a systemic treatment and need a different drug, but need to take it with steroid cream, abrocitinib 100 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg and tralokinumab could all be good value for money for the National Health Service.

Topical Cyperus rotundus essential oil for treatment of axillary hyperpigmentation: a randomized, double-blind, active- and placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The oil of the grass Cyperus rotundus (purple nutsedge) is an effective and safe treatment option for a variety of conditions. It has anti-inflammatory and antipigmenting properties. There have been no clinical trials comparing topical C. rotundus oil with skin-lightening treatments for axillary hyperpigmentation. AIM: To assess the efficacy of C. rotundus essential oil (CREO) in treating axillary hyperpigmentation, and compare with another active treatment hydroquinone (HQ) and a placebo (cold cream) in this study. METHODS: The study included 153 participants, who were assigned to one of three study groups: CREO, HQ group or placebo group. A tri-stimulus colorimeter was used to assess pigmentation and erythema. Two independent experts completed the Physician Global Assessment, and the patients completed a self-assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: CREO had significantly (P < 0.001) better depigmenting effects than HQ. CREO and HQ did not differ significantly in terms of depigmentation effects (P > 0.05); however, there were statistically significant differences in anti-inflammatory effects and decrease in hair growth (P < 0.05) in favour of CREO. CONCLUSIONS: CREO is a cost-effective and safe treatment for axillary hyperpigmentation.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs of biologics and apremilast among patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis by metabolic condition status.

OBJECTIVES: To compare treatment patterns and costs among psoriasis patients with and without metabolic conditions newly initiating a biologic or apremilast. METHODS: Adult patients included had ≥1 prescription for secukinumab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, etanercept, or apremilast between 01/01/2015 and 08/31/2018 (date of first prescription was index date) and no index drug use in the 12-months pre-index, and continuous enrollment in the 12-month pre-index and 24-month post-index periods. Patients were divided into mutually exclusive treatment cohorts and stratified by their pre-index metabolic condition status. Treatment patterns (adherence, non-persistence, switching, discontinuation, use of combination therapy, and re-initiation) and healthcare costs were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 7773 patients were included; 47.5-56.7% had a metabolic condition. Except for the apremilast group, patients with metabolic conditions had higher discontinuation (secukinumab: 50.6% vs. 43.7%; adalimumab*: 53.9% vs. 48.7%; ustekinumab*: 41.9% vs. 35.1%; etanercept: 42.8% vs. 41.2%; apremilast: 43.1% vs. 46.1%) and switching (secukinumab: 48.1% vs. 41.2%; adalimumab*: 47.8% vs. 41.9%; ustekinumab*: 34.5% vs. 25.3%; etanercept*: 53.6% vs. 51.5%; apremilast: 45.8% vs. 44.6%) than patients without (*p < .05). Patients with metabolic conditions incurred significantly higher costs. CONCLUSION: Many psoriasis patients initiating biologics or apremilast had metabolic conditions. These patients had higher discontinuation and switching, and significantly higher healthcare costs.

Online survey to identify current challenges in atopic dermatitis management and guideline implementation in German-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a relapsing chronic inflammatory skin disease with a significant public health burden. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a survey in order to gain information on current problems on the care and treatment of AD patients from a wide range of care providers, as well as information on ways of improving AD guidelines. MATERIALS & METHODS: An online survey was conducted via professional associations, focussing on AD health care professionals with regards to current gaps in knowledge of AD management and experience based on the German guidelines (GL). RESULTS: In total, 542 respondents treated a median of 200 AD patients yearly. The most frequent problems in the management of AD concerned emollients (50%), largely due to patient costs and the inability to prescribe emollients/moisturizers. Barriers to prescribing biologics included cost. Respondents stated that the GL lacks information regarding patient education (27%) and use of basic emollients (27%). Consideration should be given to feasibility issues (32%) and the addition of care pathways (41%) to improve the GL. CONCLUSION: In this survey, we identified inadequate basic AD care mainly due to patient costs and lack of time for counselling as real-life challenges. These issues remain to be addressed in future guidelines.

Home-based narrowband UVB, topical corticosteroid or combination for children and adults with vitiligo: HI-Light Vitiligo three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews suggest that narrowband ultraviolet B light combined with treatments such as topical corticosteroids may be more effective than monotherapy for vitiligo. OBJECTIVE: To explore the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topical corticosteroid monotherapy compared with (1) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light monotherapy and (2) hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light/topical corticosteroid combination treatment for localised vitiligo. DESIGN: Pragmatic, three-arm, randomised controlled trial with 9 months of treatment and a 12-month follow-up. SETTING: Sixteen UK hospitals - participants were recruited from primary and secondary care and the community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active non-segmental vitiligo affecting ≤ 10% of their body area. INTERVENTIONS: Topical corticosteroids [mometasone furoate 0.1% (Elocon®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA) plus dummy narrowband ultraviolet B light]; narrowband ultraviolet B light (narrowband ultraviolet B light plus placebo topical corticosteroids); or combination (topical corticosteroids plus narrowband ultraviolet B light). Topical corticosteroids were applied once daily on alternate weeks and narrowband ultraviolet B light was administered every other day in escalating doses, with a dose adjustment for erythema. All treatments were home based. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-assessed treatment success for a chosen target patch after 9 months of treatment ('a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable' on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale). Secondary outcomes included blinded assessment of primary outcome and percentage repigmentation, onset and maintenance of treatment response, quality of life, side effects, treatment burden and cost-effectiveness (cost per additional successful treatment). RESULTS: In total, 517 participants were randomised (adults, n = 398; and children, n = 119; 52% male; 57% paler skin types I-III, 43% darker skin types IV-VI). At the end of 9 months of treatment, 370 (72%) participants provided primary outcome data. The median percentage of narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment-days (actual/allocated) was 81% for topical corticosteroids, 77% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 74% for combination groups; and for ointment was 79% for topical corticosteroids, 83% for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 77% for combination. Target patch location was head and neck (31%), hands and feet (32%), and rest of the body (37%). Target patch treatment 'success' was 20 out of 119 (17%) for topical corticosteroids, 27 out of 123 (22%) for narrowband ultraviolet B light and 34 out of 128 (27%) for combination. Combination treatment was superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 10.9%, 95% confidence interval 1.0% to 20.9%; p = 0.032; number needed to treat = 10). Narrowband ultraviolet B light was not superior to topical corticosteroids (adjusted risk difference 5.2%, 95% confidence interval -4.4% to 14.9%; p = 0.290; number needed to treat = 19). The secondary outcomes supported the primary analysis. Quality of life did not differ between the groups. Participants who adhered to the interventions for > 75% of the expected treatment protocol were more likely to achieve treatment success. Over 40% of participants had lost treatment response after 1 year with no treatment. Grade 3 or 4 erythema was experienced by 62 participants (12%) (three of whom were using the dummy) and transient skin thinning by 13 participants (2.5%) (two of whom were using the placebo). We observed no serious adverse treatment effects. For combination treatment compared with topical corticosteroids, the unadjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £2328.56 (adjusted £1932) per additional successful treatment (from an NHS perspective). LIMITATIONS: Relatively high loss to follow-up limits the interpretation of the trial findings, especially during the post-intervention follow-up phase. CONCLUSION: Hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light plus topical corticosteroid combination treatment is superior to topical corticosteroids alone for treatment of localised vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated, but was effective in around one-quarter of participants only. Whether or not combination treatment is cost-effective depends on how much decision-makers are willing to pay for the benefits observed. FUTURE WORK: Development and testing of new vitiligo treatments with a greater treatment response and longer-lasting effects are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17160087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The Home Interventions and Light therapy for the treatment of vitiligo (HI-Light Vitiligo) trial aimed to find out whether or not treating vitiligo at home with a narrowband ultraviolet B light, either by itself or with a steroid ointment, is better than treatment using a steroid ointment only. We enrolled 517 children (aged ≥ 5 years) and adults who had small, active (i.e. recently changing) patches of vitiligo into the study. Participants received one of three possible treatment options: steroid ointment (plus dummy light), hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light therapy (plus placebo ointment) or both treatments used together. We asked participants to judge how noticeable their target vitiligo patch was after 9 months of treatment. We considered the treatment to be successful if the participants' responses were either 'a lot less noticeable' or 'no longer noticeable'. The results showed that using both treatments together was better than using a steroid ointment on its own. Around one-quarter of participants (27%) who used both treatments together said that their vitiligo was either 'no longer noticeable' or 'a lot less noticeable' after 9 months of treatment. This was compared with 17% of those using steroid ointment on its own and 22% of those using narrowband ultraviolet B light on its own. All treatments were able to stop the vitiligo from spreading. Patches on the hands and feet were less likely to respond to treatment than patches on other parts of the body. The trial found that the vitiligo tended to return once treatments were stopped, so ongoing intermittent treatment may be needed to maintain the treatment response. The treatments were found to be relatively safe and easy to use, but light treatment required a considerable time commitment (approximately 20 minutes per session, two or three times per week). This trial showed that using steroid ointment and narrowband ultraviolet B light together is likely to be better than steroid ointment alone for people with small patches of vitiligo. Steroid ointment alone can still be effective for some people and remains a useful treatment that is able to stop vitiligo from spreading. The challenge is to make hand-held narrowband ultraviolet B light treatment available as normal care in the NHS for people with vitiligo.

Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department.

Importance: Insurance companies use prior authorizations (PAs) to address inappropriate prescribing or unnecessary variations in care, most often for expensive medications. Prior authorizations negatively affect patient care and add costs and administrative burden to dermatology offices. Objective: To quantify the administrative burden and costs of dermatology PAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: The University of Utah Department of Dermatology employs 2 full-time and 8 part-time PA staff. In this cross-sectional study at a large academic department spanning 11 clinical locations, these staff itemized all PA-related encounters over a 30-day period in September 2016. Staff salary and benefits were publicly available. Data were analyzed between December 2018 and August 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of visits requiring PAs, median administrative time to finalize a PA (either approval or denial after appeal), and median cost per PA type. Results: In September 2016, 626 PAs were generated from 9512 patient encounters. Staff spent 169.7 hours directly handling PAs, costing a median of $6.72 per PA. Biologic PAs cost a median of $15.80 each and took as long as 31 business days to complete. The costliest PA equaled 106% of the associated visit's Medicare reimbursement rate. Approval rates were 99.6% for procedures, 78.9% for biologics, and 58.2% for other medications. After appeal, 5 of 23 (21.7%) previously denied PAs were subsequently approved. Conclusions and Relevance: Prior authorizations are costly to dermatology practices and their value appears limited for some requests. Fewer unnecessary PAs and appeals might increase practice efficiency and improve patient outcomes.

Fixed Combination Calcipotriene and Betamethasone Dipropionate (Cal/BD) Foam for Beyond-Mild Psoriasis: A Possible Alternative to Systemic Medication.

Calcipotriene 0.005% plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.064% (Cal/BD) aerosol foam is a topical agent indicated for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. While topical treatments are typically reserved for milder disease, in clinical trials with Cal/BD foam, the vast majority of patients had beyond-mild psoriasis at baseline, and multiple studies (including subgroup analyses from randomized controlled trials and other small-scale studies) have demonstrated favorable outcomes with the use of Cal/BD foam in this population. The objective of this article is to review existing data on the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of Cal/BD foam used in patients with beyond-mild psoriasis, either alone as topical monotherapy or as adjunctive therapy. Practical recommendations for managing beyond-mild psoriasis with Cal/BD foam are also provided. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(8): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5300.

Rosacea Treatment Satisfaction: Matching Adjusted Indirect Treatment Comparison Analysis of Metronidazole Gel or Cream vs Azelaic Acid Foam.

OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in patient-reported treatment side effects and concerns associated with azelaic acid 15% foam (AAF) vs metronidazole cream (MC) and metronidazole gel (MG). METHODS: This study used matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to compare patient-reported outcomes from survey data evaluating rosacea treatments. Outcomes of interest included percentages of patients reporting concerns and side effects and measures of importance of the concerns and tolerability of the side effects. Patients in each analysis (MG vs AAF and MC vs AAF) were matched using stabilized inverse propensity scores. RESULTS: When compared to AAF, MG-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (54% vs 4%), application (7% vs 3%), and treatment side effects. MC-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy (61% vs 5%) and dryness (8% vs 5%). AAF-treated patients more frequently reported concerns with cost of treatment compared with MG (7% vs 1%) and MC (9% vs 4%). Among patients reporting concerns, level of importance associated with these concerns was similar for AAF-treated patients compared with MG- and MC-treated patients. When compared to AAF-treated patients, MG-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of dryness (26% vs 15%) and uneven skin tone (3% vs 0%), and MC-treated patients more frequently reported side effects of burning (7% vs 3%), itching (7% vs 5%), and redness (7% vs 5%). MG- and MC-treated patients indicated greater intolerance for reported side effects than AAF-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: MG- and MC-treated patients more frequently reported treatment concerns and side effects than AAF-treated patients, and tolerability of those side effects was higher for patients treated with AAF. While treatment cost is a more frequent concern in patients treated with AAF, these patients less frequently reported concerns with treatment efficacy and reported similar or greater tolerance to side effects than patients treated with either MC or MG. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(3): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.3679.

Management of Residual Psoriasis in Patients on Biologic Treatment

While biologics are highly effective, most psoriasis patients do not achieve complete skin clearance with their biologic monotherapy. How to achieve complete skin clearance in psoriasis patients who fail their biologic is not well characterized. To describe treatment approaches in psoriasis patients who fail to achieve complete clearance from their biologic, we modeled and assessed the efficacy, cost, and safety of three treatment approaches­ adding a topical agent with their biologic, escalating the biologic dose, and switching to a different biologic. Efficacy of each approach was obtained from literature identifying complete clearance defined as 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and/or Physician's Global Assessment score of clear. Cost of each treatment approach was calculated using medication wholesale acquisition cost obtained from Medi-Span Price Rx. Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) rates. Complete clearance in patients not cleared on their initial biologic was achieved when adding calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate (Cal/BD) foam (28%), switching to guselkumab (20%), and switching to infliximab (15.8%). Adding Cal/BD foam to the initial biologic ($3,780 per additional patient cleared) was a less costly approach compared to the lowest cost dose escalation (guselkumab; $73,370 per additional patient cleared) or switching the initial failed biologic to the lowest cost alternative biologic (infliximab; $88,250 per additional patient cleared). There were no treatment-related or serious AEs when adding Cal/BD foam. Adding a topical agent may be an efficacious, low cost, and safe approach to achieve complete clearing in psoriasis patients who previously failed to clear on their biologic. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(2)188-194. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.3989