BackgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, multifactorial, inflammatory skin disease with significant impact on patients’ quality of life.
ObjectiveThe objective of this analysis was to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of dupilumab, administered every other week, vs supportive care (SC), in the Italian adult population with severe AD, for whom ciclosporin treatment is contraindicated, ineffective or not tolerated.
MethodsSimulation of outcomes and costs was undertaken using a 1-year decision tree, followed by a 20-year time horizon Markov model. Clinical data were derived from a pooled analysis of two studies. Given the uncertainty on final National Health Service (NHS) cost of dupilumab in Italy (confidential discount might be applied) multiple cost-utility analyses were conducted using different price hypotheses, starting from dupilumab published ex-manufacturer price, and progressively reducing it up to 50%. Model robustness were tested using sensitivity analyses.
ResultsIn the base-case, dupilumab was more effective than SC (+1.92 quality adjusted life years, QALYs). In Analysis A (NHS perspective), -8.0% discount on dupilumab ex-manufacturer price was required to achieve an ICER<€50,000 QALY gained with dupilumab vs SC; in Analysis B (Societal perspective), dupilumab ICER vs SC was already below the acceptability threshold at its current published ex-manufacturer price. Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness and reliability of base-case results.
ConclusionsDupilumab is a cost-effective option for the treatment of patients with severe AD in Italy, compared with SC, when both NHS and societal economic consequences of AD treatment and management are considered.
Background and research question: Label extension for treatments and the relevant disease cross-coverage may produce an economic benefit. This paper assesses this benefit for dupilumab in the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Dupilumab was approved for reimbursement for severe atopic dermatitis (AD), severe and refractory asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The analysis focused on the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments.
Methods: The research relied on a simplified budget impact model. The model was populated by data from published evidence and relied on three alternative scenarios for market penetration (15%-30%-100%).
Results: Avoidable direct health annual costs due to cross-coverage for (i) asthma in patients treated for AD ranged from 0.46 to 3.43 million euros, (ii) asthma in patients treated for CRSwNP ranged from 0.08 to 0.88 million euros, (iii) CRSwNP in patients treated for asthma ranged from 0.41 to 4.05 million euros respectively. The total economic benefit ranges from 0.95 to 8.36 million euros.
Discussion: The research estimated the crowding-out effect of dupilumab on alternative treatments. It did not incorporate avoided/incremental events due to a possible better/worse risk-benefit profile of dupilumab vs alternative treatments and the economic benefit of cross-coverage on lower diseases severity (for example mild asthma). Nonetheless, the analysis relies on the best available evidence for Italy to shed light on a topic which has not been sufficiently investigated, and provides data that will be potentially very important for policy-makers, payers and those who manage new treatments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.