Cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments

[Fred]

This study looked at the cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Quote:

---

Background:
Newer psoriasis treatments tout higher efficacy but are generally more expensive.

Objective:
We sought to estimate the cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods:
A literature review of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the FDA was performed for the primary end point of a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75). Medication cost was referenced by wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), laboratory fees were obtained from the American Medical Association, and office visit fees are standard at our university. Total expenses were standardized by calculating cost per month of treatment considering the number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve PASI 75.

Results:
Methotrexate ($794.05-1502.51) and cyclosporine ($1410.14-1843.55) had the lowest monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75. The most costly therapies were infliximab ($8704.68-15,235.52) and ustekinumab 90 mg ($12,505.26-14,256.75). Monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75 for other therapies were as follows: narrowband ultraviolet B light phototherapy ($2924.73), adalimumab ($3974.61-7678.78), acitretin ($4137.71-14,148.53), ustekinumab 45 mg ($7177.89-7263.99), psoralen plus ultraviolet A light phototherapy ($7499.46-8834.98), and etanercept ($8284.71-10,674.89).

Limitations:
Drug rebates and incentives, potential adverse effects, comorbidity risk reduction, ambassador programs, and combination therapies were excluded.

Conclusion:
Our study provides meaningful cost efficacy data that may influence psoriasis treatment selection.

Source: jaad.org

Funding sources: None known

[jiml]

This study looked at the cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments approved for use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Quote:

---

Background:
Newer psoriasis treatments tout higher efficacy but are generally more expensive.

Objective:
We sought to estimate the cost efficacy of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods:
A literature review of systemic psoriasis treatments that have been approved by the FDA was performed for the primary end point of a 75% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI 75). Medication cost was referenced by wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), laboratory fees were obtained from the American Medical Association, and office visit fees are standard at our university. Total expenses were standardized by calculating cost per month of treatment considering the number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve PASI 75.

Results:
Methotrexate ($794.05-1502.51) and cyclosporine ($1410.14-1843.55) had the lowest monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75. The most costly therapies were infliximab ($8704.68-15,235.52) and ustekinumab 90 mg ($12,505.26-14,256.75). Monthly costs per NNT to achieve PASI 75 for other therapies were as follows: narrowband ultraviolet B light phototherapy ($2924.73), adalimumab ($3974.61-7678.78), acitretin ($4137.71-14,148.53), ustekinumab 45 mg ($7177.89-7263.99), psoralen plus ultraviolet A light phototherapy ($7499.46-8834.98), and etanercept ($8284.71-10,674.89).

Limitations:
Drug rebates and incentives, potential adverse effects, comorbidity risk reduction, ambassador programs, and combination therapies were excluded.

Conclusion:
Our study provides meaningful cost efficacy data that may influence psoriasis treatment selection.

Source: jaad.org

Funding sources: None known

I think this was a worthwhile study, which highlights comparative costs of medication in the US
The only problem as I see it if this is taken onboard by dermatologists it will put all these drugs on a cost scale and patients may well have to fail on more treatments before getting to one that works for them..
However it makes very interesting reading

[Caroline]

A one sided view, best view should of course be the view from the health of the patient.
Too bad the US is nothing doing with DMF. Then they would have a giant cost reducer. At least that is my one side view