title: Cost effectiveness of moderate to severe psoriasis therapy with etanercept and ustekinumab in the United States.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Limited information is available on the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab and alternative biologic treatments in a United States (US) setting. Given the recent head-to-head clinical trial study of ustekinumab and etanercept, an economic model comparing the two treatments can be constructed. Etanercept and ustekinumab are indicated for the treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of ustekinumab, an anti-cytokine biologic, for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of ustekinumab compared with etanercept from a US societal perspective.
  
  
  METHODS
  A Markov model was constructed to simulate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained every 12 weeks over a base-case 3-year time horizon. A hypothetical patient cohort was based on the characteristics of the phase III Active Comparator Psoriasis Trial (ACCEPT). The main outcome measures were costs and QALYs, which were estimated from the US societal perspective. Costs, utilities, treatment strategy, and resource use estimates were obtained from relevant literature. All costs were adjusted to 2011 US dollars. A 3 % annual discount rate was applied to costs and QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in US dollars per QALY gained.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For the base-case 3-year time horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing ustekinumab 90 mg with etanercept 50 mg was US$384,401 per QALY gained. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg for the same time horizon. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses involving treatment strategy, transition probabilities, valuing outcomes, and resource use and costs. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests ustekinumab 90 mg has a minimal (4 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$150,000 per QALY improvement. For the same threshold, ustekinumab 45 mg has a high (88 %) chance of being cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Under typical US willingness-to-pay cutoffs, ustekinumab 90 mg is not cost effective compared with etanercept 50 mg therapy in moderate to severe psoriasis patients for the base-case 3-year time horizon. Ustekinumab 45 mg dominates etanercept 50 mg therapy for an equivalent patient psoriasis severity and time horizon.
authors: Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 3335 S. Figueroa St., Unit A, University Park Campus, UGW-Unit A, Los Angeles, CA 90089-7273, USA. rvillaco@usc.edu
authors: Reginald
authors: R
authors: Villacorta
authors: Joel W
authors: JW
authors: Hay
authors: Andrew
authors: A
authors: Messali
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D061067:Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000191:economics; D016527:Drug Costs; D000068800:Etanercept; D017048:Health Care Costs; D006801:Humans; D007074:Immunoglobulin G / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D018803:Models, Economic; D011565:Psoriasis / Q000188:drug therapy* / Q000191:economics*; D019057:Quality-Adjusted Life Years; D018124:Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D014481:United States; D000069549:Ustekinumab
chemical_list: D061067:Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized; D007074:Immunoglobulin G; D018124:Receptors, Tumor Necrosis Factor; D000069549:Ustekinumab; D000068800:Etanercept
references: Br J Dermatol. 2005 Dec;153(6):1192-9
references: 16307657
references: Value Health. 2011 Jul-Aug;14(5):652-6
references: 21839402
references: N Engl J Med. 2009 Jul 30;361(5):496-509
references: 19641206
references: Br J Dermatol. 2004 May;150 Suppl 67:11-23
references: 15115441
references: Br J Dermatol. 2007 May;156(5):945-50
references: 17388922
references: Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1675-84
references: 18486740
references: Lancet. 2008 May 17;371(9625):1665-74
references: 18486739
references: Arch Dermatol. 2007 Jun;143(6):719-26
references: 17576937
references: Br J Dermatol. 2004 Aug;151 Suppl 69:3-17
references: 15265063
references: Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jan;156(1):138-42
references: 17199580
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 May;58(5):826-50
references: 18423260
references: Musculoskeletal Care. 2008 Mar;6(1):1-14
references: 17726671
references: Br J Dermatol. 2008 Feb;158(2):351-9
references: 18070214
references: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2011 Feb;25(2):157-63
references: 20561129
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Nov;59(5):772-80
references: 19119095
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Jan;58(1):125-35
references: 17996329
references: Health Technol Assess. 2006 Nov;10(46):1-233, i-iv
references: 17083854
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Dec;20(12):1929-36
references: 15701211
references: Clin Ther. 2006 Oct;28(10):1619-29
references: 17157117
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):281-5
references: 10906652
references: J Drugs Dermatol. 2012 Mar;11(3):300-12
references: 22395580
references: Br J Dermatol. 2005 Jun;152(6):1304-12
references: 15948997
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007 Apr;56(4):598-603
references: 17113190
references: Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2006 Feb;7(2):157-67
references: 16433581
references: J Dermatolog Treat. 2011 Apr;22(2):65-74
references: 20443663
references: Arch Dermatol. 2007 Dec;143(12):1493-9
references: 18086997
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Aug;67(2):245-56
references: 22015149
references: N Engl J Med. 2005 Oct 6;353(14):1516-22
references: 16207857
references: Lancet. 2006 Jan 7;367(9504):29-35
references: 16399150
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jun;50(6):859-66
references: 15153885
references: Am J Med. 1982 Dec;73(6):883-8
references: 7148881
references: Am J Med. 1982 Dec;73(6):889-97
references: 6983298
references: N Engl J Med. 2003 Nov 20;349(21):2014-22
references: 14627786
references: J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011 Jul;65(1):137-74
references: 21306785
references: N Engl J Med. 2010 Jan 14;362(2):118-28
references: 20071701
references: JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):221-4
references: 17622605
references: J Dermatolog Treat. 2011 Jun;22(3):138-43
references: 21254886
references: Curr Med Res Opin. 2009 Oct;25(10):2429-38
references: 19663687