Ippazio Cosimo Antonazzo, Giorgia Gribaudo, Adriano La Vecchia, Pietro Ferrara, Alexandra Piraino, Paolo Angelo Cortesi, Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani
{"title":"Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Treatments for Psoriatic Arthritis: An Updated Systematic Literature Review.","authors":"Ippazio Cosimo Antonazzo, Giorgia Gribaudo, Adriano La Vecchia, Pietro Ferrara, Alexandra Piraino, Paolo Angelo Cortesi, Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani","doi":"10.1007/s40273-024-01428-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory disease characterised by a variety of clinical manifestations. Considering the economic burden posed by PsA and the increasing number of treatment options, economic evaluations are required to better allocate available resources. This work aims to update a previous published literature review on PsA cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was performed of English-language literature between January 2017 and March 20, 2024 in Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library using the terms 'psoriatic arthritis', 'cost of illness' and 'cost effectiveness'. Data on decision model, time horizon, population, treatment options, perspective, type of costs, relevant results and authors' conclusion were extracted from the reviewed articles. Finally, the quality of the included studies was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria: 16 cost-of-illness and 11 cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses. PsA is characterised by high direct and indirect costs. Drug costs as well as hospitalisation and absenteeism were the major drivers of the observed costs. The cost-effectiveness analyses reported the dominance or the cost effectiveness of biologic therapies compared with non-biologic PsA treatment. Biological options like bimekizumab and ixekizumab have demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness profile in PsA patients compared with other treatments (i.e., other biological treatments).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was an increased number of economic evaluations compared with the previous review. PsA is still associated with significant economic burden worldwide. The main cost was represented by therapies, specifically biological therapies. Amongst the biological therapies, bimekizumab and ixekizumab appear to provide the most economic benefit. Finally, new economic studies are needed to enrich knowledge on the economic burden of subgroups of PsA patients as well as early treatment of PsA with new therapies.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":"1329-1343"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01428-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory disease characterised by a variety of clinical manifestations. Considering the economic burden posed by PsA and the increasing number of treatment options, economic evaluations are required to better allocate available resources. This work aims to update a previous published literature review on PsA cost-of-illness and cost-effectiveness analysis.
Methods: A search was performed of English-language literature between January 2017 and March 20, 2024 in Medline/PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library using the terms 'psoriatic arthritis', 'cost of illness' and 'cost effectiveness'. Data on decision model, time horizon, population, treatment options, perspective, type of costs, relevant results and authors' conclusion were extracted from the reviewed articles. Finally, the quality of the included studies was evaluated.
Results: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria: 16 cost-of-illness and 11 cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analyses. PsA is characterised by high direct and indirect costs. Drug costs as well as hospitalisation and absenteeism were the major drivers of the observed costs. The cost-effectiveness analyses reported the dominance or the cost effectiveness of biologic therapies compared with non-biologic PsA treatment. Biological options like bimekizumab and ixekizumab have demonstrated a better cost-effectiveness profile in PsA patients compared with other treatments (i.e., other biological treatments).
Conclusions: There was an increased number of economic evaluations compared with the previous review. PsA is still associated with significant economic burden worldwide. The main cost was represented by therapies, specifically biological therapies. Amongst the biological therapies, bimekizumab and ixekizumab appear to provide the most economic benefit. Finally, new economic studies are needed to enrich knowledge on the economic burden of subgroups of PsA patients as well as early treatment of PsA with new therapies.
期刊介绍:
PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker.
PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization.
PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.