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.

Delayed Treatment Acceleration in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Who Have Inadequate Response to Initial Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors: Data from the Corrona Registry.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of treat-to-target principles in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has not been fully investigated in patients with inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence of an inadequate response to initial TNF inhibitor treatment at 6 and 12 months among patients with RA in a real-world patient registry, as well as the delay in therapy adjustment and its impact on disease activity and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. METHODS: This analysis is based on data of patients with moderate or severe disease activity (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] score >10) who were included in the Consortium of Rheumatology Researchers of North America (Corrona) RA registry, a prospective, observational database. The patients had never received treatment with a biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) and had initiated treatment with a TNF inhibitor (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, or infliximab) between October 2001 and December 2014. We evaluated treatment response (CDAI score ≤10), select PRO measures, and treatment changes at 6 months. Patients who had an inadequate response to TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 months and continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor were evaluated again at 12 months. RESULTS: This retrospective analysis included 2282 patients. At 6 months, 1732 (75.9%) of the patients continued to use their initial TNF inhibitor; of these, 803 (46.4%) patients had an inadequate response to treatment. Of the 803 patients who had an inadequate response at 6 months, 488 (60.8%) continued their initial treatment at 12 months. Of these 488 patients, 315 (64.5%) had an inadequate response at 12 months, and 173 (35.5%) had a response. Numerically greater improvements in all PRO measures were observed for patients who responded to therapy compared with patients with an inadequate response. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of data from the Corrona RA registry, a considerable proportion of patients with RA had an inadequate response to the initial TNF inhibitor therapy at 6 and 12 months. Many patients continued to have moderate or high disease activity, without accelerating treatment (eg, addition or increase in the dose of concurrent conventional synthetic DMARDs or a TNF inhibitor), contrary to treat-to-target principles, thus remaining at risk for accumulating joint damage and disability.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis After Methotrexate or After 1 or 2 TNF Inhibitors from a U.S. Payer Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Treatment cycling with biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs, such as tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), is common among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and can result in reduced clinical efficacy and increased economic burden. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of RA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the economic effect of tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (BID) treatment directly after methotrexate (MTX) in the MTX-inadequate responder population, or after MTX and 1 TNFi (adalimumab [ADA] or etanercept [ETN]) or 2 TNFi (ADA and ETN) in TNF-inadequate responder patients with RA, from a U.S. payer perspective. METHODS: A decision-tree economic model was used to evaluate costs over 2 years. Treatment response was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were derived from U.S. prescribing information for monotherapy and combination therapy. Safety event rates were sourced from a meta-analysis. It was assumed that 75% of patients switched therapy after an adverse event or lack of response. Cost inputs included drugs, monitoring and administration (including physician visits), health care utilization, and treatment for adverse events. The population comprised all organization members (i.e., RA and non-RA members); RA patients receiving TNFi were estimated using epidemiologic data. Results were based on an organization size of 1 million. Economic endpoints were total 2-year costs, costs per member per month (PMPM), and costs per ACR20/50 responder. RESULTS: 1,321 patients were included for analysis. Based on ACR20 switch criteria and either 100% or 50% monotherapy rates for all treatments, total 2-year costs and costs PMPM were lower for patients receiving tofacitinib as second-line therapy after MTX and as third-line therapy after MTX and 1 TNFi; costs were highest for patients who cycled through 2 TNFi. Similar trends were observed for switch criteria based on ACR50 response and addition of 20% rebates for ADA and ETN and 0% for tofacitinib, although differences were mitigated slightly. CONCLUSIONS: A treatment strategy with tofacitinib as either second- or third-line therapy after MTX may be a lower cost treatment option, compared with fourth-line introduction of tofacitinib after cycling through 2 TNFi following MTX. DISCLOSURES: All aspects of this study were funded by Pfizer. Claxton was an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, at the time of this study. Taylor is an employee of York Health Economics Consortium, The University of York, which received funding from Pfizer to conduct this study. Soonasra, Bourret, and Gerber are employees of Pfizer and hold stock/stock options in Pfizer. A previous iteration of the data reported in this manuscript (before adjustment for recent drug price increases) was presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 28th Annual Meeting and Expo; April 19-22, 2016; held in San Francisco, CA.

An Economic Evaluation of Tofacitinib Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Modeling the Cost of Treatment Strategies in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Tofacitinib is approved in the United States for use in adults with moderately to severely active RA and an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate. OBJECTIVES: To (a) evaluate, using an economic model, the treatment costs of an RA strategy including tofacitinib, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic RA treatment strategies, which are commonly prescribed in the United States, and (b) assess the economic impact of monotherapy and combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to methotrexate therapy (MTX-IR analysis) and to combination therapy in patients who had an inadequate response to a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNF-IR analysis). METHODS: A transparent, Excel-based economic model with a decision-tree approach was developed to evaluate costs over a 1- and 2-year time horizon. The model compared tofacitinib 5 mg twice a day (BID) either as monotherapy or in combination with MTX with similarly labeled biologic therapies. Response to treatment was modeled as American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response. ACR20 represented clinical response and determined whether patients continued therapy. ACR response rates at 6-month intervals were sourced from prescribing information and safety event rates from a published meta-analysis. Following an adverse event or a lack of response to treatment, it was assumed that 75% of patients switched to the next line of treatment (first to abatacept and then to rituximab). The perspective was that of a U.S. payer. Costs were reported in 2015 U.S. dollars and included drug wholesale acquisition costs, monitoring, drug administration, and treatment for minor and serious adverse events. The patient population eligible for treatment was based on the total number of members (i.e., RA and non-RA) in a payer organization; members with RA treated with biologic therapies were estimated using epidemiological data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of varying key parameters, including treatment-switching probability, product rebate, major rates of adverse drug reaction, and ACR20 rates, on the model outcomes. RESULTS: Tofacitinib combination therapy after MTX failure was associated with the lowest cost per member per month (PMPM) over a 2-year time frame at $5.53, compared with $6.49 for adalimumab, $6.43 for etanercept, $5.95 for certolizumab, and $5.89 for tocilizumab. Similar savings were observed when all biologics were administered as monotherapy. Tofacitinib combination therapy was also associated with the lower PMPM cost compared with adalimumab combination therapy in the TNF-IR analysis. Tofacitinib was also among the lowest cost per ACR20 responder in each analysis. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that tofacitinib would potentially be cost saving even in the least optimistic scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that tofacitinib 5 mg BID following MTX failure is a lower cost per patient treatment option when used either as monotherapy or combination therapy, compared with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab and tocilizumab biologic regimens. Tofacitinib + MTX in TNF-IR patients was also predicted to be a lower-cost treatment option compared with adalimumab+MTX and was associated with the lowest cost per ACR 20/50/70 responder. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Pfizer, which determined the research topic and paid York Health Economics Consortium to develop the analysis and conduct the research. York Health Economics Consortium has received consultancy fees from Pfizer. Gerber, Wallenstein, Mendelsohn, Bourret, Singh, and Moynagh are employees and shareholders of Pfizer. Editorial support was funded by Pfizer and was provided by Claxton, Jenks, and Taylor, who are employees of York Health Economics Consortium. Study concept and design were contributed primarily by Taylor, Jenks, Gerber, and Singh, along with the other authors. Gerber, Moynagh, and Singh collected the data, assisted by Bouret and Mendelsohn; data interpretation was performed by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn. The manuscript was written primarily by Claxton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Claxton, Gerber, Bouret, and Mendelsohn, with assistance from the other authors.

The Challenge of Managing Psoriasis: Unmet Medical Needs and Stakeholder Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a debilitating chronic inflammatory autoimmune disease affecting approximately 7.4 million adults in the United States. Plaque psoriasis is the most common form, affecting 80% to 90% of patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact and challenges that psoriasis presents for various stakeholders, and to provide nondermatologist healthcare decision makers with information to enhance their contributions to drug and pharmacy benefit design discussions. DISCUSSION: Psoriasis carries an increased risk for early mortality and an increased prevalence of comorbidities, including psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes. It is also associated with anxiety, depression, and social isolation, and can negatively impact patients' relationships, productivity, and careers. The physical, psychologic, social, and economic impact of psoriasis, plus the associated stigma, result in cumulative impairment over a patient's lifetime. The current treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis include topical therapy, phototherapy, and systemic drugs (nonbiologic and biologic); however, patient satisfaction remains low, combination therapy and treatment switching are common, and many patients remain untreated or undertreated. Clinicians should consider the patient holistically, and should select treatment based on a range of factors, including disease severity (with physical and psychosocial manifestations), susceptibility to cumulative life-course impairment (considering personality, behavior, and cognition), comorbidities, concomitant medication, and patient preference. It is estimated that the total annual direct cost of treating psoriasis in the United States in 2015 exceeded $12.2 billion. CONCLUSION: Psoriasis is a complex disease, and appropriate management is correspondingly complex. Newer psoriasis treatments provide improved efficacy and safety versus traditional treatments, but challenges remain in ensuring patients access to these medications. An improved understanding of the barriers to appropriate treatment is needed, as well as clear and accessible information for payers and clinicians on current treatment options, to ensure that decision makers can control costs while providing patients with optimal care.