A real-world economic analysis of biologic therapies for psoriatic arthritis in Italy: results of the CHRONOS observational longitudinal study.
Biologics
Cost-per-responder
Costs
Psoriatic arthritis
Real-world
Secukinumab
Tumor necrosis factor
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Dec 2022
16 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
15
06
2021
accepted:
12
12
2022
entrez:
16
12
2022
pubmed:
17
12
2022
medline:
21
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, immune-mediated, spondyloarthropathy characterised by musculoskeletal signs and symptoms with associated joint pain and tenderness. The average worldwide PsA prevalence is 133/100,000, while in the Italian population is 90-420/100,000. Traditionally, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been used in the treatment of PsA. However, for those patients who are not adequately controlled with conventional therapies, the new biologics compounds represent a valid option. Biologic therapies have been shown to be more effective but also more expensive than conventional systemic treatments. Based on the CHRONOS study, the economic analyses presented in this paper aim to assess the annualised direct costs and the cost-per-responder of biologics in a real-world context assuming the Italian National Health System perspective. The economic assessments were carried out on the overall cohort of patients, and on the tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) and the secukinumab subgroup, the most prescribed biologic therapies within the CHRONOS study. The annual economic impact of PsA in the overall group was €12,622, €11,725 in the secukinumab subgroup, and €12,791 in the TNFi subgroup. Biologics absorbed the main expenditure costs in the treatment of PsA accounting for about the 93% of total costs. At 6 months, secukinumab performed better in all the considered outcomes: cost-per-responder according to EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria were €12,661- €28,975, respectively, while they were €13,356 - €33,368 in the overall cohort and €13,138 - €35,166 in the TNFi subgroup. At 12 months secukinumab remained the subgroup with the lowest cost-per-responder ratio in EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria, while TNFi subgroup was the lowest one considered the ACR20. Despite some potential methodological limitations, our cost-per-response analysis provides physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic, immune-mediated, spondyloarthropathy characterised by musculoskeletal signs and symptoms with associated joint pain and tenderness. The average worldwide PsA prevalence is 133/100,000, while in the Italian population is 90-420/100,000. Traditionally, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoid, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have been used in the treatment of PsA. However, for those patients who are not adequately controlled with conventional therapies, the new biologics compounds represent a valid option. Biologic therapies have been shown to be more effective but also more expensive than conventional systemic treatments. Based on the CHRONOS study, the economic analyses presented in this paper aim to assess the annualised direct costs and the cost-per-responder of biologics in a real-world context assuming the Italian National Health System perspective.
METHODS
METHODS
The economic assessments were carried out on the overall cohort of patients, and on the tumour necrosis factor alpha inhibitors (TNFi) and the secukinumab subgroup, the most prescribed biologic therapies within the CHRONOS study.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The annual economic impact of PsA in the overall group was €12,622, €11,725 in the secukinumab subgroup, and €12,791 in the TNFi subgroup. Biologics absorbed the main expenditure costs in the treatment of PsA accounting for about the 93% of total costs. At 6 months, secukinumab performed better in all the considered outcomes: cost-per-responder according to EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria were €12,661- €28,975, respectively, while they were €13,356 - €33,368 in the overall cohort and €13,138 - €35,166 in the TNFi subgroup. At 12 months secukinumab remained the subgroup with the lowest cost-per-responder ratio in EULAR DAS28 and ACR50 response criteria, while TNFi subgroup was the lowest one considered the ACR20.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Despite some potential methodological limitations, our cost-per-response analysis provides physicians and payers additional insights which can complement the traditional risk-benefit profile assessment and drive treatment decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36527051
doi: 10.1186/s12913-022-08954-8
pii: 10.1186/s12913-022-08954-8
pmc: PMC9757915
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antirheumatic Agents
0
Biological Products
0
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1537Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2018 May 30;20(7):43
pubmed: 29846817
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009 Jun;23(6):683-91
pubmed: 19309433
Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 May;77(5):690-698
pubmed: 29343507
Biologics. 2018 Nov 12;12:151-158
pubmed: 30518996
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:528105
pubmed: 24967375
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020 Jun;21(3):441-447
pubmed: 31786732
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 May;58(5):851-64
pubmed: 18423261
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 Sep;26(9):1033-1039
pubmed: 28913966
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Aug;56(8):2708-14
pubmed: 17665458
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2013 Aug;14(4):315-26
pubmed: 23696234
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 May;68(5):1060-71
pubmed: 26749174
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 May;68(5):702-9
pubmed: 18684743
J Cutan Med Surg. 2009 Sep-Oct;13 Suppl 2:S49-57
pubmed: 19799827
RMD Open. 2018 Aug 13;4(2):e000723
pubmed: 30167329
Pharmacoeconomics. 2018 May;36(5):567-589
pubmed: 29441473
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jun;38(6):727-35
pubmed: 7779114
Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Oct;40(10):1868-72
pubmed: 9336423
Arthritis Res Ther. 2018 Dec 7;20(1):272
pubmed: 30526678
Lancet. 2015 Sep 19;386(9999):1137-46
pubmed: 26135703
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Jan;71(1):2-29
pubmed: 30499259
Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 May;308(4):249-61
pubmed: 26961372
Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016 Sep;107(7):577-90
pubmed: 27316590
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2018 Dec;24(12):1210-1217
pubmed: 30479197
N Engl J Med. 2015 Oct;373(14):1329-39
pubmed: 26422723
Arthritis Rheum. 1993 Jun;36(6):729-40
pubmed: 8507213
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;71(7):1112-1124
pubmed: 30747501
Arthritis Rheum. 1998 Oct;41(10):1845-50
pubmed: 9778226
Value Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):520-532
pubmed: 28407993
Arthritis Rheum. 1995 Jan;38(1):44-8
pubmed: 7818570
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Aug;48(1):28-34
pubmed: 29398124
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Mar;69(3):347-355
pubmed: 27696786
Ann Rheum Dis. 2016 Mar;75(3):499-510
pubmed: 26644232
BMC Rheumatol. 2022 Sep 12;6(1):57
pubmed: 36089612
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010 May;24(5):548-54
pubmed: 19874432
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017 Mar;69(3):622-629
pubmed: 27792862