Cost per responder analysis of guselkumab versus targeted therapies in the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fully human monoclonal antibody guselkumab is an effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the cost per responder of guselkumab compared with other targeted therapies for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in Germany. METHODS: A one-year cost per responder model was developed based on efficacy and safety data from a published network meta-analysis. Drug, treatment administration, resource use, and adverse event costs were included in the analysis. The primary analysis assessed the cost per Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 responder at week 16. Additional analyses were conducted at year 1. In the year 1 analyses, treatment response was assessed at the end of the induction period (week 16) to determine which patients continued onto maintenance therapy (responders) and which patients moved onto a subsequent adalimumab or secukinumab therapy (non-responders). RESULTS: At week 16, the cost per PASI 90 responder was lower for guselkumab than all comparators except adalimumab and brodalumab. Similarly, in the year 1 analyses, guselkumab had a lower cost per PASI 90 responder than all comparators except brodalumab. CONCLUSIONS: Guselkumab is a cost-effective therapy option in Germany.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".