ArticleDermatology and therapy2018
Effect of Prior Biologic Use on Cost-Effectiveness of Brodalumab vs. Ustekinumab for Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis in the United States.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Salivary Antioxidants and Oxidative Stress in Psoriatic Patients: Can Salivary Total Oxidant Status and Oxidative Status Index Be a Plaque Psoriasis Biomarker?Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2020Trial
- The Role of Long Non-Coding RNA in the Pathogenesis of Psoriasis.Non-coding RNA · 2025Review
- A Six-Year Analysis of Biological Therapy for Severe Psoriasis in a Lithuanian Reference Centre of Dermatovenereology.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical trials have shown brodalumab to have better efficacy than ustekinumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. An estimation of the cost-effectiveness of brodalumab vs. ustekinumab is warranted and may be useful for treatment decision-making processes, especially in the context of the cost considerations of the current US healthcare system. Therefore, we compared the cost-effectiveness of brodalumab with ustekinumab for treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis in biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced patients in the USA.
methodsAn Excel-based economic model was developed to estimate and compare total annual costs to health plans associated with treatment with brodalumab vs. ustekinumab per achievement of Psorasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 for patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.
resultsFor treatment with brodalumab vs. ustekinumab, total annual treatment costs per PASI 75, 90, and 100 were $31,106, $57,776, and $163,069, respectively, lower for a patient naïve to prior biologic treatment; they were $40,535, $65,472, and $223,610, respectively, lower for a patient experienced with prior biologic treatment. In an additional analysis among patients with and without prior biologic failure, they were $52,822, $93,309, and $365,606, respectively, lower for a patient with failure and they were $31,660, $57,128, and $164,996, respectively, lower for a patient without failure.
conclusionCompared to ustekinumab, treatment with brodalumab was associated with better cost-effectiveness ratios for biologic-naïve and experienced-patients and also patients with and without prior biologic treatment failure. The greater cost-effectiveness of brodalumab was most prominent for biologic-experienced and prior biologic treatment failure patients.
fundingOrtho Dermatologics.
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.