Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2026
A Cost-per-Responder Analysis of Ritlecitinib vs Baricitinib in Severe Alopecia Areata.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cha-Silva Ashley S, Zhang Kate H, Graham Christopher N, Kurosky Samantha K, Tran Helen, Law Ernest H, Song Eingun J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ritlecitinib, a JAK3/TEC family kinase inhibitor, and baricitinib, a JAK1/2 inhibitor, are approved for treating severe alopecia areata (AA).
OBJECTIVE: Develop a cost-per-responder analysis for ritlecitinib and baricitinib for treating severe AA to estimate the budget impact based on clinical efficacy, available dosages, and pricing structure.
METHODS: A decision tree evaluated cost implications of once-daily ritlecitinib 50 mg, or baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg treatment over 1 year from a US perspective. Drug costs were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs. Distribution across treatment and dosing options were based on real-world evidence. We defined shorter-term response as Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score relative change from baseline ≥30% (SALT Δ≥30%; SALT30) at Weeks 18 and 24, and longer-term response as absolute SALT score ≤20 at Weeks 36 and 52. Patients initiating baricitinib 2 mg with no shorter-term response could uptitrate to 4 mg or discontinue therapy. Decision probabilities were derived from real-world evidence and clinical trial data.
RESULTS: At Week 24, 52.10% of ritlecitinib initiators and 36.28% of baricitinib initiators achieved SALT Δ ≥30%; at Week 52, 40.26% and 30.63% of ritlecitinib and baricitinib initiators, respectively, achieved SALT ≤20. Baricitinib had a higher cost per responder than ritlecitinib at Weeks 24 ( 54 887 v s 45 577) and 52 ( 107 217 v s 94 834). Cost-equivalence was reached at Week 52 ( 38 180 ) , w i t h 42.72 1532) and higher at Week 52 (difference, 10 728 ) t h a n o n l y b a r i c i t i n i b 2 m g u s e , a n d l o w e r a t W e e k s 24 a n d 52 ( d i f f e r e n c e , - 20 001 and -$60 073) than only baricitinib 4 mg use. The lower cost per responder for ritlecitinib 50 mg vs baricitinib 2 or 4 mg at Weeks 24 and 52, and greater early efficacy and fewer discontinuations is consistent with the results of a prior indirect treatment comparison that supported favorable outcomes with ritlecitinib 50 mg vs baricitinib 2 mg.
CONCLUSIONS: Ritlecitinib 50 mg demonstrated a lower cost per responder than baricitinib 2 or 4 mg at Weeks 24 and 52, which may inform reimbursement or formulary inclusion of ritlecitinib for treating AA.
OBJECTIVE: Develop a cost-per-responder analysis for ritlecitinib and baricitinib for treating severe AA to estimate the budget impact based on clinical efficacy, available dosages, and pricing structure.
METHODS: A decision tree evaluated cost implications of once-daily ritlecitinib 50 mg, or baricitinib 2 mg and 4 mg treatment over 1 year from a US perspective. Drug costs were estimated using wholesale acquisition costs. Distribution across treatment and dosing options were based on real-world evidence. We defined shorter-term response as Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score relative change from baseline ≥30% (SALT Δ≥30%; SALT30) at Weeks 18 and 24, and longer-term response as absolute SALT score ≤20 at Weeks 36 and 52. Patients initiating baricitinib 2 mg with no shorter-term response could uptitrate to 4 mg or discontinue therapy. Decision probabilities were derived from real-world evidence and clinical trial data.
RESULTS: At Week 24, 52.10% of ritlecitinib initiators and 36.28% of baricitinib initiators achieved SALT Δ ≥30%; at Week 52, 40.26% and 30.63% of ritlecitinib and baricitinib initiators, respectively, achieved SALT ≤20. Baricitinib had a higher cost per responder than ritlecitinib at Weeks 24 ( 54 887 v s 45 577) and 52 ( 107 217 v s 94 834). Cost-equivalence was reached at Week 52 ( 38 180 ) , w i t h 42.72 1532) and higher at Week 52 (difference, 10 728 ) t h a n o n l y b a r i c i t i n i b 2 m g u s e , a n d l o w e r a t W e e k s 24 a n d 52 ( d i f f e r e n c e , - 20 001 and -$60 073) than only baricitinib 4 mg use. The lower cost per responder for ritlecitinib 50 mg vs baricitinib 2 or 4 mg at Weeks 24 and 52, and greater early efficacy and fewer discontinuations is consistent with the results of a prior indirect treatment comparison that supported favorable outcomes with ritlecitinib 50 mg vs baricitinib 2 mg.
CONCLUSIONS: Ritlecitinib 50 mg demonstrated a lower cost per responder than baricitinib 2 or 4 mg at Weeks 24 and 52, which may inform reimbursement or formulary inclusion of ritlecitinib for treating AA.