Work

Cost-utility and budget impact analysis of dupilumab and oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors for treating moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in Taiwan

Year: 2026

Type: article

Abstract: BACKGOROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, affects 1.28% of Taiwan's population, with 26.69% having moderate-to-severe cases, causing significant healthcare costs and quality-of-life impairments. Conventional treatments often fail these patients, necessitating novel therapies like dupilumab and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib). This study evaluates the cost-utility and budget impact of these therapies versus best supportive care (BSC) for adults with moderate-to-severe AD from Taiwan's NHI perspective. METHODS: A hybrid decision tree-Markov model assessed short- and long-term (Years 1-20) outcomes using trial efficacy, NHI costs (2022 NT$), and EQ-5D utilities. Interventions included topical corticosteroids/calcineurin inhibitors. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3%, with a NT$2,000,000/QALY threshold. Sensitivity analyses tested robustness. A five-year (2026-2030) budget impact analysis (BIA) included epidemiology and market uptake. RESULTS: Upadacitinib 30 mg was most cost-effective (11.0782 QALYs, ICER NT$1,250,903/QALY vs BSC), followed by Upadacitinib 15 mg (NT$1,376,435/QALY). Dupilumab was dominated; Baricitinib's ICERs exceeded NT$2,000,000/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness, with utility gains, medication costs, and discontinuation rates as key drivers. The BIA estimated a NT$117 billion incremental impact, driven by drug costs, with per-patient increments falling from NT$339,769 to NT$264,728. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib 30 mg was the most cost-effective option for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in Taiwan, but its high budget impact underscores the need for strategic pricing and reimbursement policies to ensure long-term affordability and access.

Source: Journal of Medical Economics

DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2026.2612867