Cost-effectiveness analysis of abrocitinib compared with standard of care in adult moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in Japan.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease with a significant clinical, economic, and human burden. The JAK1 Atopic Dermatitis Efficacy and Safety (JADE) program's Phase 3 trials demonstrated that as a treatment for moderate-to-severe AD in adults with previous exposure to immunotherapy, abrocitinib showed superior efficacy and safety compared with standard of care (SoC), consisting of topical corticosteroids. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of abrocitinib with SoC versus SoC alone for this patient population in Japan from a societal perspective. A hybrid decision tree and Markov model were used to capture the initial treatment and long-term maintenance phases. Clinical inputs at 16 weeks were obtained through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of four pivotal trials from the JADE program. Clinical inputs at 52 weeks were derived from the JADE EXTEND trial. Response-specific utility inputs were obtained from published literature. Resource use, costs, and productivity inputs were gathered from Japanese claims analysis, literature, public documents, and expert opinion. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 2.0% per year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to validate the base case results and explore a payer perspective. Over a lifetime horizon and with the base-case societal perspective, abrocitinib produced a mean gain of 0.75 QALYs, incremental costs of JPY (¥) 2 270 386 (USD [$] 17 265.6), and a resulting ICER of ¥3 034 514 ($23 076.5) per QALY compared with SoC. From a payer perspective, the incremental costs increased to ¥4 476 777 ($34 044.4), with an ICER of ¥5 983 495 ($45 502.6) per QALY. The results were most sensitive to treatment-specific, response-based utility weights, drug costs, and productivity-related inputs. From a Japanese societal perspective, abrocitinib demonstrated superior QALYs and with a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥5 000 000 ($38 023.4) per QALY, can be considered cost-effective compared with SoC as a treatment for moderate-to-severe AD in adult patients with previous immunosuppressant exposure.

Systematic Literature Review of the Use of Productivity Losses/Gains in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Immune-Mediated Disorders.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the lack of an agreed international standard for how to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), including cost-utility analyses (CUAs) from a societal perspective, there is uncertainty regarding to what extent the inclusion of productivity losses/gains in economic evaluations can affect cost-effectiveness results and subsequently decisions on whether to recommend new health technologies. To investigate this, we conducted a systematic review of CEAs and CUAs of drug-based therapies for a set of chronic immune-mediated disorders to understand how cost elements and calculation methods related to productivity losses/gains are used, examine the impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of including productivity costs, and explore factors that affect the inclusion of productivity loss. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE® In-process, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library) were searched from January 2010 to October 2020 by two independent reviewers for all CEAs and CUAs in adults with any of the following conditions: ankylosing spondylitis, chronic idiopathic urticaria, Crohn's disease, fibromyalgia, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and ulcerative colitis. Relevant study data were extracted and evidence was synthesized for both qualitative and quantitative analysis. Productivity cost elements including absenteeism, presenteeism, unemployment/early retirement, premature mortality and informal care were extracted, along with the method used to determine them. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with the inclusion of productivity loss. RESULTS: Our searches identified 5016 records, culminating in 198 unique studies from 234 publications following screening. Most of the studies investigated rheumatoid arthritis (37.0%) or psoriasis (32.0%). The majority were CUAs, with some including both a CEA and a CUA (73.0%). Most studies used a payer perspective only (28.5%) or a societal perspective only (21.0%). Of the 49 studies incorporating productivity losses/gains, 42 reported the type of cost element used; all of these used patient absenteeism, either alone or in addition with other elements. Only 16 studies reported the method used to value productivity changes, of which eight used a human capital approach, four used a friction cost approach and four used both approaches. Twenty-eight of the 49 studies (57.1%) reported inclusion of productivity losses/gains as contributing to more favourable cost-effectiveness outcomes and ICERs, while 12 (24.5%) reported no substantial impact. On the basis of a multivariate analysis, rheumatoid arthritis as the target disease had a statistically significant association with the inclusion of productivity loss compared with psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our review suggest that incorporating productivity cost elements may positively affect cost-effectiveness outcomes in evaluations of therapeutics for immune-mediated disorders. Our work highlights the continued need for clarity when reporting how CEAs and CUAs in this disease area are conducted, in order to better inform healthcare decision-making.

A Systematic Literature Review of Economic Evaluations and Cost Studies of the Treatment of Psoriasis, Atopic Dermatitis, and Chronic Urticaria.

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis (PSO), atopic dermatitis (AD), and chronic urticaria (CU) are common manifestations of immunological skin and subcutaneous conditions and have been shown to have a substantial impact on the quality of life of patients. The cost of treating those conditions can also be high, as the use of biologic treatments has become more common for moderate to severe patients. In this review, we examine characteristics of economic evaluations and cost studies conducted for the three conditions. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from January 1, 2016 to October 26, 2020 to identify economic evaluations where the cost of one or more drug treatment was evaluated and cost studies covering any intervention type. Each database was searched using keyword and MeSH terms related to treatment costs (e.g., health care cost, drug cost, etc.) and each condition (e.g., PSO, AD, eczema, CU, etc.). RESULTS: A total of 123 studies were reviewed, including 104 studies (85%) of PSO (including psoriasis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis vulgaris), 14 studies (11%) of AD, and 5 studies (4%) of CU. Seventy-two studies (59%) reviewed reported the inclusion of biologic treatments, 10 studies (8%) did not include biologic treatments, and 41 studies (33%) did not report whether or not a biologic treatment was included. While nearly all studies (98%) included direct costs, only 22 studies (18%) included indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Economic evaluations for AD and CU may be needed in order to better understand the value of new treatments. Moreover, a clearer delineation for biologic treatments and indirect costs (i.e., productivity losses and gains) may be required.