IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v36y2018i8d10.1007_s40273-018-0675-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab for the Treatment of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Emery

    (University of Leeds
    NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust)

  • Marjolijn Keep

    (BresMed Netherlands BV)

  • Steve Beard

    (BresMed)

  • Chris Graham

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • LaStella Miles

    (RTI Health Solutions)

  • Steffen Marc Jugl

    (Novartis Pharma AG)

  • Praveen Gunda

    (Novartis Healthcare Private Limited)

  • Anna Halliday

    (Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Ltd)

  • Helena Marzo-Ortega

    (University of Leeds
    NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust)

Abstract

Objective To determine the cost effectiveness of secukinumab, a fully human interleukin-17A inhibitor, for adults in the UK with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) who have not responded adequately to previous treatment with conventional care (CC; biologic-naïve population) or previous biologic therapy (biologic-experienced population). Perspective and Setting UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods The model was structured as a 3-month decision tree leading into a Markov model. Comparators were licensed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (including available biosimilars) and CC in the biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced populations, respectively. Clinical parameters captured treatment response, short-term disease activity and patient functioning, as well as long-term structural disease progression. Utilities were derived from secukinumab trial data. List prices were used for all drugs. The cost year was 2017 and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Results In the biologic-naïve population, secukinumab dominated adalimumab and certolizumab pegol. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) versus other comparators were either below £10,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained or south-west ICERs that implied cost effectiveness of secukinumab. In biologic-experienced patients, the ICER for secukinumab versus CC was £4927 per QALY gained. Treatment response rates, short-term treatment effects, long-term radiographic progression and biologic acquisition costs were key model drivers. Scenario analysis found results to be robust to changes in model structural assumptions. Probabilistic analysis identified greater uncertainty in results in the biologic-naïve population. Conclusions Even at list price, secukinumab appears to represent a cost-effective use of NHS resources for biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients with active AS. Further research on long-term radiographic progression outcomes would be valuable for future cost-effectiveness analyses in AS.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Emery & Marjolijn Keep & Steve Beard & Chris Graham & LaStella Miles & Steffen Marc Jugl & Praveen Gunda & Anna Halliday & Helena Marzo-Ortega, 2018. "Cost Effectiveness of Secukinumab for the Treatment of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis in the UK," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 1015-1027, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0675-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-018-0675-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-018-0675-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-018-0675-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:36:y:2018:i:8:d:10.1007_s40273-018-0675-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.