Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Abrocitinib Compared with Other Systemic Treatments for Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease characterized by itchy, painful, and dry skin. Despite the great number of available therapies, economic evaluations are still needed to provide evidence on their cost efficiency. This research aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor abrocitinib (200 mg) compared with dupilumab (300 mg), tralokinumab (300 mg), baricitinib (2 and 4 mg), and upadacitinib (15 and 30 mg) for the treatment of patients with severe AD from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A hybrid model consisting of a decision tree linked to a Markov model was developed to estimate costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total years in response and incremental cost-per-QALY gained (willingness-to-pay [WTP] threshold: €25,000/QALY). Adults with severe AD entered the decision tree and response (75% reduction in baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index score, EASI-75) was considered at 16 and 52 weeks. After this time, patients entered the Markov model (remainder of the 10-year time horizon), which consisted of three health states: maintenance with active therapy, subsequent treatment, or death. All costs were presented in 2022 euros (€). Additionally, cost per number-needed-to-treat (NNT) was calculated for abrocitinib and dupilumab based on a head-to-head post-hoc analysis. RESULTS: Abrocitinib 200 mg was dominant (i.e., lower incremental costs and higher incremental benefit) compared with all studied alternatives (dupilumab 300 mg, tralokinumab 300 mg, baricitinib 2 and 4 mg, upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg) with a QALYs gain of 0.49, 0.60, 0.64, 0.43, 0.45, and 0.08, respectively, and per-person costs savings of €22,097, €24,140, €14,825, €7,116, €12,805, and €45,189, respectively. Considering the WTP threshold, abrocitinib was dominant or cost effective compared with all alternatives for most simulations. Additionally, abrocitinib was dominant compared with all alternatives when evaluating the cost effectiveness over a 5-year time horizon. NNT showed that abrocitinib was dominant versus dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that abrocitinib is a cost-effective therapy compared with other JAK inhibitors and biological therapies from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Management of Specific Clinical Profiles in Axial Spondyloarthritis: An Expert's Document Based on a Systematic Literature Review and Extended Delphi Process.

INTRODUCTION: The management of specific clinical scenarios is not adequately addressed in national and international guidelines for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Expert opinions could serve as a valuable complement to these documents. METHODS: Seven expert rheumatologists identified controversial areas or gaps of current recommendations for the management of patients with axSpA. A systematic literature review (SLR) was performed to analyze the efficacy and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, conventional synthetic, biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs, b/tsDMARDs) in axSpA regarding controversial areas or gaps. In a nominal group meeting, the results of the SLR were discussed and a set of statements were proposed. A Delphi process inviting 150 rheumatologists was followed to define the final statements. Agreement was defined as if at least 70% of the participants voted ≥ 7 (from 1, totally disagree, to 10, totally agree). RESULTS: Three overarching principles and 17 recommendations were generated. All reached agreement. According to them, axSpA care should be holistic and individualized, taking into account objective findings, comorbidities, and patients' opinions and preferences. Integrating imaging and clinical assessment with biomarker analysis could also help in decision-making. Connected to treatments, in refractory enthesitis, b/tsDMARDs are recommended. If active peripheral arthritis, csDMARD might be considered before b/tsDMARDs. The presence of significant structural damage, long disease duration, or HLA-B27-negative status do not contraindicate for the use of b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to complement guidelines by helping health professionals address and manage specific groups of patients, particular clinical scenarios, and gaps in axSpA.

Safety Profile and Tolerability of Topical Phosphodiesterase 4 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: Evaluate the safety profile and tolerability of topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors versus vehicle as treatment for atopic dermatitis in published studies. Methods: A search was performed in Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on September 27, 2021, by 1 evaluator, without restrictions on publication dates or languages. Terms such as atopic dermatitis, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitors, calcineurin inhibitors, and randomized controlled trials were included. The database searches were carried out by 1 evaluator. The titles and abstracts were reviewed for the identification and evaluation of potentially eligible studies. Study selection was made by two reviewers, so there was no intra-examiner statistic at the study selection step. The full-text articles were reviewed to determine whether or not they would be included in the systematic review. Global analyses, which included studies with both unclear and low risk of bias and subanalyses of studies with a low risk of bias were performed. Results: Out of 237 identified articles, 14 clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. In global analyses of studies with low and unclear risk of bias, topical treatment with PDE4 inhibitors did not differ from vehicle treatment in global treatment emergent adverse events (relative risk = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.14; P = 0.94) or in serious emergent adverse events appearance (relative risk = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.39-2.20; P = 0.86). In subanalyses of studies with a low risk of bias, a reduced rate of atopic dermatitis exacerbation was observed in PDE4 inhibitors compared with the vehicle (relative risk = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; P = 0.04) and risk of pain at the application site was confirmed (relative risk = 2.59; 95% CI, 1.27-5.28; P = 0.01). Conclusions: PDE4 inhibitors did not show differences from vehicle treatment in treatment emergent adverse events or serious emergent adverse events incidence. In studies with low risk of bias, PDE4 inhibitors had a statistically significant risk of producing pain and reduced occurrence of atopic dermatitis exacerbation.

Quantifying Physician Preferences for Systemic Atopic Dermatitis Treatments Using a Discrete-Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: As research continues, new drugs will no doubt be added to the current pool of treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). This raises the need for studies to determine prescriber preferences for different pharmacological options and the factors that influence their choice of treatment. Here we aim to explore physician preferences in the systemic treatment of moderate-to-severe AD, identify the sociodemographic characteristics that can influence physician preferences, and evaluate their satisfaction with current AD therapies. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to physicians treating patients with AD in Spain. Results were analyzed using a conditional logit model to estimate the relative importance of each attribute and the maximum risk accepted to achieve therapeutic benefit. RESULTS: A total of 28 respondents completed the DCE survey (67.9% female, mean age 45.9 years). Participants identified objective clinical efficacy and risk of severe adverse events (AEs) as the most important attributes, followed by improvement in sleep and pruritus and faster onset of action from the start of the treatment. Respondents gave less importance to mode of administration and therapeutic benefit in other atopic conditions. Respondents were willing to accept an increased risk of severe AEs and mild-to-moderate AEs leading to treatment discontinuation due to intolerance in order to obtain improvements in efficacy, sleep, and pruritus, and long-term clinical benefit. CONCLUSION: Our findings can help prescribers choose the most appropriate systemic AD therapy.

Efficacy of Tofacitinib in the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic approaches for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) include non-pharmacologic therapies, symptomatic treatments, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin inhibitors, cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 immunoglobulin, and Janus kinase inhibitors. This systematic review aimed to provide complete and up-to-date information on efficacy of tofacitinib in the treatment of PsA, giving special attention to non-skin manifestations (peripheral arthritis, axial disease, enthesitis, and dactylitis). METHODS: A search of studies published between January 2016 and June 2020 was carried out on PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS: The number of studies with tofacitinib in PsA is limited and most of them are post hoc analyses from OPAL Broaden and OPAL Beyond. Tofacitinib has been demonstrated to be efficacious for the treatment of all disease manifestations in PsA. Superior effectivity to placebo is achieved at the earliest time point evaluated, and maintained over time. Patients who switch from placebo to tofacitinib show the same improvements; however, the time to initial response is faster in patients who firstly receive tofacitinib, compared with those switching subsequently. Additional data suggest that tofacitinib may be also effective for the treatment of the axial domain. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib has been demonstrated to be efficacious for the treatment of peripheral and axial involvement, enthesitis, and dactylitis manifestation in PsA. Further prospective and long-term studies are required to corroborate and complete the present results. Similarly, real-world evidence is also necessary to complement the information obtained in clinical trials, and thereby to have a better overview of real efficacy and safety of the drug.

Delphi-based recommendations for the management of cardiovascular comorbidities in patients with psoriatic arthritis and moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

The aim of this study was to generate practical recommendations to assist rheumatologists and dermatologists in the management of cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (MS-PSO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A two-round Delphi study was conducted. A panel of experts rated their agreement with a set of statements (n = 52) on a nine-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree; 9 = totally agree). Statements were classified as inappropriate (median 1-3), irrelevant (median 4-6) or appropriate (median 7-9). Consensus was established when at least two-thirds of the panel responded with a score within any one range. A total of 25 experts, 60% rheumatologists and 40% dermatologists, participated in two consultation rounds. There was overall unanimity on the appropriateness of an initial assessment for CV risk factors in all patients with MS-PSO and PsA. Most panelists (88.0%) also supported the evaluation of patients' psychological and physical status. Additionally, most panelists (72.2%) agreed on a novel sequential approach for the management of CV comorbidities. This sequence starts with the assessment of hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia along with the identification of depression and anxiety disorders. Once these factors are under control, smoking cessation programs might be initiated. Finally, if patients have not met weight loss goals with lifestyle modifications, they should receive specialized treatment for obesity. This study has drawn up a set of practical recommendations that will facilitate the management of CV comorbidities in patients with MS-PSO and PsA.

Economic Impact of Etanercept in Patients with Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis in Spain: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION: Etanercept (ETN), a highly effective biological agent for the treatment of psoriasis (PSO) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is widely used in Spain. However, evidence of its economic impact is limited, indicating the need for a systematic review of the economic assessments conducted on the use of ETN in the treatment of both PSO and PsA in Spain. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment reports and not indexed sources up to November 2018. The inclusion criteria were economic evaluations (total and partial) and dose optimization studies published in English or Spanish on the use of ETN to treat PSO and PsA for ETN in Spain. RESULTS: A total of 402 publications were identified, of which 32 were selected for inclusion in the review; of these 32 publications, 81.3% analyzed PSO (14 full economic evaluations, 5 partial economic evaluations and 7 dose optimization studies) and 18.8% analyzed PsA (1 economic analysis and 5 dose optimization studies). The perspective of the Spanish National Health Service (NHS) was used in 90.0% (n = 18) of the full and partial economic evaluations. The time horizons ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years. Reductions in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 50, 75 and 90% (PASI 50, 75 and 90, respectively) were most commonly used as efficacy outcomes in the complete evaluations. The economic impact of ETN ranged from €9110-14,337/PASI 75 at 12 weeks (50 mg/week) to €82,279/PASI 90 at 2 years, depending on the health outcome, time horizon and ETN dose used. Only one study determined the cost of using ETN for the treatment of PSO (€29,430-52,367/QALY for dose 2 × 25 mg/week or 50 mg/week, respectively). Only one partial economic evaluation on PSA was identified (NHS perspective), resulting in an ETN annual cost of €8585/patient-year. CONCLUSION: Consistent evidence on the economic impact of ETN for the treatment of PSO and PSA in Spain is lacking, mainly due to the highly heterogeneous methodology used and the broad range of outcomes found in the economic evaluations published to date. FUNDING: Pfizer S.L.U.