Long-term clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of obeticholic acid for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a chronic, progressive autoimmune liver disease that mainly affects middle-aged women. Obeticholic acid (OCA), which was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for PBC treatment, has demonstrated positive effects on biochemical markers of liver function. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of OCA as a second-line treatment for PBC in combination with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) in adults with an inadequate response to UDCA. We developed a mathematical model to simulate the lifetime course of PBC patients treated with OCA+UDCA versus UDCA alone. Efficacy data were derived from the phase 3 PBC OCA International Study of Efficacy trial, and the natural history of PBC was informed by published clinical studies. Model outcomes were validated using the PBC Global Study. We found that in comparison with UDCA, OCA+UDCA could decrease the 15-year cumulative incidences of decompensated cirrhosis from 12.2% to 4.5%, hepatocellular carcinoma from 9.1% to 4.0%, liver transplants from 4.5% to 1.2%, and liver-related deaths from 16.2% to 5.7% and increase 15-year transplant-free survival from 61.1% to 72.9%. The lifetime cost of PBC treatment would increase from $63,000 to $902,000 (1,330% increment). The discounted quality-adjusted life years with UDCA and OCA+UDCA were 10.74 and 11.78, respectively, and the corresponding costs were $142,300 and $633,900, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $473,400/quality-adjusted life year gained. The results were most sensitive to the cost of OCA. CONCLUSION: OCA is a promising new therapy to substantially improve the long-term outcomes of PBC patients, but at its current annual price of $69,350, it is not cost-effective using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life year; pricing below $18,450/year is needed to make OCA cost-effective. (Hepatology 2017;65:920-928).

Comparative effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The comparative effectiveness of available targeted immunomodulators for moderate-to-severe psoriasis has not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Systematic literature review of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomized trials of 8 targeted immunomodulators that evaluated clinical benefits or harm. The primary outcome was a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. We also conducted a network meta-analysis adjusted for placebo response to perform indirect comparisons between agents. RESULTS: In the network meta-analysis, the targeted immunomodulators ordered by increasing relative risk (demonstrating greater likelihood) of achieving a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index relative to placebo were as follows: apremilast (6.2), etanercept (9.6), adalimumab (13.0), ustekinumab (14.0), secukinumab (15.4), infliximab (16.2), brodalumab (17.3), and ixekizumab (17.9). Ixekizumab, brodalumab, and infliximab were all statistically superior to ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, and apremilast; results were similar to those of head-to-head studies where data were available. LIMITATIONS: Much of the evidence is short-term (covering 10-16 weeks); limited direct comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The interleukin 17A inhibitors are more effective in achieving clearance than ustekinumab, and they are generally more effective than etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast.

Disease-Modifying Therapies for Relapsing-Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) treat relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS). Few comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses exist in this area, particularly from a payer perspective, despite rapidly increasing prices of DMTs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically compare cost effectiveness of all relevant DMTs for first-line treatment of RRMS, second-line treatment of RRMS, and first-line treatment of PPMS. METHODS: We used a Markov model with health states based on Expanded Disability Status Score categories. Upon discontinuing first-line treatment, RRMS patients continued to second-line therapy then to supportive care, and PPMS patients moved directly to supportive care. Data was sourced from clinical trials and commercially and publicly available sources. The target population was treatment-naïve adults with RRMS or PPMS. We used a lifetime horizon from a US payer perspective, and compared DMTs for RRMS (first-line: dimethyl fumarate, glatiramer acetate, interferon ß-1a, interferon ß-1b, peginterferon ß-1a, teriflunomide, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab; second-line: alemtuzumab, natalizumab, fingolimod, and ocrelizumab), ocrelizumab for PPMS, and supportive care. Outcome measures included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: For RRMS first-line therapy, ocrelizumab dominated the other DMTs with an ICER of US$166,338/QALY compared with supportive care. For RRMS second-line therapy, alemtuzumab dominated the other three DMTs, providing more QALYs for lower costs. For PPMS, ocrelizumab had an ICER of US$648,799/QALY compared with supportive care. Wide variability in results was observed in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results were sensitive to the relative risk of progression and cost of DMTs. CONCLUSIONS: Ocrelizumab would likely be cost effective as a first-line treatment for RRMS with a discounted price but was not cost effective for PPMS. Alemtuzumab dominated other options for second-line treatment of RRMS. Other DMTs were generally similar in terms of costs and health outcomes, providing health benefits compared to supportive care but with significant added costs. If drug prices were lowered, more DMTs could be cost effective.