Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Asthma Treatments: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations

Mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced asthma biologics clinical pathway in the West Midlands UK

Biologic treatments can alleviate severe asthma symptoms and reduce health service use. However, service capacity limits and low referral rates from primary care indicate unmet patient need. We report a mixed-methods evaluation of an enhanced severe asthma pathway implemented in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, UK which aimed to optimise primary care referrals through training/education, and increased capacity in specialist clinics. Quantitative analysis assessed patient wait times between pathway stages, prescribing changes, exacerbations, hospital admissions and asthma control. Interviews with 12 stakeholders evaluated perceptions of the enhanced pathway across settings. In 12 months, 564 patients from 28 general practices were reviewed for biologics eligibility, of whom 125 (22.2%) were referred for specialist assessment. Wait times were significantly lower under the enhanced pathway when compared against historic patients following the standard pathway, and reduced overall from a mean of 76.4 to 26.7 weeks between referral and biologics initiation (p < 0.001). Patients commencing biologics (n = 46) showed significantly reduced reliever inhaler prescribing rates (p = 0.037), 60% lower oral steroid use (p < 0.001), significantly reduced exacerbation rates (p < 0.001) and fewer hospital admissions (p < 0.001) compared with the 12 months pre-treatment. Mean asthma control scores reduced from 3.13 pre-initiation to 1.89 post-initiation (p < 0.001) - a clinically significant improvement. Interviewees viewed the enhanced pathway positively, although ongoing issues related to difficulties engaging primary care amid concerns around increased workloads and pathway capacity. The large number of referrals generated from a comparatively small number of general practices confirms substantial unmet need that an enhanced severe asthma pathway could help address if implemented routinely.

Digital inhalers for asthma management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although digital inhaler systems for asthma management have been commercially available for over a decade, their current use in clinical practice is limited. This review outlines barriers and offers potential solutions to their implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Digital inhaler systems demonstrate increased controller medication adherence, decreased quick-relief medication use, and improved asthma control.

SUMMARY

Use of digital inhaler systems is supported by data from large clinical trials demonstrating improved asthma outcomes. Navigating telemedicine during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to advances clearing the path for increased adoption of digital inhaler systems. Progress in areas including patient education and onboarding, clinical management, coding and billing, privacy and security have facilitated implementation in clinical practice.

Real-world association between systemic corticosteroid exposure and complications in US patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Systemic corticosteroid (SCS) use remains widespread among patients with severe asthma, despite associated complications.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the association between cumulative SCS exposure and SCS-related complications in severe asthma.

METHODS

This retrospective, longitudinal study used claims data from the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart database (GSK ID: 214469). Eligible patients (≥ 12 years old) had an asthma diagnosis and were divided into two cohorts: SCS use and non/burst-SCS use. Patients in the SCS use cohort had a claim for a daily prednisone-equivalent dose ≥ 5 mg SCS following ≥ 6 months of continuous SCS use; those in the non/burst-SCS cohort had no evidence of continuous SCS use and had a non-SCS controller/rescue medication initiation claim. For each cohort, the date of the qualifying claim was the index date. SCS users were further stratified by SCS use during each quarter of follow-up: low (≤ 6 mg/day), medium (> 6-12 mg/day), high (> 12 mg/day), and continuous high (≥ 20 mg/day for 90 days). SCS-related complications were evaluated in the quarter following SCS exposure. The adjusted odds ratios (OR) of experiencing SCS-related complications during follow-up in each of the SCS use groups versus the non/burst SCS cohort were calculated using generalized estimating equations models.

RESULTS

SCS and non/burst-SCS use cohorts included 7473 and 89,281 patients (mean follow-up: 24.6 and 24.2 months), respectively. Compared with the non/burst-SCS use cohort, medium, high, and continuous high SCS use was associated with greater odds of any SCS-related complication (adjusted OR [95% confidence interval]: 1.30 [1.21, 1.39], 1.49 [1.35, 1.64] and 1.63 [1.40, 1.89], respectively) including increased acute gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and immune system-related complications, and chronic cardiovascular, metabolic/endocrine, central nervous system, bone-/muscle-related, ophthalmologic, and hematologic/oncologic complications. Low-dose SCS use was also associated with significantly increased odds of acute gastrointestinal and immune system-related complications, and chronic bone-/muscle-related and hematologic/oncologic complications versus the non/burst-SCS use cohort.

CONCLUSION

SCS use, even at low doses, is associated with increased risk of SCS-related complications among patients with severe asthma.

Effectiveness of a Maintenance and Reliever Digihaler System in Asthma: 24-Week Randomized Study (CONNECT2)

BACKGROUND

Digital health tools have been shown to help address challenges in asthma control, including inhaler technique, treatment adherence, and short-acting β2-agonist overuse. The maintenance and reliever Digihaler System (DS) comprises 2 Digihaler inhalers (fluticasone propionate/salmeterol and albuterol) with an associated patient App and web-based Dashboard. Clinicians can review patients' inhaler use and Digihaler inhalation parameter data to support clinical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

CONNECT2 evaluated asthma control in participants using the DS versus standard-of-care (SoC) maintenance and reliever inhalers.

METHODS

Participants (13 years or older) with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score <19) were randomized 4:3 (open-label) to the DS (n = 210) or SoC (n = 181) for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving well-controlled asthma (ie, an ACT score ≥20 or increase from baseline of ≥3 units at week 24).

RESULTS

There was an 88.7% probability that participants using the DS would have greater odds of achieving improvement in asthma control compared with SoC after 24 weeks. The mean odds ratio (95% credible interval) for DS versus SoC was 1.35 (0.846-2.038), indicating a 35% higher odds of improved asthma control with the DS. The DS group had more clinician-participant interactions versus SoC, mainly addressing a poor inhaler technique. DS participants' maintenance treatment adherence was good (month 1: 79.2%; month 6: 68.6%); reliever use decreased by 38.2% versus baseline. App and Dashboard usability was rated "good."

CONCLUSION

The positive results in asthma control in this study after 24 weeks demonstrate the effectiveness of the DS in asthma management.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of biologics for the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in Canada

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab are the three biologics currently approved for use in CRSwNP in Canada. Despite evidence of efficacy, their cost-effectiveness, which is a key factor influencing prescribing patterns, has not yet been compared to each other.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness model using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was constructed using a Decision Tree Markov analysis. A third-party healthcare payer perspective and a 10-year time horizon was used. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of 50,000 Canadian dollars (CAD) per QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Dupilumab, omalizumab, and mepolizumab were each compared to each other.

RESULTS

Omalizumab was the most cost-effective biologic using current estimates of cost and efficacy in CRSwNP. Using omalizumab as a baseline, dupilumab had an ICER of $235,305/QALY. Mepolizumab was dominated by omalizumab and dupilumab at the current drug prices and estimates of efficacy. Sensitivity analyses determined that when increasing the WTP threshold to $150,000/QALY, dupilumab became cost-effective compared to omalizumab in 22.5% of simulation scenarios. Additionally, altering dosing frequency had a significant effect on cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

When comparing the relative cost-effectiveness of biologics in recalcitrant CRSwNP, omalizumab currently appears to be the most cost-effective option. Future reductions in drug prices, adjustments to currently approved dosing regimens, better patient selection, and improvements in sinus surgery outcomes will challenge the current cost-effectiveness models and necessitate reassessment as treatments for CRSwNP continue to evolve.

Two-year results of tapered dupilumab for CRSwNP demonstrates enduring efficacy established in the first 6 months

BACKGROUND

Dupilumab is an anti-T2-inflammatory biological registered for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), indicated by integrated CRS-care pathways when optimal medico-surgical treatment yields insufficient CRS control. This study aims to evaluate long-term results with focus on established therapeutic efficacy while tapering dupilumab.

METHODS

Real-life, prospective observational cohort study in single tertiary referral center with add-on dupilumab as primary biological treatment in adult (≥18 years) biological-naïve CRSwNP patients per the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS)2020-indication with a 2-year follow-up. Tapering (increasing interdose interval) applied every 24 weeks, conditional to sufficient treatment response and CRS control.

RESULTS

Mean scores (s.d.) of all co-primary outcomes improved significantly from baseline ( 228) to the 48 ( 214) and 96-weeks ( 99) timepoints: Nasal Polyp Score (0-8) improved from 5,3 (1,9) to 1,4 (1,8) and 1,3 (1,7); SinoNasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22 (0-110) improved from 53,6 (19,6) to 20,2 (15,4) and 21,2 (15,6); Sniffin'Sticks-12 identification test (0-12; 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia) improved from 3,7 (2,4) to 7,7 (2,9) and 7,3 (3,04); Asthma Control Test (5-25; >19 indicating well-controlled asthma) improved from 18,5 (4,8) to 21,8 (3,8) and 21,4 (3,9). Tapering was feasible in 79,5% of the patients at the 24-weeks timepoint, and in 93,7% and 95,8% at the 48- and 96-weeks timepoints, respectively. One-way repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated no significant alterations of individual co-primary outcome mean-scores from 24 weeks onward.

CONCLUSION

This first long-term real-life prospective observational cohort study shows high therapeutic efficacy of dupilumab for severe CRswNP in the first 2 years. Therapeutic efficacy is principally established within 24 weeks and endures while tapering dupilumab conditional to treatment response and CRS control.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Inhaler Adherence Technologies in Difficult-to-Treat Asthma

BACKGROUND

Digital inhalers can monitor inhaler usage, support difficult-to-treat asthma management, and inform step-up treatment decisions yet their economic value is unknown, hampering wide-scale implementation.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of digital inhaler-based medication adherence management in difficult-to-treat asthma.

METHODS

A model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. The Markov model structure was determined by biological and clinical understanding of asthma and was further informed by guideline-based assessment of model development. Internal and external validation was performed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic (AdViSHE) tool. The INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment) Sun randomized clinical trial data were incorporated into the model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital inhalers. Several long-term clinical case scenarios were assessed (reduced number of exacerbations, increased asthma control, introduction of biosimilars [25% price-cut on biologics]).

RESULTS

The long-term modelled cost-effectiveness based on a societal perspective indicated 1-year per-patient costs for digital inhalers and usual care (ie, regular inhalers) of €7,546 ($7,946) and €10,752 ($11,322), respectively, reflecting cost savings of €3,207 ($3,377) for digital inhalers. Using a 10-year intervention duration and time horizon resulted in cost savings of €26,309 ($27,703) for digital inhalers. In the first year, add-on biologic therapies accounted for 69% of the total costs in the usual care group and for 49% in the digital inhaler group. Scenario analyses indicated consistent cost savings ranging from €2,287 ($2,408) (introduction biosimilars) to €4,581 ($4,824) (increased control, decreased exacerbations).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, digital inhaler-based interventions can be cost-saving in the long-term by optimizing medication adherence and inhaler technique and reducing add-on biologic prescriptions.

Definitions of non-response and response to biological therapy for severe asthma: a systematic review

Background

Biologics have proven efficacy for patients with severe asthma but there is lack of consensus on defining response. We systematically reviewed and appraised methodologically developed, defined and evaluated definitions of non-response and response to biologics for severe asthma.

Methods

We searched four bibliographic databases from inception to 15 March 2021. Two reviewers screened references, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of development, measurement properties of outcome measures and definitions of response based on COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN). A modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach and narrative synthesis were undertaken.

Results

13 studies reported three composite outcome measures, three asthma symptoms measures, one asthma control measure and one quality of life measure. Only four measures were developed with patient input; none were composite measures. Studies utilised 17 definitions of response: 10 out of 17 (58.8%) were based on minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or minimal important difference (MID) and 16 out of 17 (94.1%) had high-quality evidence. Results were limited by poor methodology for the development process and incomplete reporting of psychometric properties. Most measures rated "very low" to "low" for quality of measurement properties and none met all quality standards.

Conclusions

This is the first review to synthesise evidence about definitions of response to biologics for severe asthma. While high-quality definitions are available, most are MCIDs or MIDs, which may be insufficient to justify continuation of biologics in terms of cost-effectiveness. There remains an unmet need for universally accepted, patient-centred, composite definitions to aid clinical decision making and comparability of responses to biologics.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Beyond direct costs: individual and societal financial burden of asthma in young adults in a Danish nationwide study

INTRODUCTION

As a common chronic disease seen across all ages, asthma has the potential to incur high societal and individual costs from both direct healthcare costs and loss of productivity. Most previous studies use smaller, selected populations to assess the cost of asthma, possibly reducing generalisability. We, therefore, aimed to assess the total, nationwide economic burden of asthma by severity from both an individual and a societal perspective.

METHODS

The annual cost of asthma was assessed in a Danish nationwide cohort of patients aged 18-45 during 2014-2016 as excess healthcare costs, loss of income and welfare expenditure compared with controls (matched 1:4) using national registries. Asthma severity was defined as mild-to-moderate (steps 1-3 or step 4 without exacerbations) or severe (step 4 with exacerbations or step 5).

RESULTS

Across 63 130 patients (mean age 33, 55% female), the annual excess cost of asthma compared with controls was predicted to €4095 (95% CI €3856 to €4334) per patient. Beyond direct costs related to treatment and hospitalisations (€1555 (95% CI €1517 to €1593)), excess indirect costs related to loss of income (€1060 (95% CI €946 to €1171)) and welfare expenditure (eg, sick pay and disability pensions) (€1480 (95% CI €1392 to €1570)) were seen. Crude pooling of excess costs resulted in an annual societal cost of €263 million for all included patients.Severe asthma (4.5%) incurred 4.4 times higher net costs (€15 749 (95% CI 13 928 to €17 638)) compared with mild-to-moderate disease (€3586 (95% CI €3349 to €3824)). Furthermore, patients with severe asthma experienced an annual loss of income of €3695 (95% CI €4106 to €3225) compared with controls.

CONCLUSION

In young adults with asthma, a significant societal and individual financial burden of disease was seen across severities. Expenditure was mainly driven by loss of income and welfare utilisation, rather than direct healthcare costs.

Recent developments in the use of monoclonal antibodies targeting the type 2 cytokines for severe asthma treatment

Severe or refractory asthma is seen in approximately 5% of asthmatic subjects who have unsatisfactory symptom control despite adherence to high-dose inhaled glucocorticoid therapies resulting in significant morbidity, reduced quality of life with attendant implications for healthcare costs. Marked heterogeneity in symptoms and at the molecular phenotypic level are hallmarks of asthma resulting in the requirement of specifically targeted treatments to block the key pathways of the disease. Monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 have become established as effective treatments for severe asthma, with significant clinical benefit seen in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account. The further development of reproducible and straightforward discriminatory biomarkers may aid identification of those patients most likely to benefit from treatment with these interventions.

Incremental net monetary benefit of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit (INB) of using biologic therapies as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published until April 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness analyses reporting cost per quality-adjusted life-year or life-year on any biologic therapies as an add-on treatment for moderate to severe asthma in patients of all ages. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were pooled across studies using a random-effects model, stratified by country income level (high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)) and perspectives (health care or payer perspective (HCPP) and societal perspective (SP)) and age group (>12 years and 6-11 years). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 32 comparisons from 25 studies were included. Pooled INB indicated that the use of omalizumab as an add-on treatment to standard therapy in those aged >12 years was not cost-effective in HICs from the HCPP (n = 8, INB, -6,341 (95% CI, -$25,000 to $12,210), I²=86.18%) and SP (n = 5, -$14,000 (-$170,000 to $140,000), I²=75.64%). A similar finding was observed in those aged 6-11 years from the HCPP in LMICs (n = 2, -$45,000 (-$73,000 to $17,000), I²=00.00%). Subgroup analyses provided no explanations of the potential sources of heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

The use of biologic therapies in moderate to severe asthma is not cost-effective compared to standard treatment alone.

Smart dry powder inhalers and intelligent adherence management

Adherence to inhaled treatments is a complex challenge for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, it not only involves following the prescribed treatment plans but also administering the medications correctly. When using a dry powder inhaler (DPI), the inhalation flow is particularly critical. Patients frequently fail to use a rapid enough onset and fast enough inhalation when using DPIs. At the same time, there is increasing pressure on physicians to switch patients to DPIs, to minimise the environmental impact of pMDI propellants. This makes it critical to understand whether a patient will maintain or improve disease control by using their new inhaler correctly. However, it is challenging for health care professionals to understand how a patient behaves away from the clinic. Therefore, it would be beneficial to obtain real-world data through the use of monitoring tools, i.e., "smart inhalers". This paper reviews the technologies used to monitor DPIs, how effective they have been in a clinical setting, and how well these have been adopted by patients and health care providers.

Global Variability in Administrative Approval Prescription Criteria for Biologic Therapy in Severe Asthma

BACKGROUND

Regulatory bodies have approved five biologics for severe asthma. However, regional differences in accessibility may limit the global potential for personalized medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To compare global differences in ease of access to biologics.

METHODS

In April 2021, national prescription criteria for omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab were reviewed by severe asthma experts collaborating in the International Severe Asthma Registry. Outcomes (per country, per biologic) were (1) country-specific prescription criteria and (2) development of the Biologic Accessibility Score (BACS). The BACS composite score incorporates 10 prescription criteria, each with a maximum score of 10 points. Referenced to European Medicines Agency marketing authorization specifications, a higher score reflects easier access.

RESULTS

Biologic prescription criteria differed substantially across 28 countries from five continents. Blood eosinophil count thresholds (usually ≥300 cells/μL) and exacerbations were key requirements for anti-IgE/anti-IL-5/5R prescriptions in around 80% of licensed countries. Most countries (40% for dupilumab to 54% for mepolizumab) require two or more moderate or severe exacerbations, whereas numbers ranged from none to four. Moreover, 0% (for reslizumab) to 21% (for omalizumab) of countries required long-term oral corticosteroid use. The BACS highlighted marked between-country differences in ease of access. For omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab, only two, one, four, and seven countries, respectively, scored equal or higher than the European Medicines Agency reference BACS. For reslizumab, all countries scored lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Although some differences were expected in country-specific biologic prescription criteria and ease of access, the substantial differences found in the current study present a challenge to implementing precision medicine across the world.

The effectiveness and value of tezepelumab for severe asthma

DISCLOSURES: Drs Rind, Campbell, Pearson, Ms Herce-Hagiwara, Ms Fluetsch, and Ms Herron-Smith report grants from Arnold Ventures; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc; The Patrick and Catherine Donaghue Medical Research Foundation; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts; and California Healthcare Foundation during the course of this study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dupilumab among patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent uncontrolled severe asthma in Japan

Background: Asthma is a common, chronic inflammatory airway disorder, with up to 1,177,000 people receiving asthma treatment in Japan. Dupilumab is a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody for the treatment of atopic diseases, including persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, compared with other biologics, as add-on treatment to background therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled, persistent asthma in Japan.Methods: A life-time Markov cohort model was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis from the Japanese healthcare payer perspective with an annual discount rate of 2%. Dupilumab was compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab, and against omalizumab (as a hypothetical scenario). Inputs were informed by dupilumab clinical trials (VENTURE [NCT02528214] and QUEST [NCT02414854] trials), the literature, official Japanese sources and expert opinions.Results: The base case results suggest that treatment with dupilumab leads to fewer severe exacerbations and increased life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) than benralizumab and mepolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY gained, dupilumab was the dominant strategy (lower cost, increased QALYs) versus benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥1,010,921 (US$9,190, US$1=¥110). Versus omalizumab, dupilumab was not cost-effective (ICER of ¥10,802,368 [US$98,203]).Conclusions: In Japan, dupilumab, as an add-on to background therapy, is economically dominant compared with benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab.

Big Data and Real-World Data based Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Decision-making Models: A Systematic Review and Analysis

Background: Big data and real-world data (RWD) have been increasingly used to measure the effectiveness and costs in cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA). However, the characteristics and methodologies of CEA based on big data and RWD remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to review the characteristics and methodologies of the CEA studies based on big data and RWD and to compare the characteristics and methodologies between the CEA studies with or without decision-analytic models. Methods: The literature search was conducted in Medline (Pubmed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (as of June 2020). Full CEA studies with an incremental analysis that used big data and RWD for both effectiveness and costs written in English were included. There were no restrictions regarding publication date. Results: 70 studies on CEA using RWD (37 with decision-analytic models and 33 without) were included. The majority of the studies were published between 2011 and 2020, and the number of CEA based on RWD has been increasing over the years. Few CEA studies used big data. Pharmacological interventions were the most frequently studied intervention, and they were more frequently evaluated by the studies without decision-analytic models, while those with the model focused on treatment regimen. Compared to CEA studies using decision-analytic models, both effectiveness and costs of those using the model were more likely to be obtained from literature review. All the studies using decision-analytic models included sensitivity analyses, while four studies no using the model neither used sensitivity analysis nor controlled for confounders. Conclusion: The review shows that RWD has been increasingly applied in conducting the cost-effectiveness analysis. However, few CEA studies are based on big data. In future CEA studies using big data and RWD, it is encouraged to control confounders and to discount in long-term research when decision-analytic models are not used.

Characteristics of new adult users of mepolizumab with asthma in the USA

BACKGROUND

In the USA, over 25 million people have asthma; 5%-10% of cases are severe. Mepolizumab (Nucala) is an interleukin-5 antagonist monoclonal antibody; it was approved by the FDA in 2015 as add-on maintenance treatment of severe asthma for patients aged ≥12 years with an eosinophilic phenotype.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Describe baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of new US adult mepolizumab users 2015-2019, (2) describe asthma medication use in the 12 months preceding initiation of and concomitant with mepolizumab and (3) assess mepolizumab adherence, persistence and discontinuation patterns in 12 months postinitiation.

METHODS

We conducted a new-user observational cohort study using data from Aetna, a CVS Health Company, HealthCore (Anthem), Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and IBM MarketScan Research Databases. Curated administrative claims data in the FDA Sentinel System common data model format and publicly available Sentinel analytical tools were used to query the databases. We included adults who initiated mepolizumab in 2015-2019 with an asthma diagnosis in the preceding 12 months and no evidence of cystic fibrosis. We examined age, sex, comorbid conditions, asthma medication use and severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

We identified 3496 adults (mean age 54.2 years, SD 12.5 years) who initiated mepolizumab. In the 12 months before mepolizumab initiation, 22% had received inhaled corticosteroids, 46% had inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonists, 72.6% had leukotriene antagonists, 38% had long-acting muscarinic antagonist, 18% had omalizumab,<1% had reslizumab, dupilumab or benralizumab. In the previous 12 months, 70% had a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis, 32% had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 17% eosinophilia and 3% eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Further, 56% had an asthma-related ambulatory visit, 73%≥1 course of oral corticosteroids lasting 3-27 days, 10% an asthma-related emergency department visit and 22% an asthma-related hospitalisation. In the 12 months following initiation, the mean proportion of days covered was 70%, and reductions in the average mean dispensings of rescue oral corticosteriods (35%) and omalizumab (61%) were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adults with asthma treated with mepolizumab had varying levels of healthcare utilisation and we observed evidence of mepolizumab use in patients without severe asthma.

Cost-utility of omalizumab for the treatment of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe persistent pediatric allergic asthma in a middle-income country

OBJECTIVES

Although several randomized clinical trials performed in children 6 years and older with Omalizumab as add-on therapy have reported improvements in diverse clinical outcomes, the evidence regarding its cost effectiveness is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-utility analysis of adding omalizumab to standard treatment for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC).

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 5-year period. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from various sources, including systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia. The main outcome was the variable ''quality-adjusted life-years'' (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the cost-utility analysis showed that compared with the standard treatment strategy, the omalizumab strategy involved higher costs (US$72,142.3 vs. $20,243.4 average cost per patient) and greater gain in QALYs (0.8718 vs. 0.8222 QALYs on average per patient). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of omalizumab compared with standard treatment was US$82,748.1 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with standard treatment, omalizumab is not a cost-effective strategy for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Bronchial Asthma: An Analysis of the EPRA Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

At 3 months after the intervention, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a 3-week inpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in patients with asthma compared with usual care alongside the single-center randomized controlled trial-Effectiveness of Pulmonary Rehabilitation in Patients With Asthma.

METHODS

Adopting a societal perspective, direct medical costs and productivity loss were assessed using the Questionnaire for Health-Related Resource Use-Lung, a modification of the FIM in an Elderly Population. The effect side was operationalized as minimal important differences (MIDs) of the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) and through quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Adjusted mean differences in costs (gamma-distributed model) and each effect parameter (Gaussian-distributed model) were simultaneously calculated within 1000 bootstrap replications to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and to subsequently delineate cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

PR caused mean costs per capita of €3544. Three months after PR, we observed higher mean costs (Δ€3673; 95% confidence interval (CI) €2854-€4783) and improved mean effects (ACT Δ1.59 MIDs, 95% CI 1.37-1.81; AQLQ Δ1.76 MIDs, 95% CI 1.46-2.08; QALYs gained Δ0.01, 95% CI 0.01-0.02) in the intervention group. The ICER was €2278 (95% CI €1653-€3181) per ACT-MID, €1983 (95% CI €1430-€2830) per AQLQ-MID, and €312 401 (95% CI €209 206-€504 562) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrasting of PR expenditures with ICERs suggests that the intervention, which achieves clinically relevant changes in asthma-relevant parameters, has a high probability to be already cost-effective in the short term. However, in terms of QALYs, extended follow-up periods are likely required to comprehensively judge the added value of a one-time initial investment in PR.

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing dupilumab and aspirin desensitization therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) in the setting of aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a disease that is difficult to treat and prone to recurrence. Dupilumab is a promising treatment for these patients, but its cost-effectiveness has not yet been compared with aspirin (acetylsalicyclic acid, or ASA) desensitization, a known and effective treatment. We aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of ASA desensitization with dupilumab therapy for the treatment of CRSwNP in AERD.

METHODS

Analyses of cost-effectiveness, as measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-utility, as measured in number of required revision endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESSs), were conducted.

RESULTS

ASA desensitization after ESS was cost-effective and dominated appropriate medical management. Adding salvage dupilumab was also cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] $135,517.33), and upfront dupilumab therapy was not cost-effective in any scenario (ICER $273,181.32). The cost-utility analysis demonstrated that, over a 10-year period per patient, appropriate medical management after ESS cost $54,125.31 and resulted in 2.25 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization after ESS cost $53,775.15 and resulted in 2.02 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization with salvage dupilumab cost $121,176.25 and resulted in 1.68 revision ESSs, and upfront dupilumab cost $185,950.34 and resulted in 1.51 revision ESSs.

CONCLUSION

Dupilumab for the treatment of severe CRSwNP was found to be cost-effective as salvage therapy under the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000. Further analysis highlighted that the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab was most sensitive to drug price and expected gains in quality of life. This suggests that additional investigation into improving patient population selection and tailoring treatment algorithms may improve the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab in specific scenarios.

Attitudes of Croatian pulmonologists concerning obstacles to earlier, more appropriate use of biologics in severe asthma: Survey results

AIMS

Biologics have been proven efficacious for patients with severe asthma (SA). It is essential to diagnose such individuals correctly. This study was designed to survey pulmonologists to identify barriers to early diagnosis and subsequent appropriate use of biologics for SA in Croatia.

METHODS

A pulmonologist group with expertise in SA developed the initial list of questions, with the final questionnaire created according to a 2-round Delphi method. The resulting survey consisted of 23 items consequently divided into 4 domains: 1) Pulmonologists' demographics and professional experiences; 2) Concerns about asthma management; 3) Attitudes toward SA diagnosis; and 4) Beliefs and attitudes regarding the use of biologics in managing SA. The given answers represented the respondents' estimates.

RESULTS

Eighty-four surveys were analyzed, with pulmonologists observing that general practitioners often inaccurately diagnose asthma and treat acute exacerbations. Although specialist centers are capably and correctly equipped, the time to diagnose patients with SA is approximately 3.5 months, with initial use of biologics delayed an additional 2 months. The primary indications for prescribing biologics are conventional therapy with oral glucocorticoids (91.7%) and frequent acute exacerbations (82.1%). In addition to improper diagnosis (64.3%), many patients with SA do not receive the indicated biologics owing to strict administrative directives for reimbursement (70.2%) or limited hospital resources (57.1%).

LIMITATIONS

The limitations of this survey include the subjective nature of the collected data, the relatively small sample size, and the lack of the biologic efficacy evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Croatian pulmonologists observed that a significant number of patients with SA who are eligible for biologics are not prescribed them, largely because of an inaccurate and/or delayed diagnosis, a delayed referral to a specialist center, highly restrictive criteria for reimbursement, and/or institutional budgetary limitations.

Severe asthma assessment, management and the organisation of care in Australia and New Zealand: expert forum roundtable meetings

Severe asthma imposes a significant burden on individuals, families and the healthcare system. Treatment is complex, due to disease heterogeneity, comorbidities and complexity in care pathways. New approaches and treatments improve health outcomes for people with severe asthma. However, emerging multidimensional and targeted treatment strategies require a reorganisation of asthma care. Consensus is required on how reorganisation should occur and what areas require further research. The Centre of Excellence in Severe Asthma convened three forums between 2015 and 2018, hosting experts from Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The forums were complemented by a survey of clinicians involved in the management of people with severe asthma. We sought to: (i) identify areas of consensus among experts; (ii) define activities and resources required for the implementation of findings into practice; and (iii) identify specific priority areas for future research. Discussions identified areas of unmet need including assessment and diagnosis of severe asthma, models of care and treatment pathways, add-on treatment approaches and patient perspectives. We recommend development of education and training activities, clinical resources and standards of care documents, increased stakeholder engagement and public awareness campaigns and improved access to infrastructure and funding. Further, we propose specific future research to inform clinical decision-making and develop novel therapies. A concerted effort is required from all stakeholders (including patients, healthcare professionals and organisations and government) to integrate new evidence-based practices into clinical care and to advance research to resolve questions relevant to improving outcomes for people with severe asthma.

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Availability of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments for severe asthma would be beneficial to patients and national healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditure after incorporating benralizumab into the standard treatment of refractory eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 12 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. The main effectiveness parameters measured were: the avoidance of one asthma exacerbation, a 3-point increase in the asthma control test (ACT) score, and the difference in utility scores (health-related quality of life) between a 1-year baseline treatment and 1-year benralizumab treatment. The health economic evaluation included direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

After 1 year of treatment with benralizumab, patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma showed an improvement in all the effectiveness parameters analysed: improvement of asthma control and lung function, and decrease in the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (both as corticosteroid courses and maintenance therapy), and inhaled corticosteroid use. The total annual cost per patient for the baseline and benralizumab treatment periods were €11,544 and €14,043, respectively, reflecting an increase in costs due to the price of the biological agent but a decrease in costs for the remaining parameters. The ICER was €602 per avoided exacerbation and €983.86 for every 3-point increase in the ACT score.

CONCLUSIONS

All the pharmacoeconomic parameters analysed show that treatment with benralizumab is a cost-effective option as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma.

Efficacy and safety of add-on tiotropium in the management of uncontrolled asthma: a patient case series

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of various treatment options, a large proportion of patients with asthma have uncontrolled asthma in the United States. Consequently, the economic burden of suboptimal asthma control is anticipated to substantially grow in the next 20 years, adversely impacting patients' quality of life. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective treatments to achieve and maintain asthma control. The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends tiotropium as a controller medication for patients with asthma aged ≥6 years, based on evidence from several randomized controlled trials. However, more real-world data on the effectiveness of tiotropium are required to establish a broad picture of its use in everyday clinical practice.

METHODS

Herein, we present 3 case reports of patients diagnosed with uncontrolled or fixed obstructive asthma not responding to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS + long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs).

RESULTS

All 3 patients were prescribed tiotropium, irrespective of their age. Tiotropium improved lung function and quality of life, as indicated by the forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio and the Asthma Control Test score. Furthermore, the addition of tiotropium reduced the use of rescue medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Hence, the results from these case reports highlight that tiotropium could be an effective and safe add-on treatment option for patients across a range of age groups with uncontrolled or fixed obstructive asthma receiving prior ICS or ICS + LABA and/or LTRA therapy.

Economic burden of asthma in Singapore

Background and objective

Up-to-date economic burden of asthma in Singapore is currently unknown.

Methods

We quantify the per capita and total annual costs of asthma for adults and children by level of symptom control (uncontrolled, partly controlled, and well controlled) via a cross-sectional online survey administered to a national web panel. Participants were asked about healthcare utilisation, days missed from work, and reduced productivity due to their symptoms. These values were then monetised and multiplied by prevalence estimates of adult and child asthmatics to generate total costs.

Results

A total of 300 adults and 221 parents of children with asthma were included in analysis. The total annual cost of adult asthma was estimated to be SGD 1.74 billion (US$1.25 billion) with 42% coming from the uncontrolled group, 45% from the partly controlled group, and 13% from the well-controlled group. For children, the total cost is SGD 0.35 billion (US$0.25 billion), with 64%, 26% and 10% coming from each group respectively. Combined, the annual economic burden of asthma in Singapore is SGD 2.09 billion (US$1.50 billion) with 79% due to productivity losses.

Conclusion

Poorly controlled asthma imposes a significant economic burden. Therefore, better control of disease has the potential to generate not only health improvements, but also medical expenditure savings and productivity gains.

Prescriber perspectives on low-value prescribing: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Health systems are increasingly implementing interventions to reduce older patients' use of low-value medications. However, prescribers' perspectives on medication value and the acceptability of interventions to reduce low-value prescribing are poorly understood.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the characteristics that affect the value of a medication and those factors influencing low-value prescribing from the perspective of primary care physicians.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews.

SETTING

Academic and community primary care practices within University of Pittsburgh Medical Center health system.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixteen primary care physicians.

MEASUREMENTS

We elicited 16 prescribers' perspectives on definitions and examples of low-value prescribing in older adults, the factors that incentivize them to engage in such prescribing, and the characteristics of interventions that would make them less likely to engage in low-value prescribing.

RESULTS

We identified three key themes. First, prescribers viewed low-value prescribing among older adults as common, characterized both by features of the medications themselves and of the particular patients to whom they were prescribed. Second, prescribers described the causes of low-value prescribing as multifactorial, with factors related to patients, prescribers, and the health system as a whole, making low-value prescribing a default practice pattern. Third, interventions addressing low-value prescribing must minimize the cognitive load and time pressures that make low-value prescribing common. Interventions increasing time pressure or cognitive load, such as increased documentation, were considered less acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that low-value prescribing is a well-recognized phenomenon, and that interventions to reduce low-value prescribing must consider physicians' perspectives and address the specific patient, prescriber and health system factors that make low-value prescribing a default practice.

Clinical and economic consequences of switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma

Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of switching from omalizumab (OMA) to mepolizumab (MEP) in patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled by omalizumab. We retrospectively enrolled uncontrolled severe asthmatic patients who switched from OMA to MEP during the last two years. Information included blood eosinophil count, asthma control test (ACT), spirometry, serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), OCS intake, drugs, exacerbations/hospitalizations, visits and diagnostic exams. Within the perspective of Italian National Health System, a pre- and post-MEP 12-month standardized total cost per patient was calculated. 33 patients were enrolled: five males, mean age 57 years, disease onset 24 years. At OMA discontinuation, 88% were OCS-dependent with annual mean rate of 4.0 clinically significant exacerbations, 0.30 exacerbations needing emergency room visits or hospitalization; absenteeism due to disease was 10.4 days per patient. Switch to MEP improved all clinical outcomes, reducing total exacerbation rate (RR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03–0.14), OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.005–0.08), and number of lost working days (Δ = − 7.9, 95% CI − 11.2 to − 4.6). Pulmonary function improved, serum IgE, FeNO and eosinophils decreased. Mean annual costs were €12,239 for OMA and €12,639 for MEP (Δ = €400, 95% CI − 1588–2389); the increment due to drug therapy (+ €1,581) was almost offset by savings regarding all other cost items (− €1,181). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not controlled by OMA, experienced comprehensive benefits by switching to MEP with only slight increases in economic costs.

CD3E as a new predictive biomarker of response to omalizumab treatment in asthma patients: Evidence from bioinformatic analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab is a bio-targeted agent approved as add-on therapy for the treatment of severe asthma. Most patients with severe asthma show no response to omalizumab. American Thoracic Society (ATS) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) recommend blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) as biomarkers with high value for increased response to omalizumab and periostin as a biomarker with a low value. In this study, we aimed to identify the biomarkers for predicting treatment response to omalizumab by performing whole blood transcriptional expression profiling using array and clinical data from GSE134544.

METHODS

We analyzed GSE134544 whole blood transcriptional and clinical data of omalizumab treatment using xCell, weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), gene ontology enrichment analysis, KEGG pathway analysis, protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, and logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We calculated the immune enrichment score using xCell and found that CD4⁺ T cells, CD4⁺ Tem, CD4⁺ memory T cells, CD8⁺ Tcm, and dendritic cells (DC) were relatively higher in responders than in non-responders. Analysis of omalizumab response using WGCNA revealed that the above-mentioned significant immune cells in the red module was relevant to the sample traits; there were 547 genes in the red module. We identified 20 hub genes for the PPI network using cytoHubba, a Cytoscape plugin. Using logistic regression analysis, CD3E was found to be the only significant biomarker, and the area under the curve of ROC curves was 0.763.

CONCLUSION

CD3E maybe a new predictive biomarker of response to omalizumab treatment in asthma patients and be used to select more suitable asthma patients for omalizumab treatment.

Lower Use of Biologics for the Treatment of Asthma in Publicly Insured Individuals

BACKGROUND

Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of poorly controlled asthma, publicly insured individuals are less likely to receive biologics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess biologic use by payer among individuals with asthma.

METHODS

We used IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, all-payer audit of ambulatory care in the United States, to describe the patterns of use by payer.

RESULTS

Asthma treatment visits in which a biologic product was reported increased from approximately 0.1% of asthma-related visits in 2003 to 1% in 2015 and doubled to 2% by 2019. Omalizumab use initially increased from 2003 to 2006 and plateaued till 2015 when its use declined modestly, coinciding with the release of additional biologic products. In 2019, omalizumab accounted for 37% of biologic treatment visits, mepolizumab 21%, benralizumab 27%, dupilumab 15%, and reslizumab <1%. Biologic treatment visits were higher for privately insured individuals (28.3 per 1000 visits) compared with publicly insured individuals (16.3 per 1000 visits). This difference persisted after accounting for age, sex, and race using nationally representative estimates. Whites accounted for a disproportionate amount of biologic treatment visits among the publicly insured (80%) despite accounting for only 60% of publicly insured asthma treatment visits. No biologic treatment visits were observed for individuals who were uninsured. Half of dupilumab visits were for publicly insured patients, compared with 22% of mepolizumab/benralizumab and 27% of omalizumab visits.

CONCLUSION

Biologics were uncommonly used among patients with asthma, and the basis for disproportionately lower use of biologics among the publicly insured, where the burden of uncontrolled asthma is greatest, merits further investigation.

Saudi Arabian real-life experience with biologic therapy in severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma (SA) is a common health problem associated with increased morbidity and mortality and high medical costs. Biological therapies have emerged in recent decades as promising treatment options for patients with high type 2 (T2) SA. This retrospective observational study from Saudi Arabia aimed to investigate the effects of additional biologics therapy on reducing oral corticosteroid (OCS) consumption, frequency of asthma exacerbations, improvement in lung function, and asthma control.

METHODS

This multicenter observational study enrolled a cohort of 97 patients from March 2019 to February 2021. Outcomes of anti-IgE, anti-IL5/IL5R, and anti-IL4R therapies in severe type 2 asthma were recorded and analyzed in terms of number of exacerbations (emergency visits or hospitalizations required), asthma symptoms, and use of oral corticosteroids, blood eosinophil count, asthma control according to GINA classification, and FEV1 before and during biologic therapy.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were included in the analysis The mean age was 46.7±14.1 years, and 69.1% of them were female. The average duration of biological treatment was 16.4±6.8 months. At the time of data collection, the four biologic therapies reduced the exacerbation rate per year from 82/97 (84.5%) to 14/97 (14.4%) with a percent improvement of 83% from 2.9 per year in the year before biologic treatment to 1.6 per year (p<0.001). OCS was reduced from 75/97 (77.3%) to 10/97 (10.3%) for a percent improvement of 86.7%, and the average OCS dose decreased from 7.12 mg to 6.8 mg. Mean blood eosinophil count also decreased after biologic therapy from 750.5±498.5 to 188.0±122.4 cells/μl, most significant result achieved with benralizumab, and mean FEV1 improved from 59.0±12.9% to 76.0±10.2%, most significant result achieved with omalizumab. ll patients had uncontrolled asthma before biologics therapy, but asthma control improved by 91.8% after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Biologic as add-on therapy for high T2 SA was found to reduce asthma exacerbations, systemic glucocorticoid doses, and SA symptoms.

Economic considerations on the usage of biologics in the allergy clinic

The advent of biologic therapies has transformed care for severe atopic disorders but their high cost poses new challenges with regard to long-term sustainability and fair allocation of resources. This article covers the basic concepts of cost-utility analyses and reviews the available literature on cost utility of biologic drugs in atopic disorders. When used within their limits as part of a multi-dimensional assessment, economic analyses can be extremely useful to guide decision-making and prioritization of care. Despite the good quality of most cost-utility analyses conducted for the use of biologics in asthma and other atopic diseases, their conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are extremely variable. This is mainly due to the use of inconsistent estimates of health utility benefit with therapy. Development of reliable and validated instruments to measure disutility in atopic disorders and measure of indirect costs in atopic disease are identified as a priority for future research.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain

AIM

To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results.

RESULTS

On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.

Prior authorization delays biologic initiation and is associated with a risk of asthma exacerbations

Background: Biologics are effective treatments for patients with severe allergic disease. Impacts of delays in the prior authorization process on clinical outcomes has not been studied. Objective: The objective was to quantify the times for approval and filling of biologics, and whether patients were at risk of exacerbations during this time frame. Methods: The times for insurance approval and pharmacy filling of biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, dupilumab) in 80 subjects with severe asthma (n = 60) or urticaria (n = 20) from our clinic were reviewed. We compared the impact of clinical features, insurance, specialty pharmacy on fill times, and quantified exacerbations and prednisone use while awaiting biologic initiation. Results: The mean ± standard deviation (SD) time (days) from submission of a prescription to the first dose available for injection was 44.0 ± 23.2 days. This was composed of the mean ± SD time for insurance approval (21.5 ± 19.6 days) and the mean ± SD time for a specialty pharmacy to fill the medication (22.8 ± 14.1 days). There was no significant difference between the times for diagnosis (asthma versus urticaria), specific biologic, or insurance. The "buy and bill" system was faster than filling via a specialty pharmacy (mean ± SD, 7.3 ± 8.5 days versus 23.3 ± 21.3 days, respectively, p < 0.001). Clinical features of patients with fast versus slow approval times was not significantly different. The subjects with asthma were at high risk of exacerbations and need for prednisone while awaiting initiation of the biologics; 28 of 59 patients (47%) required prednisone, with an mean cumulative dose of 483.2 ± 273.7 mg per person. Conclusion: The prior authorization process for biologics was slow, and the subjects were at high risk of exacerbations during this time. The system needs to be improved to expedite approval and initiation of these medications.

Cost-Effectiveness of Biologics for Allergic Diseases

The introduction of specific humanized monoclonal antibodies over the past 20 years has dramatically changed the treatment of allergic diseases. At present, 5 mAbs are licensed for treating moderate to severe allergic and eosinophilic asthma, atopic dermatitis, chronic spontaneous urticaria, chronic sinusitis with nasal polyps, and eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. Given the high costs of biologics, understanding their cost-effectiveness is critical. As new biologics are developed and new indications are approved for existing biologics, the use of biologics for allergic diseases will increase. Conducting cost-effectiveness evaluations in parallel to efficacy and effectiveness trials will help patients, providers, payers, and policymakers in decision making.

Availability and reimbursement of biological products for severe asthma in Bulgaria

Objectives

This study aims to analyze the reimbursement and cost of biological therapy for severe asthma in Bulgaria during 2014-2019 from the perspective of the National Health Insurance Fund.

Methods

It is a retrospective, Marco-costing, top-down study of the expenditures for biological products for severe asthma. The changes in the cost paid by the National Health Insurance Fund per year, per product, and per patient during 2015-2020 were systematized and calculated. The utilization of biologicals was analyzed by calculating the defined daily dose/1000inh/day. Three databases were searched-the European Medicines Agency for the date of marketing authorization of biological products, National Council of Prices and Reimbursement for the date of their respective inclusion in the positive drug list, and National Health Insurance Fund about the number of patients with asthma, reimbursed sum for all asthma patients, and number of packages sold of biological products.

Results

At the end of 2019, five international non-proprietary names of biologicals with indication for severe asthma had received European marketing authorization, and three of them were included in the Bulgarian positive drug list-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab with a 75% reimbursement. Upon their introduction into the positive drug list, the reimbursed expenditures for asthma therapy started to increase from 27 million in 2014 to 33 million BGN in 2019 (€13.5-€16.5 million). The cost of therapy with biologicals rose from 16% to 24% of all anti-asthmatic medicines budget. The National Health Insurance Fund database reported that between 47,000 and 52,000 of patients with asthma, 466 are on biological therapy. The yearly cost of one asthma patient ranges between 512 and 615 BGN (€258-€307), and the yearly per-patient cost of severe asthma is 16,666 BGN (appr. €8333). Total utilization in defined daily dose/1000inh/day increases from 0.0199 to 0.0383 from 2015 to 2019.

Conclusion

The access to biological therapy through the reimbursement system has improved during the last 3 years. The cost of therapy is posing a high burden on the National Health Insurance Fund and on the patients and is expected to increase due to the small number of patients on biological therapy currently in comparison to all reimbursed asthmatics.

Biologics for Severe Asthma: Treatment-Specific Effects Are Important in Choosing a Specific Agent

Patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma have greater morbidity, greater use of health care resources, and more impairment in health-related quality of life when compared with their peers with well-controlled disease. Fortunately, since the introduction of biological therapeutics, patients with severe eosinophilic asthma now have beneficial treatment options that they did not have just a few years ago. In addition to anti-IgE therapy for allergic asthma, 3 new biological therapeutics targeting IL-5 and 1 targeting IL-4 and IL-13 signaling have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma, and approval of more biological therapeutics is on the horizon. These medications decrease the frequency of asthma exacerbations, improve lung function, reduce corticosteroid usage, and improve health-related quality of life. This article reviews the mechanisms of action, specific indications, benefits, and side effects of each of the approved biological therapies for asthma. Furthermore, this article reviews how a clinician could use specific patient characteristics to decide which biologic treatment may be optimal for a given patient.

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe, uncontrolled oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma in Sweden

Aim: We investigated cost effectiveness of benralizumab vs. standard of care (SOC) plus oral corticosteroids (OCS) for patients with severe, eosinophilic OCS-dependent asthma in Sweden.Materials and methods: A three-state, cohort-based Markov model of data from three Phase III benralizumab clinical trials (ZONDA [NCT02075255], SIROCCO [NCT01928771], and CALIMA [NCT01914757]) was used to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of benralizumab vs. SOC plus OCS. Health outcomes were estimated in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The model included costs and disutilities associated with extrapolated OCS-related adverse events. Patients with severe asthma were defined as those receiving OCS ≥5 mg/day.Results: Benralizumab demonstrated a cost-effectiveness ratio vs. SOC plus OCS of 2018 Swedish Kronor (SEK) 366,855 (€34,127) per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALYs and SEK 488,742 (€45,344) per patient. Benralizumab treatment costs contributed most to incremental costs. The probability of benralizumab's being cost-effective with willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds between SEK 429,972 (€40,000) and SEK 752,452 (€70,000) ranged from 75% to 99%.Limitations: Potential limitations of these analyses include the use of combined data from three different clinical trials, a one-way sensitivity analysis that did not include mortality and transition estimates, and Observational & Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) data from the UK as a proxy of the Swedish health care system.Conclusions: The results of these analyses demonstrate that benralizumab has a high probability of being cost-effective compared with SOC plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe, eosinophilic asthma receiving regular OCS treatment and may support clinicians, payers and patients in making treatment decisions.

Anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of asthma: an update

INTRODUCTION

Asthma exhibits marked heterogeneity in symptoms with severe or refractory asthma representing a clear area of unmet medical need. These patients require more specifically targeted treatments with monoclonal antibody-based biologics targeted at inhibition of the type 2 cytokines IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13 having considerable potential as effective treatments for severe asthma. For the most part, anti-cytokine-based biologic therapies are more likely to give significant clinical benefit in carefully selected patient populations that take asthma phenotypes and endotypes into account.

AREAS COVERED

This review is based on recent English-language original articles in Pub Med or MedLine that reported significant clinical findings on the current status, therapeutic potential and safety of the anti-IL-5 biologics mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab in the treatment of severe refractory asthma.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-IL-5 treatment appears effective in patients with eosinophilic asthma through exacerbation prevention with accumulating evidence of glucocorticoid-sparing effects with an acceptable safety profile for these biologics.

Add-On Omalizumab for Inadequately Controlled Severe Pollinosis Despite Standard-of-Care: A Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Cedar pollinosis (CP), a common form of seasonal allergic rhinitis (AR), is a substantial medical problem in Japan due to its high prevalence and severe symptoms. Omalizumab (anti-IgE therapy) has previously proven to be effective in CP/AR, but no studies for inadequately controlled severe CP/AR despite standard-of-care (SoC) have been conducted.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the efficacy of omalizumab added to SoC in patients with inadequately controlled severe CP in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase III study.

METHODS

Adult/adolescent patients with severe CP whose symptoms were inadequately controlled despite nasal corticosteroids plus 1 or more oral medications in the previous 2 seasons were randomized to receive omalizumab (n = 162) or placebo (n = 175). All patients received concomitant antihistamines and nasal corticosteroids as SoC. The primary endpoint was the mean nasal symptom score during the severe symptom period. Secondary endpoints included mean ocular symptom score, quality of life (QoL), and safety.

RESULTS

The SoC + omalizumab treatment had statistically significantly and clinically important lower nasal (least squares mean difference, -1.03, P < .001) and ocular (-0.87, P < .001) symptom scores compared with SoC + placebo, respectively. Differences in scores for individual components of nasal and ocular symptoms were also statistically and clinically significant. SoC + omalizumab also improved QoL scores as overall and in all domains. No unexpected safety signals were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with severe CP, omalizumab added to SoC demonstrated consistent efficacy in improving symptoms and QoL, and was well tolerated. These results indicate that omalizumab could be a promising therapeutic option for severe CP/AR.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 - 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 - 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 - 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 -1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) -0.45 (95% CI -0.58 to -0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD -0.41 (95%CI -0.66 to -0.15)].

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines - recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well-recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma-related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6-11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV₁ , without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug-related adverse events (AE) and drug-related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV₁ . More data on long-term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent disease that results in significant healthcare-related costs as well as costs to society with lost productivity and time. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of patients who suffer with this disease will not find relief from current standard of care medications and surgery. With ongoing efforts to understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP has come the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, or "biologics," targeting specific elements of the inflammatory pathway in CRSwNP. Despite efficacy, these come at significant cost and, to date, no studies on the cost-efficacy of these biologics in CRSwNP have been published.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have now demonstrated efficacy for biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP as a primary indication. However, the gains in quality of life and objective measures, while consistent, are small and, arguably, the clinical significance is still unclear. In addition, the high cost of these medications may be hard to justify when evaluated in cost-efficacy studies against standard of care therapy in CRSwNP. Furthermore, while the current literature is most robust in showing the benefit of the biologics in asthma, it does not fully support cost-efficacy for biologics. This review evaluates the current literature regarding efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of CRSwNP and considers this efficacy in light of the cost implications to individuals and society.

Real-Life Study of Mepolizumab in Idiopathic Chronic Eosinophilic Pneumonia

INTRODUCTION

Idiopathic chronic eosinophilic pneumonia (ICEP) is an orphan lung disease characterized by concomitant systemic and local eosinophilia, along with bilateral lung infiltrates. Symptoms include dyspnea of subacute/chronic onset, cough, and general systemic signs. Although all patients do respond to oral corticosteroids, relapse rate is very high, which highlights the need for alternative therapies in case of relapsing ICEP. Mepolizumab is a fully humanized antibody directed against interleukin 5, a key growth factor of eosinophils. In the present study, we retrospectively studied the effect of off-label use of mepolizumab for relapsing ICEP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All data from patients treated with mepolizumab for relapsing ICEP were included in our database and diagnoses were reviewed. We analyzed the effect of treatment on relapse rate, oral corticosteroids (OCS) use, and lung lesions on high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT).

RESULTS

We included ten patients in the final analysis, with a median follow-up of 9 months after initiation of mepolizumab. Beside its expected effect on circulating eosinophils, treatment with mepolizumab was associated with a significant reduction of annual rate of exacerbations and a reduced consumption of corticosteroids. We also observed a remission of lung lesions on follow-up HRCT.

CONCLUSIONS

In this open-label retrospective study, treatment of ICEP with mepolizumab was associated with a reduction of relapses, OCS use, and the disappearance of lung infiltrates.

Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify and critique full economic evaluations (EEs) of childhood asthma treatments with the intention to guide researchers and commissioners of pediatric asthma services toward potentially cost-effective strategies.

METHODS

"MEDLINE," "Embase," "EconLit," "NHS EED," and "CEA" databases were searched to identify relevant EEs published between 2005 and May 2017. Quality of included studies was assessed with a published checklist.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified and comprised one cost-benefit analysis, 11 cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-minimization analysis, and six cost-utility analyses. Treatments included pharmaceutical (n = 11) and non-pharmaceutical (n = 7) interventions. Fourteen studies identified cost-effective strategies. The quality of the studies varied and there were uncertainties due to the methods and relevance of data used.

CONCLUSION

Good-quality economic evaluation studies of pediatric asthma treatments are lacking. EE of new technologies adapted to local settings is recommended and can result in cost savings.

Mepolizumab effectiveness on small airway obstruction, corticosteroid sparing and maintenance therapy step-down in real life

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab (MEP) has been recently introduced to treat severe eosinophilic asthma. Trials have demonstrated a significant effectiveness in this asthma phenotype. We evaluated MEP efficacy on lung function, symptoms, asthma exacerbations, biologic markers, steroid dependence and controller treatment level in real-life.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 134 severe asthmatics (61 males; mean age 58.3 ± 11; mean FEV₁%:72 ± 21), treated with MEP for at least 6 months (mean duration:10.9 ± 3.7 months).

RESULTS

FEV₁% improved significantly after MEP. Mean FEF_25-75 also increased from 37.4 ± 25.4% to 47.2 ± 27.2% (p < 0.0001). Mean baseline blood eosinophil level was 712 ± 731/μL (8.4 ± 5.2%) decreasing to 151 ± 384/μL (1.6 ± 1.6%) (p < 0.0001), FENO levels decreased likewise. MEP treatment also led to a significant ACT improvement (mean pre:14.2 ± 4.4; mean post:20.5 ± 28) and exacerbations significantly fell from 3.8 ± 1.9 to 0.8 ± 1.1 (p < 0.0001). 74% of patients were steroid-dependent before MEP. 45.4% and 46.4% of them showed a suspension and dose reduction respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant number reduced also ICS doses. Only 67% of subjects used SABA as needed before MEP, falling to 20% after MEP. About 40% of patients highlighted a maintenance therapy step-down. Subjects showing an omalizumab treatment failure before MEP had a similar positive response when compared with omalizumab untreated patients.

CONCLUSION

In real-life, MEP improved significantly all outcomes even small airway obstruction, suggesting its possible role also in distal lung region treatment. Furthermore, it demonstrated its high effectiveness in OC/ICS-sparing, in reducing SABA as needed and in stepping-down maintenance therapy. MEP is a valid alternative for patients with previous omalizumab treatment failure.