Cost-effectiveness of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in the German health care setting

Research output: Contribution to journalResearch articleContributedpeer-review

Contributors

  • Denise Küster - , Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare (Author)
  • Alexander Nast - , Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Author)
  • Sascha Gerdes - , University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein Campus Kiel (Author)
  • Tobias Weberschock - , University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt a.M. (Author)
  • Gottfried Wozel - , Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)
  • Mandy Gutknecht - , University of Hamburg (Author)
  • Jochen Schmitt - , Center for Evidence-Based Healthcare, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden (Author)

Abstract

Systemic treatments of moderate-to-severe psoriasis differ substantially in terms of effectiveness and costs. Comprehensive economic-evaluations of all systemic treatments for psoriasis from a societal perspective are missing. The objective of our study was to compare the cost-effectiveness all systemic treatments approved for moderate-to-severe psoriasis from a societal perspective, by including all cost categories. An incremental cost-effectiveness-analysis was performed for all systemic treatments for psoriasis, currently recommended by the German S3-Guideline i.e. methotrexate, cyclosporine, fumaric acid esters, and retinoids, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab and ustekinumab. We used a Markov model with time-dependent transition probabilities and a time horizon of 2 years to investigate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Both direct and indirect costs were considered to reflect the societal perspective. Effectiveness outcome was PASI-75 response. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the effect of treatment duration, discount rate, effectiveness, and the perspective (societal vs. healthcare system) on the findings. According to the base-case analysis a cost-effective treatment pathway for moderate-to-severe psoriasis starts with methotrexate, followed by ustekinumab 90 mg and infliximab, if methotrexate does not achieve or maintain PASI-75 response. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the general robustness of these findings with methotrexate being most cost-effective. However, from a third-party-payer perspective (without indirect cost) conventional therapies were generally more cost-effective than biologics. From a value-based healthcare perspective, methotrexate should be the systemic treatment of first choice, ustekinumab 90 mg second choice and infliximab third choice for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. From a societal perspective, the other treatments are less efficient according to our model. From a third-party-payer perspective conventional therapies are more cost-effective than biologics.

Details

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)249-261
Number of pages13
JournalArchives of dermatological research
Volume308
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2016
Peer-reviewedYes

External IDs

PubMed 26961372

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Keywords

  • Biologic, Cost-effectiveness, Efficiency, Health economy, Psoriasis, Systemic treatment