Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37392363›Full record

SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2023

Cost-Effectiveness of Emerging Treatments for Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review.

Katja C Heinz, Charlotte Beaudart, Damon Willems, Isabell Wiethoff, Mickaël Hiligsmann

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparing EQ-5D-5L, PROPr, SF-6D and TTO utilities in patients with chronic skin diseases.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katja C HeinzDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. katja.heinz@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Charlotte BeaudartDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0827-5303
Damon WillemsDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8263-4047
Isabell WiethoffDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Mickaël HiligsmannDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4274-9258

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous therapies have recently emerged for treatment of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), a common skin disease, and understanding their cost-effectiveness is of high importance for policy makers. This systematic literature review (SLR) aimed to provide an overview of full economic evaluations that assessed cost-effectiveness of emerging AD treatments.

methodsThe SLR was conducted in Medline, Embase, UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and EconLit. Reports published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health were manually searched. Economic evaluations published from 2017 to September 2022 that compared emerging AD treatments with any comparator were included. Quality assessment was conducted by using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list.

resultsA total of 1333 references were screened after removing duplicates. Among those references, 15 that conducted a total of 24 comparisons were included. Most studies were from the USA, UK or Canada. Seven different emerging treatments were compared, mostly with usual care. In 15 comparisons (63%), the emerging treatment was cost-effective, and 11 out of 14 dupilumab comparisons (79%) reported that dupilumab was cost-effective. Upadacitinib was the only emerging therapy that was never classified as cost-effective. On average, 13 out of 19 quality criteria (68%) per reference were rated as fulfilled while manuscripts and health technology reports received generally higher quality assessment scores than published abstracts. DISCUSSION: This study revealed some discrepancies in the cost-effectiveness of emerging therapies for AD. A variety of designs and guidelines made comparison difficult. Therefore, we recommend that future economic evaluations use more similar modelling approaches to improve comparability of results. OTHERS: The protocol was published in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022343993).

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicDermatologic AgentsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedDermatologic Agentsdupilumab

Identifiers

PMID37392363
PMCPMC10570180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.