Cost-Effectiveness of Acthar Gel versus Standard of Care for the Treatment of Advanced Symptomatic Sarcoidosis.

Introduction: Sarcoidosis is a multisystem, inflammatory, systemic granulomatous disease with unknown etiology. Despite the current standard of care (SoC), there is an unmet need for the treatment of advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Acthar Methods: A probabilistic cohort-level state-transition approach was used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. Patients were monitored at the end of a 3-month cycle for the attainment of partial or complete response. Patients in the partial, complete, or no-response state were allowed to transition in each of these states at each 3-month cycle. Following the attainment of response, patients could have a durable response or relapse to a no-response state. Patients in a no-response state received treatment and could transition into a response or no-response state based on the probability of treatment success with the respective treatment. Clinical parameters and health utility data were sourced from the Acthar Gel in Participants with Pulmonary Sarcoidosis (PULSAR) trial (NCT03320070) and healthcare utilization, costs, and disutilities were sourced from the published literature. Base case analysis considered a payer perspective over 2 years. Results: From a payer perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $134,796 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and $39,179 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. From a societal perspective, Acthar Gel versus SoC results in an ICER of $117,622 per QALY and $21,967 per QALY over 2 and 3 years, respectively. Sensitivity analysis findings were consistent with the base case. Conclusion: The results from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that Acthar Gel is a cost-effective, value-based treatment option for advanced symptomatic sarcoidosis compared to the SoC from the US payer and societal perspectives.