Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 131–139 | Cite as

Brodalumab for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

  • Ros WadeEmail author
  • Alessandro Grosso
  • Emily South
  • Claire Rothery
  • Pedro Saramago
  • Laetitia Schmitt
  • Kath Wright
  • Stephen Palmer
Review Article

Abstract

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence single technology appraisal process, brodalumab was assessed to determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of its use in the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics Technology Assessment Group at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group. This article provides a summary of the Evidence Review Group’s review of the company’s submission, the Evidence Review Group report and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee’s subsequent guidance issued in March 2018. The main clinical effectiveness data were derived from three well-conducted, multicentre, double-blind randomised controlled trials. The trials demonstrated that brodalumab statistically significantly reduced the severity of psoriasis and its impact on health-related quality of life, compared with placebo, at 12 weeks. In comparison with ustekinumab, statistically significantly more patients taking brodalumab had reduced psoriasis severity at 12 weeks. Psoriasis severity and quality of life also appeared improved at 52 weeks, although statistical significance was not assessed. Withdrawal rates were comparable to drug survival rates of other biological therapies and rates of adverse events were similar between brodalumab and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis was presented, comparing brodalumab with other therapies available at the same point in the treatment pathway (i.e. in patients for whom standard systemic therapy or phototherapy is inadequately effective, not tolerated or contraindicated). The network meta-analysis ranked treatments in order of effectiveness, in terms of achieving different levels of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index response. The results indicated that brodalumab had a similar probability of response to ixekizumab, secukinumab and infliximab and a higher probability of response than ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, apremilast, dimethyl fumarate and placebo. The company’s economic model compared nine treatment sequences that included three lines of active therapy, consisting of brodalumab and other comparators recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, followed by best supportive care. The sequence with brodalumab in the first-line position dominated sequences that started with adalimumab, infliximab, secukinumab and ustekinumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the brodalumab sequence compared to less effective and non-dominated sequences ranged from £7145 (vs. the etanercept sequence) to £13,353 (vs. the dimethyl fumarate sequence) per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the more costly and effective ixekizumab sequence was £894,010 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared to the brodalumab sequence. At a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, the brodalumab sequence had the highest probability of being cost effective (96%). The main limitation of the company’s economic model was the restrictive nature of the sequences compared. Twelve separate scenarios based on key uncertainties were explored by the Evidence Review Group. The only scenarios where brodalumab was ranked lower than first were not considered to be more appropriate or plausible than the assumptions or scenarios included in the company’s base case. The treatment rankings identified in the Evidence Review Group’s alternative base case were identical to those derived from the company’s base case model. At the first National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Appraisal Committee meeting, the Committee concluded that brodalumab appears to be as effective as other anti-interleukin-17 agents and is cost effective, based on the discount agreed in the patient access scheme. Brodalumab is recommended as an option for treating adults with severe plaque psoriasis (defined by a total Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score of 10 or more and a Dermatology Life Quality Index score of more than 10) who have not responded to other systemic non-biological therapies. Brodalumab should be stopped at 12 weeks if the psoriasis has not responded adequately.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Ruth Murphy, Consultant Dermatologist at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, for her clinical advice throughout the project.

Author Contributions

RW, AG, ES, CR, PS, LS, KW and SP all formed part of the Evidence Review Group that produced the Evidence Review Group report this article describes. SP and RW took overall responsibility for the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness parts of the project. RW wrote the draft of the manuscript. All authors commented on the manuscript and approved the final version. This summary has not been externally reviewed by Pharmacoeconomics.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme (project number 16/168/10). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the Department of Health.

Conflict of interest

Ros Wade, Alessandro Grosso, Emily South, Claire Rothery, Pedro Saramago, Laetitia Schmitt, Kath Wright and Stephen Palmer have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Brodalumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA511]. 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta511. Accessed 12 Apr 2018.
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Psoriasis: assessment and management. NICE guideline. 2012. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg153. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  3. 3.
    Springate DA, et al. Incidence, prevalence and mortality of patients with psoriasis: a U.K. population-based cohort study. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176(3):650–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Menter A, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Section 1: overview of psoriasis and guidelines of care for the treatment of psoriasis with biologics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;58(5):826–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leino M, et al. Influence of psoriasis on household chores and time spent on skin care at home: a questionnaire study. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2015;5(2):107–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krueger G, et al. The impact of psoriasis on quality of life results of a 1998 National Psoriasis Foundation Patient-Membership Survey. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137:280–4.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lynde CW, et al. The burden of psoriasis in Canada: insights from the pSoriasis Knowledge IN Canada (SKIN) survey. J Cutan Med Surg. 2009;13(5):235–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gowda S, et al. Factors affecting sleep quality in patients with psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;63(1):114–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anstey A, et al. Extending psychosocial assessment of patients with psoriasis in the UK, using a self-rateds, web-based survey. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012;37(7):735–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ljosaa TM, et al. Skin pain and discomfort in psoriasis: an exploratory study of symptom prevalence and characteristics. Acta Derm Venereol. 2010;90(1):39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Topical therapy for psoriasis. NICE pathways. 2017. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/psoriasis. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  12. 12.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Systemic biological therapy for psoriasis. NICE pathways. 2017. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/psoriasis. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  13. 13.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Systemic non-biological therapy for psoriasis. NICE pathways. 2017. Available from: http://pathways.nice.org.uk/pathways/psoriasis. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  14. 14.
    Malakouti M, Jacob SE, Anderson NJ. Treatment challenges in the management of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: role of secukinumab. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2016;9:347–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carrascosa JM, et al. Clinical relevance of immunogenicity of biologics in psoriasis: implications for treatment strategies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28(11):1424–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gniadecki R, et al. Comparison of long-term drug survival and safety of biologic agents in patients with psoriasis vulgaris. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172(1):244–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Warren RB, et al. Differential drug survival of biologic therapies for the treatment of psoriasis: a prospective observational cohort study from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR). J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(11):2632–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Papp KA, et al. Anti-IL-17 receptor antibody AMG 827 leads to rapid clinical response in subjects with moderate to severe psoriasis: results from a phase I, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(10):2466–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Papp KA, et al. A prospective phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of brodalumab in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(2):273–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amgen Inc. A phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of induction and maintenance regimens of brodalumab compared with placebo and ustekinumab in subjects with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: AMAGINE-2 (clinical study report). 2015.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Amgen Inc. Phase 3 study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of induction and maintenance regimens of brodalumab compared with placebo and ustekinumab in subjects with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: AMAGINE-3 (clinical study report). 2015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ixekizumab for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis [ID904]. Committee papers. 2016. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta442/documents/committee-papers-3. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  23. 23.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Dimethyl fumarate for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Technology appraisal guidance [TA475]. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta475. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.
  24. 24.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Apremilast for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis (rapid review of TA368) [ID987]. 2016. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta419/. [Accessed 13 Nov 2017].
  25. 25.
    British Association of Dermatologists. Guidelines for biologic therapy for psoriasis: methods, evidence and recommendations. London: British Association of Dermatologists; 2017.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hendrix N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted therapy for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: an analysis based on an institute for clinical and economic review (ICER) report. Value Health. 2017;20(5):A158.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
  2. 2.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkYorkUK

Personalised recommendations