Characteristics and Management of Patients with Alopecia Areata and Selected Comorbid Conditions: Results from a Survey in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition that causes non-scarring hair loss and can impose a high psychosocial burden on patients. The presence of comorbid conditions may impact the management of AA in clinical practice. This analysis aims to describe disease characteristics and management of AA in patients with concomitant atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbid conditions. METHODS: Data were collected from the Adelphi Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their adult patients with AA conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK between October 2021 and June 2022. Patients' disease severity was based on physician's definition. Physician-reported data on demographics, AA clinical characteristics, comorbid conditions, and information related to AA therapies were analyzed. Analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Overall, 239 dermatologists provided data for 2083 patients, of which 558 patients (27%) had at least one atopic, autoimmune, or psychiatric comorbid conditions. The most common comorbid conditions were atopic dermatitis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and anxiety. The mean (standard deviation) patient age for the three comorbidity groups was 37.6 years (12.1) and 56% of the patients were women (n = 313). In the three comorbidity groups, 51%, 50%, and 55% of patients with atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbidities had severe AA with disease progression reported as worsening in 30%, 28%, and 30%, respectively, whereas in the group with no comorbidities, 37% were described as having severe AA and 21% getting worse. Scalp hair loss was the primary sign reported across the three groups of comorbid conditions (atopic, 91%; autoimmune, 91%; psychiatric, 88%). Patients with preselected comorbidities presented more frequently AA-related signs and symptoms beyond scalp hair loss than patients without comorbid conditions. These patients were also more likely to receive topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical immunotherapy, conventional systemic immunosuppressants, and oral Janus kinase inhibitors for the treatment of their AA. CONCLUSION: This analysis provided insights into the burden and management of AA in patients presenting with atopic, autoimmune, and psychiatric comorbid conditions in five European countries.

Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Narrative Review.

Treatments for alopecia areata (AA) have traditionally been prescribed off-label, and there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage the condition. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. As a better understanding of the evidence supporting the management of AA in clinical practice is needed, we conducted a systematic literature review and subsequent narrative review to describe available evidence pertaining to the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. From 2557 identified records, a total of 53 records were retained for data extraction: 9 reported data from 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, and 44 reported data from unique RCTs with no placebo arm, non-randomized trials, or observational studies. Across drug classes, data were reported heterogeneously, with little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular the JAK1/JAK2 inhibitor baricitinib. Five RCTs (three for baricitinib) demonstrated a consistent benefit of JAK inhibitor therapy over placebo across various clinical outcomes in adult patients with at least 50% scalp hair loss. Overall, hair regrowth varied widely for the other drug classes and was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe AA. Relapses were commonly observed during treatment and upon discontinuation. Adverse effects were generally consistent with the known safety profile of each intervention. The heterogeneity observed prevented the conduct of a network meta-analysis or an indirect comparison of different treatments. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. The most robust evidence identified supported the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA.

To date, there has been no universal agreement on how to best manage alopecia areata (AA), suggesting that a better understanding of the evidence for the different treatment options is needed. Most of the treatments traditionally used for AA have not been approved for this indication. Baricitinib is the first oral selective Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor approved for the treatment of adults with severe AA. Consequently, we extensively reviewed the available literature for evidence regarding the efficacy and tolerability of treatments currently recommended for adults with moderate-to-severe forms of AA. Although we found many potential reports, only 53 provided the type of information we believed to be relevant, with 9 describing findings from 7 randomized controlled trials versus placebo. Across treatments, there was little consistency of data collection or clinical endpoints used. The most robust evidence was for the JAK inhibitor class, in particular baricitinib, which was consistently more beneficial than placebo across various clinical outcomes in adults with at least 50% scalp hair loss. For the other classes of drugs, hair regrowth varied widely, was generally low for patients with moderate-to-severe hair loss, and commonly did not last. Reported adverse effects were generally as expected for each treatment. We found that the current management of patients with moderate-to-severe AA often relies on the use of treatments that have not been well evaluated in clinical trials. However, strong evidence supports the use of baricitinib, and other oral JAK inhibitors, in patients with severe AA.

Physician- and Patient-Reported Severity and Quality of Life Impact of Alopecia Areata: Results from a Real-World Survey in Five European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) can negatively affect quality of life (QoL) and is associated with increased prevalence of anxiety and depression (vs people without AA). This study compared physician-assessed and patient self-rated severity of AA in a European sample and described the patient-reported burden of AA stratified by physician-assessed severity. METHODS: Real-world data were collected from the Adelphi Real World AA Disease Specific Programme™, a retrospective point-in-time cross-sectional survey of dermatologists and their adult patients with AA in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK). Physicians provided clinical data and an AA severity assessment, according to their own definition of 'mild', 'moderate' and 'severe'. Patients were invited to provide their perception of AA severity and completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, including Skindex-16 for AA (Skindex-16 AA), EuroQol-5-dimension questionnaire 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Data for 2083 patients were collected by 239 physicians; 561 of these patients completed PRO questionnaires. In 78.5% of cases with available data (N = 549), there was alignment between patient and physician-rated AA severity (severity was rated higher by physicians in 15.7% of cases, by patients in 5.8% of cases). Data from all PRO instruments showed an increase in patient-reported burden and work and activity impairment with increasing physician-rated AA severity. For the Skindex-16 AA, the Emotions scale had the worst scores; anxiety/depression was the EQ-5D-5L dimension with the highest percentages of patients reporting any perceived problem. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the significant impact that AA can have beyond hair loss, especially for patients with severe AA. There was substantial physician-patient alignment on severity assessment. Higher physician-rated AA severity was associated with higher levels of patient-reported disease burden, including anxiety and depression, and work and activity impairment. These data may help inform appropriate treatment strategies.

Alopecia areata (AA) can negatively affect quality of life and is associated with increased prevalence of anxiety and depression (vs people without AA). This study used surveys of adult patients with AA in Europe and their dermatologists to compare how doctors and patients assess AA severity. We also looked at how patients rate the overall burden and broader effects of AA (not just hair loss) according to whether their doctor classed their AA as 'mild', 'moderate' or 'severe'. Data for 2083 patients were collected by 239 doctors; 561 patients completed questionnaires about their AA and its potential effects on their quality of life, mental health and ability to work or perform other activities. In 78.5% of cases (from 549 patients with both patient and doctor-rated severity), patients and their doctors agreed on the same AA severity category (mild, moderate or severe). However, in 15.7% of cases, doctors rated AA severity as being higher than reported by the patient, and in 5.8% of cases the patient classed their AA as being more severe than reported by the doctor. Data from patient questionnaires showed that the burden associated with AA was higher in patients with more severe AA (as per their doctor's own definition of severity); anxiety/depression was the most commonly reported problem related to quality of life. This study highlights the significant impact that AA can have beyond hair loss, especially for patients with severe AA. Information from this study may help to inform appropriate treatment strategies for people with AA.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus dupilumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: an Italian healthcare system perspective.

AIMS: To assess, within the Italian healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are eligible for but have failed, have contraindications to, or cannot tolerate ciclosporin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the perspective of the Italian healthcare payer, direct medical costs associated with each intervention were estimated over a lifetime horizon. A Markov cohort model utilized the proportions of patients with ≥75% improvement Eczema Area and Severity Index obtained from clinical trials. Health outcomes were evaluated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost effectiveness of baricitinib against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base case, with secondary censoring applied, patients treated with dupilumab or baricitinib, in combination with TCS, accumulated total costs of €135,780 or €129,586, and total QALYs of 18.172 or 18.133, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus baricitinib was estimated at €160,905/QALY. LIMITATIONS: Core assumptions were needed to extrapolate available short-term clinical trial data to lifelong data, adding uncertainty. Benefits of baricitinib seen in clinical trials and not assessed in dupilumab clinical trials were not included. Discontinuation rates for each treatment were derived from different sources potentially introducing bias. Results may not be generalizable to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis shows that, from the Italian healthcare payer perspective, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD who have experienced failure on, are intolerant to, or have contraindication to ciclosporin, dupilumab cannot be considered cost-effective when compared with baricitinib. Given its oral administration, favorable risk/benefit profile and lower acquisition cost compared with dupilumab, baricitinib may offer a valuable, cost-effective treatment option-after failure on conventional systemic agents-for patients with moderate to severe AD in Italy.

Baricitinib is the first oral systemic treatment for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The drug was effective for treating patients with AD in clinical trials, producing improvements in skin inflammation, itch, sleep disturbances due to itch and skin pain, as well as the quality of life of patients. However, it is important to ensure that healthcare funds are well spent. We therefore compared the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib, with another new systemic treatment for AD, dupilumab, (both in combination with topical corticosteroids) in patients with moderate to severe AD who are eligible for but have failed or are unable to take ciclosporin, in Italy. We found that using dupilumab to treat these patients with AD cost more than using baricitinib, although dupilumab was more effective. Combining these considerations showed that the cost of obtaining the additional benefit from dupilumab over baricitinib was not cost-effective for the Italian healthcare system. Baricitinib may be a better treatment option because it is given orally, has a favorable balance between the risks and benefits of treatment, and costs less than dupilumab.

A description of alopecia areata in European patients based on real-world survey data: physician-reported characterization of severity and associated treatment utilization.

Alopecia areata (AA), an autoimmune disease -affecting the hair of the scalp, face, and/or body, can entail substantial psychological and physical burden for patients. There is currently no international agreement on how to treat AA and the approach may vary across countries. This study investigated the management of AA in clinical practice. Data from a point-in-time survey conducted in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, between October 2021-June 2022, were analysed for adults with mild, moderate, and severe AA, based on physician assessment. Dermatologists were surveyed about factors used to assess disease severity, physician-reported treatment goals, and treatment patterns for AA, including the use of wigs. In total, 239 dermatologists reported on 2,083 patients. Physicians' severity assessment and treatment goals were predominantly driven by scalp hair loss. Topical and intralesional corticosteroids were the most prescribed treatments for mild and moderate AA. Conventional immunosuppressants, oral Janus kinase inhibitors, and topical immunotherapy use generally increased with AA severity and therapy line. Wig use was greatest for severe AA. The primary reasons for the last treatment change in the moderate and severe groups were worsening of condition, lack of initial efficacy, and loss of response, and for mild group were improvement in condition, lack of initial efficacy, and worsening of condition. Findings were generally similar across countries. This analysis provides insights into the management of AA in five European countries and confirms the need for more effective therapies, especially for patients with severe AA.

Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Data included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings. RESULTS: Across 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words.

Cost effectiveness of ixekizumab versus secukinumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Currently, several biologic agents are available for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, including newer agents with similar mechanisms of action and efficacy; therefore, there is a need to evaluate their efficiency in terms of cost effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of recently approved interleukin (IL)-17A antagonists, ixekizumab and secukinumab, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of ixekizumab vs. secukinumab in a hypothetical cohort of patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The model used monthly cycles and included four health states: a 12-week induction period, treatment maintenance, best supportive care (BSC), and death. Patients meeting response criteria at the end of the induction period transitioned to maintenance therapy, whereas non-responders transitioned to BSC. It was assumed that, each year, 20% of patients receiving maintenance therapy would discontinue treatment. The model incorporated data from various sources, including published literature, a network meta-analysis, and expert opinion for some variables. RESULTS: Ixekizumab was dominant over secukinumab in that it gained 0.037 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and saved €1951 in total costs over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 96.6% likelihood that ixekizumab would be cost effective at a threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Spain, ixekizumab provided additional QALYs and potential savings for the Spanish NHS compared with secukinumab. Since the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs was modest, other factors such as patient preferences (eg, for number of injections) and long-term safety (eg, related to time on the market) may also be important for guiding clinical decisions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sequential biologic therapy with ixekizumab versus secukinumab as first-line treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the UK.

AIMS: Patients with psoriasis often undergo treatment with a sequence of biologic agents because of poor/loss of response to initial therapy. With the availability of newer agents like ixekizumab and secukinumab, there is a need for cost-effectiveness analyses to better reflect current clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a sequence of biologic therapies containing first-line ixekizumab vs first-line secukinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model with a lifetime horizon was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ixekizumab and secukinumab treatment sequences: ixekizumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → best supportive care (BSC) vs secukinumab → ustekinumab → infliximab → BSC. The model used monthly cycles, and included four health states: trial period, treatment maintenance, BSC, and death. At the end of the trial period, responders transitioned to maintenance therapy; non-responders transitioned to the next biologic in the sequence. An annual discontinuation rate of 20% was assumed for maintenance therapy. RESULTS: The ixekizumab sequence provided cost savings of £898 (£176,203 vs 177,101) [year 2015 values] and gained 0.03 more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs: 1.45 vs 1.42) vs the secukinumab sequence over the lifetime horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed an 89.8% likelihood that the ixekizumab sequence would be cost-effective at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: The analysis used list prices for drugs rather than confidential, preferentially priced Patient Access Scheme costs. In addition, efficacy input data were based on a network meta-analysis, as there were no head-to-head trials comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab. CONCLUSION: First-line treatment with ixekizumab as part of a specific sequential biologic therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in the UK provided slight advantages in cost savings and QALYs gained over a similar treatment sequence initiated with secukinumab. In view of the small magnitude of these differences, factors such as patient preferences (e.g. for number of injections) and long-term safety (e.g. related to time on the market) may also be important for clinical decision-making.