IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v7y2023i4d10.1007_s41669-023-00401-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Secukinumab in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients: A Cost-per-Responder Analysis from the Indonesian Health System Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Cesarius Singgih Wahono

    (Universitas Brawijaya/Saiful Anwar General Hospital)

  • Laniyati Hamijoyo

    (University of Padjadjaran/Hasan Sadikin Hospital)

  • Yuriawati Hendrawan

    (Novartis)

  • Liyana Rakinaturia

    (Novartis)

  • Neha Mittal

    (Novartis)

  • Prabal Khanna

    (Novartis)

  • Minal Jain

    (Novartis)

  • Harry Isbagio

    (Metropolitan Medical Centre Jakarta)

Abstract

Objective There are no publications that have demonstrated economic value for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) treatments in Indonesia. Cost per responder (CPR) is a lean method of economic evaluation. We estimated CPR from Indonesia’s health system perspective following AS treatment with secukinumab relative to adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab. Methods In the absence of head-to-head trials, a comparative evidence analysis was conducted in the form of matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to estimate the response rate of various competing treatment options against secukinumab. This was followed by a CPR analysis that compared the cost per patient for a defined response level. Results Based on MAIC, patients on secukinumab had higher Assessment in Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 20 response (improvement of ≥ 20% and ≥ 1 unit in at least three domains on a scale of 10 and no worsening of ≥ 20% and ≥ 1 unit in remaining domain on a scale of 10) and ASAS 40 response (improvement of ≥ 40% and ≥ 2 units in at least three domains on a scale of 10 and no worsening at all in remaining domain) versus those on adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab at week 24. The cost per ASAS 20 at week 24 for secukinumab was 75% lower than adalimumab, 65% lower than golimumab, and 80% lower than infliximab. The cost per ASAS 40 at week 24 for secukinumab was 77% lower than adalimumab, 67% lower than golimumab, and 83% lower than infliximab. Secukinumab dominated adalimumab, golimumab, and infliximab at week 24 and adalimumab at week 52, by being more efficacious at lower cost. Threshold analysis revealed that substantial reduction in efficacy or increase in cost of secukinumab would make secukinumab not cost effective, indicating the robustness of the results. Conclusion This study demonstrated that if AS patients in Indonesia were treated with secukinumab instead of comparator therapies, more patients could be treated, and more patients would reach response to treatment for the same budget.

Suggested Citation

  • Cesarius Singgih Wahono & Laniyati Hamijoyo & Yuriawati Hendrawan & Liyana Rakinaturia & Neha Mittal & Prabal Khanna & Minal Jain & Harry Isbagio, 2023. "Secukinumab in Ankylosing Spondylitis Patients: A Cost-per-Responder Analysis from the Indonesian Health System Perspective," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 605-615, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00401-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-023-00401-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-023-00401-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41669-023-00401-6?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
    ---><---

    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:pharmo:v:7:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s41669-023-00401-6. 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.