Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Biologic therapies are more effective but more costly than conventional therapies in treating psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-efficacy of etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab therapies in treating active psoriatic arthritis in a Taiwanese setting. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials to calculate the incremental efficacy of etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab, respectively, in achieving Psoriatic Arthritis Response Criteria (PsARC) and a 20% improvement in the American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20). The base, best, and worst case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for one subject to achieve PsARC and ACR20 were calculated. RESULTS: The annual ICER per PsARC responder were US$27 047 (best scenario US$16 619; worst scenario US$31 350), US$39 339 (best scenario US$31 846; worst scenario US$53 501) and US$27 085 (best scenario US$22 716; worst scenario US$33 534) for etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab, respectively. The annual ICER per ACR20 responder were US$27 588 (best scenario US$20 900; worst scenario US$41 800), US$39 339 (best scenario US$25 236; worst scenario US$83 595) and US$33 534 (best scenario US$27 616; worst scenario US$44 013) for etanercept, adalimumab and golimumab, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a Taiwanese setting, etanercept had the lowest annual costs per PsARC and ACR20 responder, while adalimumab had the highest annual costs per PsARC and ACR responder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: