COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND VALUE MATRIX IN A STRUCTURED MODEL FOR THE PROVISION OF IMMUNOBIOLOGIC THERAPIES IN DERMATOLOGY: A REAL-WORLD ANALYSIS
Author(s)
Fernanda Franco Munari, MSc1, Marlon Correa, BSc2, Lívia Loamí R. Paula, MSc, PhD1, Moacyr Campos, BSc1, Mateus Frederico de Paula, MSc1, Dulcimara Johann, BSc2, Ismael Antiqueira Costa, MSc2, Camila Detzel Fleith, BSc2, Felipe Ribeiro Cabral Fagundes, PhD1, Sabrina Floriani, MSc2.
1Hi! Healthcare Intelligence, São José dos Campos, Brazil, 2Unimed Santa Catarina, Joinville, Brazil.
1Hi! Healthcare Intelligence, São José dos Campos, Brazil, 2Unimed Santa Catarina, Joinville, Brazil.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness performance and value distribution of immunobiologic therapies used in a structured model for dermatological care using a real-world value matrix approach.
METHODS: An observational analysis was conducted including 27 patients with psoriasis or atopic dermatitis receiving immunobiologic therapies, followed between January 2024 and April 2025. Effectiveness was measured using a composite score of clinical and patient-centered outcomes, and costs were estimated based on the care delivery components of the model. Treatments were positioned in a value matrix according to total cost and effectiveness, and a comparative performance ranking was constructed.
RESULTS: The model showed a mean effectiveness score of 86.99 points, with a mean total cost per patient of BRL 106,421.72 and a mean performance score of 0.53. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across immunobiologic therapies. In terms of mean effectiveness, COSENTYX (95.5), STELARA (90.4), and TALTZ (88.7) showed the highest scores, whereas OLMANT had the lowest effectiveness (66.1). Mean costs ranged from BRL 58,036.78 (COSENTYX) to BRL 167,204.78 (OLMANT). The value matrix analysis showed that some therapies combined higher effectiveness with lower relative costs, whereas others were associated with higher costs without proportional effectiveness gains. By therapeutic class, anti-IL therapies showed higher mean effectiveness (87.8) compared with JAK inhibitors (66.1)
CONCLUSIONS: Although this structured model for the provision of immunobiologic therapies in dermatology shows good overall mean effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the value matrix revealed substantial heterogeneity among available therapies, with coexistence of options with better cost-effectiveness performance and others associated with higher costs without proportional clinical benefit. These findings indicate that healthcare value can be increased without additional budget impact by adopting real-world data-informed therapeutic choices, implementing explicit value-based criteria in decision-making, and strengthening clinical governance mechanisms based on comparative performance
METHODS: An observational analysis was conducted including 27 patients with psoriasis or atopic dermatitis receiving immunobiologic therapies, followed between January 2024 and April 2025. Effectiveness was measured using a composite score of clinical and patient-centered outcomes, and costs were estimated based on the care delivery components of the model. Treatments were positioned in a value matrix according to total cost and effectiveness, and a comparative performance ranking was constructed.
RESULTS: The model showed a mean effectiveness score of 86.99 points, with a mean total cost per patient of BRL 106,421.72 and a mean performance score of 0.53. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across immunobiologic therapies. In terms of mean effectiveness, COSENTYX (95.5), STELARA (90.4), and TALTZ (88.7) showed the highest scores, whereas OLMANT had the lowest effectiveness (66.1). Mean costs ranged from BRL 58,036.78 (COSENTYX) to BRL 167,204.78 (OLMANT). The value matrix analysis showed that some therapies combined higher effectiveness with lower relative costs, whereas others were associated with higher costs without proportional effectiveness gains. By therapeutic class, anti-IL therapies showed higher mean effectiveness (87.8) compared with JAK inhibitors (66.1)
CONCLUSIONS: Although this structured model for the provision of immunobiologic therapies in dermatology shows good overall mean effectiveness, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the value matrix revealed substantial heterogeneity among available therapies, with coexistence of options with better cost-effectiveness performance and others associated with higher costs without proportional clinical benefit. These findings indicate that healthcare value can be increased without additional budget impact by adopting real-world data-informed therapeutic choices, implementing explicit value-based criteria in decision-making, and strengthening clinical governance mechanisms based on comparative performance
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
EE202
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas