RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Treatment preference research can support shared and informed decision making for currently available atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, and simultaneously guide research and development for future therapies. In this systematic literature review, we aimed to provide an overview of preferences for AD treatments. METHODS: This systematic literature review was conducted in the Medline and Embase (via Ovid) databases, supplemented by manual searching. Quantitative research published from 2010 to September 2023 that investigated preferences for AD treatments were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the purpose, respondents, explanation, findings, significance checklist, and a checklist developed by the Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. RESULTS: In total, 207 references were screened after removing duplicates and 15 studies were included. Most studies were conducted in the US, followed by European countries. On average, people directly or indirectly affected by AD rate efficacy and treatment-related risk as the most important criteria when choosing an AD therapy. Participants are willing to increase risks in order to have a higher chance of achieving a certain benefit, e.g. reduction in itch or clearer skin. Participants have preferences for different modes of administration. On average, 68% (all full-text studies) and 87% (only discrete choice experiments [DCEs]) of quality criteria per reference were rated as fulfilled. DCEs received generally higher quality assessment scores than non-DCEs. CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed that AD treatment preference research is limited. Diverse study designs hampered comparison and synthesis of the results. We recommend conducting more DCEs in this field to increase the likelihood of AD patients receiving the therapy that best fits their individual needs and preferences. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: This protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023468757).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Numerous therapies have recently emerged for treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a common skin disease, and understanding their cost-effectiveness is of high importance for policy makers. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to provide an overview of full economic evaluations that assessed cost-effectiveness of emerging AD treatments. METHODS: The SLR was conducted in Medline, Embase, UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and EconLit. Reports published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health were manually searched. Economic evaluations published from 2017 to September 2022 that compared emerging AD treatments with any comparator were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: A total of 1333 references were screened after removing duplicates. Among those references, 15 that conducted a total of 24 comparisons were included. Most studies were from the USA, UK or Canada. Seven different emerging treatments were compared, mostly with usual care. In 15 comparisons (63%), the emerging treatment was cost-effective, and 11 out of 14 dupilumab comparisons (79%) reported that dupilumab was cost-effective. Upadacitinib was the only emerging therapy that was never classified as cost-effective. On average, 13 out of 19 quality criteria (68%) per reference were rated as fulfilled while manuscripts and health technology reports received generally higher quality assessment scores than published abstracts. DISCUSSION: This study revealed some discrepancies in the cost-effectiveness of emerging therapies for AD. A variety of designs and guidelines made comparison difficult. Therefore, we recommend that future economic evaluations use more similar modelling approaches to improve comparability of results. OTHERS: The protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343993).
RESUMO
AIM: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by severe itching, erythema and scaling, causing pain, stigmatization and social isolation. Despite the growing availability of treatment options, unmet care needs remain. This research aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel JAK inhibitor (JAKi) compared to a monoclonal antibody and to identify key drivers of cost-effectiveness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo economic model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a novel JAKi compared to an established monoclonal antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD patients from a UK perspective. A targeted literature review was conducted to inform the development of the economic model with an advanced model structure. Various scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed to account for parameter- and structural uncertainty and to identify key drivers of cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The JAKi was not cost-effective compared to the monoclonal antibody (£219,733.88 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained) at selected price levels when applying the UK willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness were utility values, intervention efficacy and drug acquisition costs. A decrease in JAKi's dose costs, as well as a lower dose, lead to cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions regarding parameter inputs were necessary, therefore a considerable level of uncertainty regarding efficacy and cost data is to be accounted for in the interpretation of the results. In particular, the efficacy data were based on single clinical studies. CONCLUSIONS: This research revealed the cost-effectiveness of a JAKi compared to a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD to be highly sensitive to the costs and effectiveness inputs and identified further cost-effectiveness drivers. It demonstrated that the JAKi could be cost-effective compared to an established monoclonal antibody with a lower dose or a reduced price.
