ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2017
Economic Impact of Above-Label Dosing with Etanercept, Adalimumab, or Ustekinumab in Patients with Psoriasis.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world dose adjustments of biologic treatments in psoriasis and their economic impact: a Swedish national population study.Clinical and experimental dermatology · 2022Observational
- Dose Adjustment of Biologic Treatments for Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis in the Real World: A Systematic Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2021Review
- Persistence of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug monotherapy or combination therapy in psoriatic arthritis in a real-world setting.Rheumatology international · 2019Article
- Biological therapy utilization, switching, and cost among patients with psoriasis: retrospective analysis of administrative databases in Southern Italy.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis may be treated with above-label doses of biologics in an attempt to optimize outcomes. Dose escalation will have an effect on the cost of treatment.
objectiveTo examine costs related to above-label use of etanercept, adalimumab, and ustekinumab among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.
methodsA retrospective study was performed using a large U.S. claims database. Patients were included in the study if they were aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of psoriasis (excluding psoriatic arthritis) and had at least 1 medication fill for etanercept, adalimumab, or ustekinumab between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. In addition, patients were required to have continuous enrollment for 12 months before, and 18 months after, the first biologic use (index biologic) during the maintenance period (defined as the period following the induction period in which each agent was titrated to its recommended maintenance dose per label) and at least 1 prescription filled for the index biologic during the 18 months after the maintenance period. Extensive above-label use was defined as taking an above-label dose (at least 10% higher than indicated in the label) for ≥ 180 days over a 12-month period following the maintenance period. Percentages of patients with extensive above-label use, mean number of days of above-label use, and additional costs associated with extensive above-label use (abovelabel cost minus on-label cost) were examined.
resultsThe study included 3,310 patients who started treatment with etanercept (n = 1,443), adalimumab (n = 1,447), or ustekinumab (n = 420). Extensive above-label use occurred in 20.0% of etanercept patients, 2.6% of adalimumab patients, and 14.8% of ustekinumab patients. The mean duration of extensive above-label use was roughly similar for the 3 biologics (mean days [±SD]: 282 [±55] for etanercept, 279 [±57] for adalimumab, and 305 [±43] for ustekinumab). Additional annual costs per patient because of extensive above-label use were $19,458 for etanercept, $18,972 for adalimumab, and $21,045 for ustekinumab. Total additional annual costs were $5,623,362 for etanercept, $701,964 for adalimumab, and $1,304,790 for ustekinumab.
conclusionsPsoriasis patients treated with etanercept, adalimumab, or ustekinumab had extensive above-label use over the 12-month follow-up period, which subsequently led to higher costs. DISCLOSURES: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation sponsored this study and the resultant publication. BioScience Communications provided medical writing and editorial support, which was also funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Feldman was engaged by Novartis Pharmaceuticals as a paid clinical expert and scientific advisor for this study. He has received research support and speaking and/or consulting fees from AbbVie, Advance Medical, Amgen, Anacor, Astellas, Baxter, Boehringer Ingelheim, Caremark, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galderma, GSK/Stiefel, Informa, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Merck, Merz, Mylan, National Biological, National Psoriasis Foundation, Pfizer, Qurient, Suncare Research, UpToDate, and Valeant; is the founder and majority owner of www.DrScore.com ; and is founder and part owner of Causa Research. Zhao, Herrera, Tian, and Li are employees of Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Zhou is a paid consultant for Novartis Pharmaceuticals and is an employee of KMK Consulting. Study concept and design were contributed by Feldman, Zhao, Herrera, and Li. Zhou and Li were responsible for data collection. Data were interpreted by Feldman and Zhao, with assistance from Zhou, Herrera, Tian, and Li. The manuscript was written primarily by Feldman and Zhao, with assistance from Zhou and Li. The manuscript was revised by Feldman and Zhao, assisted by Zhou, Herrera, Tian, and Li. Portions of this work were presented at the 34th Anniversary Fall Clinical Dermatology Conference in Las Vegas, Nevada, October 1-4, 2015.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.