Use of Efficiency Frontiers to Align Prices and Clinical Benefits of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis
IMPORTANCE: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. OBJECTIVE: To assess how the EF approach could...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of dermatology (1960) 2024-04, Vol.160 (4), p.409-416 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | IMPORTANCE: The US lacks a systematic approach for aligning drug prices with clinical benefit, and traditional cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) faces political obstacles. The efficiency frontier (EF) method offers policymakers an alternative approach. OBJECTIVE: To assess how the EF approach could align prices and clinical benefits of biologic medications for plaque psoriasis and estimate price reductions in the US vs 4 peer countries: Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. DESIGN AND SETTING: This health economic evaluation used the EF approach to compare the prices and clinical benefits of 11 biologics and 2 biosimilars for plaque psoriasis in the US, Australia, Canada, France, and Germany. Data were collected from February to March 2023 and analyzed from March to June 2023. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EFs were constructed based on each biologic’s efficacy, measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response rate, and annual treatment cost as of January 2023; US costs were net of estimated manufacturer rebates. Prices based on the EF were compared with traditional CEA-based prices calculated by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review at a threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. RESULTS: Among 13 biologics, PASI 90 response rates ranged from 17.9% (etanercept) to 71.6% (risankizumab); US net annual treatment costs ranged from $1664 (infliximab-dyyb) to $79 277 (risankizumab). The median (IQR) net annual treatment cost was higher in the US ($34 965 [$20 493-$48 942]) than prerebate costs in Australia ($9179 [$6691-$12 688]), Canada ($15 556 [$13 017-$16 112]), France ($9478 [$6637-$11 678]), and Germany ($13 829 [$13 231-$15 837]). The US EF included infliximab-dyyb (PASI 90: 57.4%; annual cost: $1664), ixekizumab (PASI 90: 70.8%; annual cost: $33 004), and risankizumab (PASI 90: 71.6%; annual cost: $79 277). US prices for psoriasis biologics would need to be reduced by a median (IQR) of 71% (31%-95%) to align with those estimated using the EF; the same approach would yield smaller price reductions in Canada (41% [6%-57%]), Australia (36% [0%-65%]), France (19% [0%-67%]), and Germany (11% [8%-26%]). Except for risankizumab, the EF-based prices were lower than the prices based on traditional CEA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This economic evaluation showed that for plaque psoriasis biologics, using an EF approach to negotiate prices could lead to substantial price reductions and better align prices with clinical be |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2168-6068 2168-6084 |
DOI: | 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.6236 |