Short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of abrocitinib versus dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in China.

Backgrounds: Biologics and JAK inhibitors were the most effective innovative systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). However, their cost-effectiveness in China remains unclear. This study aims to compare both the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of abrocitinib and dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods: A hybrid decision tree and Markov model were developed to simulate the costs and health outcomes of interventions on both short-term and long-term horizons. Short- and long-term horizons were employed to reflect the 26-week induction treatment and model the extended 10-year maintenance treatment period, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of strategies was measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were then compared with the willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) that was equivalent to the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of China in 2023 ($12,681 [€11679.26]). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the robustness of the model.

Results: Over the short-term horizon, the QALYs (quality-adjusted life years) gained were 0.43 for the abrocitinib group and 0.42 for the dupilumab group, with the costs being $2,716.01 (€2501.46) and $3,940.33 (€3629.06), respectively. Over the long-time horizon, abrocitinib therapy yields higher QALYs (6.60 versus 6.53) and incurs a lower cost ($22,765.15 [€20966.81] versus $30,683.38 [€28259.54]) compared to dupilumab. The probability of abrocitinib being cost-effective was nearly 100% under the current WTP. Both short- and long-term results showed that abrocitinib was more effective and less costly than dupilumab, making abrocitinib the dominant option.

Conclusions: Abrocitinib was dominant compared to dupilumab both over the short- and long-term horizon for moderate-to-severe AD in China. Future research incorporating real-world evidence and long-term efficacy outcomes could further refine these economic evaluations.