Cost-Effectiveness of Emerging Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review

Katja C. Heinz*, Charlotte Beaudart, Damon Willems, Isabell Wiethoff, Mickael Hiligsmann

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal(Systematic) Review article peer-review

Abstract

BackgroundNumerous 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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.DiscussionThis 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.OthersThe protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343993).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1415-1435
Number of pages21
JournalPharmacoeconomics
Volume41
Issue number11
Early online date1 Jul 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2023

Keywords

  • ECONOMIC-EVALUATION
  • HEALTH
  • DUPILUMAB
  • RISK

Cite this