{"title":"治疗日本成年特应性皮炎的 1%地拉米司特成本效益研究","authors":"Takeshi Nakahara, Shinichi Noto, Miyuki Matsukawa, Hiroe Takeda, Yilong Zhang, Tomohiro Kondo","doi":"10.1007/s13555-024-01300-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Difamilast has proven to be an effective treatment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in Japanese adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis was conducted using a cost-effectiveness model from the Japanese public health-care perspective. This model had four health states (\"clear,\" \"mild,\" \"moderate,\" and \"severe\") defined according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year. Because the analysis period was short, no discount rate was applied. The proportions of patients previously estimated by the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison were implemented in the model. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and outcomes, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All prices were stated in JPY at the price level from 2018 April to 2019 March. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo was JPY 827,054/QALY and JPY 1,518,657/QALY, respectively. The PSA showed that the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo had a 66.6% and 99.6% probability of being below the JPY 5 million/QALY threshold, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that difamilast 1% is a more cost-effective treatment option compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":11186,"journal":{"name":"Dermatology and Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness Study of Difamilast 1% for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adult Japanese Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Takeshi Nakahara, Shinichi Noto, Miyuki Matsukawa, Hiroe Takeda, Yilong Zhang, Tomohiro Kondo\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13555-024-01300-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Difamilast has proven to be an effective treatment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in Japanese adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The analysis was conducted using a cost-effectiveness model from the Japanese public health-care perspective. This model had four health states (\\\"clear,\\\" \\\"mild,\\\" \\\"moderate,\\\" and \\\"severe\\\") defined according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year. Because the analysis period was short, no discount rate was applied. The proportions of patients previously estimated by the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison were implemented in the model. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and outcomes, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All prices were stated in JPY at the price level from 2018 April to 2019 March. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the base case, the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo was JPY 827,054/QALY and JPY 1,518,657/QALY, respectively. The PSA showed that the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo had a 66.6% and 99.6% probability of being below the JPY 5 million/QALY threshold, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results suggest that difamilast 1% is a more cost-effective treatment option compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dermatology and Therapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dermatology and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01300-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dermatology and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-024-01300-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-Effectiveness Study of Difamilast 1% for the Treatment of Atopic Dermatitis in Adult Japanese Patients.
Introduction: Difamilast has proven to be an effective treatment for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in Japan, but its cost-effectiveness remains unknown. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in Japanese adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.
Methods: The analysis was conducted using a cost-effectiveness model from the Japanese public health-care perspective. This model had four health states ("clear," "mild," "moderate," and "severe") defined according to the Eczema Area and Severity Index score. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year. Because the analysis period was short, no discount rate was applied. The proportions of patients previously estimated by the anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison were implemented in the model. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, and outcomes, including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. All prices were stated in JPY at the price level from 2018 April to 2019 March. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the robustness of the results.
Results: In the base case, the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo was JPY 827,054/QALY and JPY 1,518,657/QALY, respectively. The PSA showed that the cost-effectiveness of difamilast 1% compared with delgocitinib 0.5% and placebo had a 66.6% and 99.6% probability of being below the JPY 5 million/QALY threshold, respectively.
Conclusion: The results suggest that difamilast 1% is a more cost-effective treatment option compared with delgocitinib 0.5% in Japanese adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD and compared with placebo in adult patients with all-severity AD from a Japanese public health-care perspective.
期刊介绍：
Dermatology and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal (peer review in 2 weeks, published 3–4 weeks from acceptance). The journal is dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of dermatological therapies. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health and epidemiology, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to all clinical aspects of dermatology, such as skin pharmacology; skin development and aging; prevention, diagnosis, and management of skin disorders and melanomas; research into dermal structures and pathology; and all areas of aesthetic dermatology, including skin maintenance, dermatological surgery, and lasers.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/case series, trial protocols, and short communications. Dermatology and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an International and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. The journal appeals to a global audience and receives submissions from all over the world.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
