Cost-effectiveness analysis of baricitinib versus dupilumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: an Italian healthcare system perspective.

Johansson E, Giovannitti M, Mezzetti M, Lu N, Sabatino S.  J Med Econ. 2023 Sep 7:1-23. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2023.2255495. 

Abstract

Aims

To assess, within the Italian healthcare system, the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib versus dupilumab, both in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS), in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are eligible for but have failed, have contraindications to, or cannot tolerate ciclosporin.

Materials and methods

Using the perspective of the Italian healthcare payer, direct medical costs associated with each intervention were estimated over a lifetime horizon. A Markov cohort model utilized the proportions of patients with ≥75% improvement Eczema Area and Severity Index obtained from clinical trials.

Health outcomes were evaluated in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to assess the cost effectiveness of baricitinib against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY gained.

Results

Base case results—cost effectiveness plane (dupilumab vs. baricitinib)

In the base case, with secondary censoring applied, patients treated with dupilumab or baricitinib, in combination with TCS, accumulated total costs of €135,780 or €129,586, and total QALYs of 18.172 or 18.133, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of dupilumab versus baricitinib was estimated at €160,905/QALY.

Limitations

Core assumptions were needed to extrapolate available short-term clinical trial data to lifelong data, adding uncertainty. Benefits of baricitinib seen in clinical trials and not assessed in dupilumab clinical trials were not included. Discontinuation rates for each treatment were derived from different sources potentially introducing bias. Results may not be generalizable to other populations.

Conclusions

This cost-effectiveness analysis shows that, from the Italian healthcare payer perspective, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD who have experienced failure on, are intolerant to, or have contraindication to ciclosporin, dupilumab cannot be considered cost-effective when compared with baricitinib. Given its oral administration, favorable risk/benefit profile and lower acquisition cost compared with dupilumab, baricitinib may offer a valuable, cost-effective treatment option—after failure on conventional systemic agents—for patients with moderate to severe AD in Italy.

Plain language summary

Baricitinib is the first oral systemic treatment for patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The drug was effective for treating patients with AD in clinical trials, producing improvements in skin inflammation, itch, sleep disturbances due to itch and skin pain, as well as the quality of life of patients. However, it is important to ensure that healthcare funds are well spent. We therefore compared the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib, with another new systemic treatment for AD, dupilumab, (both in combination with topical corticosteroids) in patients with moderate to severe AD who are eligible for but have failed or are unable to take ciclosporin, in Italy. We found that using dupilumab to treat these patients with AD cost more than using baricitinib, although dupilumab was more effective. Combining these considerations showed that the cost of obtaining the additional benefit from dupilumab over baricitinib was not cost-effective for the Italian healthcare system. Baricitinib may be a better treatment option because it is given orally, has a favorable balance between the risks and benefits of treatment, and costs less than dupilumab.

PDF