Cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma

Economic evaluation of biological treatments in patients with severe asthma: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a highly prevalent disease, one of the chronic diseases with the highest economic costs; thus, it imposes a high economic burden on society, the healthcare system, patients, and third-party payers. Contrary to this study, until now, systematic reviews of economic evaluations (EEs) of treatments for severe asthma have not been exclusively focused on biological treatments, and have included a small number of studies and only model-based EEs.

METHODS

This study systematically reviews EEs of biological therapies for severe asthma published until December 2022 using PRISMA guidelines. The review analyzes the cost-effectiveness of biologicals in comparison to SOC, or SOC plus OCS. The quality of the EEs is assessed using Consensus on Health Economics Checklist extended (CHEC-extended).

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies were eligible: 15 based on a Markov model, and 19 trial-based; eight adopting societal and NHS perspectives, and seven the payer's perspective. The reviewed EEs addressed cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and incremental costs and outcomes comparison. Their findings were mainly expressed through ICER-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (24 studies: 13 concluded that biological were cost-effective) and cost comparison analysis (14 studies: 6 concluded that biological were cost-effective), and were sensitive to a wide variety of factors (e.g. medication cost, treatment response, time horizon, utility benefits, mortality, exacerbation rate, discount rate, etc.).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been some ambiguity concerning the EE of biological therapies due to variation in choice of study design and contradictory results. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that biological treatments improve health outcomes, in many contexts at a high cost.

Cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium in patients with uncontrolled asthma in England

BACKGROUND

In patients with asthma that is uncontrolled by a medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic agonist, either via multiple inhalers, or single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). One SITT is the extrafine formulation of beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G). We used data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER), both conducted in adults with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA, to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FF/G.

METHODS

A Markov cohort state transition model (focusing on exacerbations) was used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of medium- or high-dose BDP/FF/G vs medium- or high-dose BDP/FF, and high-dose BDP/FF/G vs high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium. The model analysed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and was developed from the England National Health Service perspective (2020 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs BDP/FF, with ICERs of £12,224 and £15,587 per QALY gained. High-dose BDP/FF/G was dominant vs BDP/FF + tiotropium, as it was both cheaper and gained QALYs. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base model: medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G had 94.3% and 88.3% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs BDP/FF; high-dose BDP/FF/G had 100% likelihood to be a dominant strategy vs BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs medium- and high-dose BDP/FF in adults with asthma that was uncontrolled by ICS/LABA. In addition, high-dose BDP/FF/G was a dominating strategy to high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT02676076 and NCT02676089.

Anti-IL-5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This is the second update of previously published reviews in the Cochrane Library (2015, first update 2017). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the proliferation, maturation, activation and survival of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Studies of monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) suggest they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function in appropriately selected patients, justifying their inclusion in the latest guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) measures and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was 7 February 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen studies on about 7600 participants met the inclusion criteria. Six used mepolizumab, five used reslizumab, and six used benralizumab. One study using benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. One was in children aged 6 to 17 years; nine others included children over 12 years but did not report results by age group separately. We deemed the overall risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data of robust methodology. We considered the certainty of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, except for intravenous (IV) mepolizumab and subcutaneous (SC) reslizumab because these are not currently licensed delivery routes. The anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score of 1.5 or more), except for reslizumab SC. The rate ratios for these effects were 0.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab SC, 0.53 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.64; moderate-certainty evidence) for mepolizumab IV, 0.43 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.55; high-certainty evidence) for reslizumab IV, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.66; high-certainty evidence) for benralizumab SC. Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, an effect not seen with reslizumab IV, albeit in only one study. No data were available for non-eosinophilic participants treated with mepolizumab. There were improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. This met the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the broader St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ; 4-point change) for benralizumab only, but the improvement in the ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which focus on asthma symptoms, fell short of the MCID (0.5 point change for both ACQ and AQLQ) for all of the interventions. The evidence for an improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab and reslizumab was weak, but the tests for subgroup difference were negative. All anti-IL-5 treatments produced small improvements in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.15 L in eosinophilic participants, which may not be sufficient to be detected by patients. There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment; in fact, there was a reduction in such events with benralizumab, likely arising from fewer asthma-related hospital admissions. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (42/2026 (2.1%) benralizumab versus 11/1227 (0.9%) placebo). The implications for efficacy or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall this analysis supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor symptom control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. The studies did not report safety concerns for mepolizumab or reslizumab, or any excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation. Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in patients meeting relevant eligibility criteria, to other biological (monoclonal antibody) therapies. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Immunologic Adverse Effects of Biologics for the Treatment of Atopy

The use of biologic agents as therapies for atopic diseases such as asthma and atopic dermatitis has increased greatly in recent years. The biological agents used to treat atopic diseases are for the most part monoclonal antibodies that suppress the immune response and reduce inflammation by targeting particular cytokines or other molecules involved in Th1, Th2, or Th17 immune reactions. Various side effects and rare complications have been reported from these agents. In this review, we discuss mechanisms of various adverse effects for the biologic agents currently in use or in development for atopic and inflammatory diseases. Monoclonal antibodies targeting the Th1 and Th17 pathways have been associated with significant side effects, partially due to their ability to cause significant impairment in immune responses to pathogens because of the immunologic alterations that they produce. Biologicals targeting Th2-mediated inflammation have had fewer reported side effects, though many are new and emerging drugs whose adverse effects may remain to be fully elucidated with more use. Therefore, continued long-term safety monitoring is required. As with all therapies, the risks associated with side effects of biologics must be balanced against the benefits these drugs offer for treating atopic diseases. One of the most apparent benefits is the steroid-sparing effect of well-chosen biologic therapy used to treat severe atopic disease. In contrast with the quite favorable safety profile of currently available biologics that target the Th2-mediated immune response, chronic systemic corticosteroid use is associated with significant side effects, many of which impact the majority of patients who are placed on long-term steroid therapy.

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by significant morbidities and mortality, with a large impact on socio-economic resources and a considerable burden on health-care systems. In the standard care of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are a reliable and often cost-effective choice, especially if based on the single inhaler therapy (SIT) strategy; however, in a subset of patients it is not possible to reach an adequate asthma control. In these cases, it is possible to resort to other pharmacologic options, including corticosteroids (OCS) or biologics. Unfortunately, OCS are associated with important side effects, whilst monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) allow excellent results, even if far more expensive. Up to now, the economic impact of asthma has not been compared with equivalent indicators in several studies. In fact, a significant heterogeneity of the cost analysis is evident in literature, for which the assessment of the real cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies is remarkably complex. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of asthma strategies, especially of biologics, attention must be paid on phenotyping and identification of predictors of response. Several studies were included, involving comparative analysis of drug treatments for asthma, comparative analysis of the costs and consequences of therapies, measurement and evaluation of direct drug costs, and the reduction of health service use. The initial research identified 389 articles, classified by titles and abstracts. A total of 311 articles were excluded as irrelevant and 78 articles were selected. Pharmacoeconomic studies on asthma therapies often report conflicting data also due to heterogeneous indicators and different populations examined. A careful evaluation of the existing literature is extremely important, because the scenario is remarkably complex, with an attempt to homogenize and interpret available data. Based on these studies, the improvement of prescriptive appropriateness and the reduction of the use of healthcare resources thanks to controller medications and to innovative therapies such as biologics partially reduce the economic burden of these treatments. A multidisciplinary stakeholder approach can also be extremely helpful in deciding between the available options and thus optimizing healthcare resources.

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.

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.

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)].

The use of biologic therapies for the management of pediatric asthma

With better understanding of the role of type 2 inflammation in allergic asthma, there has been progress made in the development of new biologic therapies targeting these specific pathways. This review will consider diagnostic criteria for using biologic therapies for pediatric asthma with special emphasis on populations that are likely to benefit the most from particular therapies. With the exception of the anti-immunoglobulin E, omalizumab, very few studies have been published on the efficacy and safety of biologic therapies in children, particularly anti-interleukin-5 (IL5) and anti-IL4/IL13 therapies. The review will highlight the scarcity of published data in pediatric-specific populations. In addition, we will consider the cost-effectiveness as well as potential long-term consequences of biologic therapies in pediatric asthma.

Cost-effectiveness of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement in predicting response to omalizumab in asthma

Purpose: To use a modeled analysis to examine the cost-effectiveness of utilizing fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) as a biomarker to aid in the identification of omalizumab responders in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is a biological drug used to treat asthma in adults and children 12 years and older.

Patients and methods: We conducted a decision analysis in which two alternative strategies for predicting omalizumab response were assessed: 1) testing response via a 12-week trial of omalizumab and 2) using FeNO measurement to screen patients for likely omalizumab response prior to initiating a 12-week trial of omalizumab. In the standard of care arm, trial omalizumab responders continue on to receive 12 months of continuous omalizumab therapy. In the FeNO measurement predictor arm, patients with FeNO measurements >19.5 ppb are started on a trial of omalizumab. Trial omalizumab responders in this arm are then also tracked for 12 months of continuous omalizumab therapy.

Results: Per-patient costs during the trial and initial treatment periods total $10,943 for FeNO + omalizumab and $13,703 for omalizumab only. The expected cost per responder during the trial period is $4,326 for FeNO + omalizumab and $7,786 for omalizumab only.

Conclusion: Use of FeNO measurement to identify omalizumab responders decreases the expected per-patient cost by nearly 50% during the trial period and continues to show cost savings through the initial treatment period of 12 months. Our analysis may serve as a model for policy and clinical practice regarding the use of FeNO to determine omalizumab response and has widespread implications for health care payers, who may choose to require FeNO measurement and prespecify a minimum FeNO value to determine patient eligibility for omalizumab trial.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.

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

BACKGROUND

Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality.

RESULTS

Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and rescue therapy in Thailand

Background: The prevalence of asthma has increased significantly in Thailand. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy has been available for several years. However, cost-effectiveness of such treatment has never been examined in Thailand. Objective: Design a cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis conducted from a Thai healthcare perspective as a piggyback study accompanying a recent clinical trial. Methods: The CE analysis was conducted from the healthcare provider’s perspective. Data were collected from a six-month, double-blind, multi-national study involving 3321 symptomatic asthma patients randomized to either: bud/form maintenance and reliever therapy, bud/form 320/9 μg bid plus terbutaline as needed, or salmeterol/ fluticasone (salm/flut) 25/125 μg two inhalations bid plus terbutaline as needed. Efficacy was determined as the number of exacerbations per patient during a six-month period. Thai unit costs were collected from the national sources and expert opinions, and applied to the resource use data for a deterministic economic evaluation. Results: There were significantly fewer exacerbations in the bud/form maintenance and reliever therapy (0.12 events/patient/6 months) group vs. the bud/form (0.16 events/patient/6 months, p <0.01), or salm/flut groups (0.19 events/patient/6 months, p <0.001). Total direct costs (healthcare visits and drug costs) were 27.0% and 5.9% lower in the bud/form maintenance and reliever therapy group than in the bud/form and salm/flut groups, respectively. Conclusion: Bud/form maintenance and reliever therapy was associated with significantly fewer exacerbations, compared to other fixed combination treatments in a recent multi-national clinical trial. This might result in lower direct costs if applied to the Thai healthcare system.

Clinical and economic impact of a one-year treatment with omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma within a drug programme in Poland

Background

Allergic asthma is the most prevalent phenotype of severe asthma where treatment with omalizumab (OMB) has been proven to be particularly beneficial. In Poland, OMB therapy is available and reimbursed within a drug programme where strict inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined.

The objective of this study was to present a descriptive analysis regarding the trends in outcomes (clinical, quality of life, costs) among a cohort of patients who satisfy inclusion criteria for the initiation of OMB treatment and who successfully responded to OMB according to a set of objective criteria.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data collected during the 52 weeks of OMB treatment was carried out. The study population was adolescents and adults with severe allergic asthma that was uncontrolled despite a combination of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and/or other controllers (leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), sustained-release theophylline, and short- or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA/LAMA), who were the first to finish the one-year treatment. A clinical and cost analysis for patients included in the programme was conducted comparing the one-year pre-treatment period to the one-year treatment period outcomes.

Results

Data of 85 patients who completed the first year of therapy were reviewed and analysed. Add-on OMB treatment resulted in a median decrease in exacerbation rate of 66% relative to the baseline and a reduction in oral steroid (OCS) dose by an average of 7.7 mg. At the end of the 52 weeks of therapy the changes in the quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) and the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores were 1.86 and 1.45 points, respectively. The mean cost of asthma treatment increased by an average of 15,979 EUR per patient per year (baseline period – 802 EUR/patient/year; OMB treatment – 16,781 EUR/patient/year). The cost to avoid one exacerbation was 17721 EUR.

Conclusion

The clinical outcomes for the observed subset of patients were highly improved. At the same time, costs of the treatment increased, mainly due to the high OMB costs. Other costs associated with a lower number of hospitalizations and ED and office visits and a reduction in OCS dose decreased. These descriptive data can be used for further investigation in defining patients who benefit the most from OMB treatment in clinical practice.

Pediatric severe asthma: a case series report and perspectives on anti-IgE treatment

Background

The primary goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control for reducing the risk of future exacerbations and progressive loss of lung function. Asthma not responding to treatment may result in significant morbidity. In many children with uncontrolled symptoms, the diagnosis of asthma may be wrong or adherence to treatment may be poor. It is then crucial to distinguish these cases from the truly “severe therapy-resistant” asthmatics by a proper filtering process. Herein we report on four cases diagnosed as difficult asthma, detail the workup that resulted in the ultimate diagnosis, and provide the process that led to the prescription of omalizumab.

Case presentation

All children had been initially referred because of asthma not responding to long-term treatment with high-dose inhaled steroids, long-acting β₂-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists. Definitive diagnosis was severe asthma. Three out four patients were treated with omalizumab, which improved asthma control and patients’ quality of life. We reviewed the current literature on the diagnostic approach to the disease and on the comorbidities associated with difficult asthma and presented the perspectives on omalizumab treatment in children and adolescents. Based on the evidence from the literature review, we also proposed an algorithm for the diagnosis of pediatric difficult-to-treat and severe asthma.

Conclusions

The management of asthma is becoming much more patient-specific, as more and more is learned about the biology behind the development and progression of asthma. The addition of omalizumab, the first targeted biological treatment approved for asthma, has led to renewed optimism in the management of children and adolescents with atopic severe asthma.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in US

BACKGROUND

A significant minority of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA). A number of add-on therapies, including monoclonal antibodies (namely omalizumab) and more recently tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model of asthma was created. Total costs (in 2013 US $) and health outcomes of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Future costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at the rate of 3%. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at willingness-to-pay value of $50,000.

RESULTS

The 10-year discounted costs and QALYs for standard therapy were $38,432 and 6.79, respectively. The corresponding values for add-on therapy with tiotropium and with omalizumab were $41,535 and 6.88, and $217,847 and 7.17, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of add-on therapy with tiotropium versus standard therapy, and omalizumab versus tiotropium were $34,478/QALY, and $593,643/QALY, respectively. The model outcomes were most sensitive to the costs of omalizumab but were robust against other assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although omalizumab had the best health outcomes, add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY.

Sensing and responding to allergic response cytokines through a genetically encoded circuit

While constantly rising, the prevalence of allergies is globally one of the highest among chronic diseases. Current treatments of allergic diseases include the application of anti-histamines, immunotherapy, steroids, and anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies. Here we report mammalian cells engineered with a synthetic signaling cascade able to monitor extracellular pathophysiological levels of interleukin 4 and interleukin 13, two main cytokines orchestrating allergic inflammation. Upon activation of transgenic cells by these cytokines, designed ankyrin repeat protein (DARPin) E2_79, a non-immunogenic protein binding human IgE, is secreted in a precisely controlled and reversible manner. Using human whole blood cell culturing, we demonstrate that the mammalian dual T helper 2 cytokine sensor produces sufficient levels of DARPin E2_79 to dampen histamine release in allergic subjects exposed to allergens. Hence, therapeutic gene networks monitoring disease-associated cytokines coupled with in situ production, secretion and systemic delivery of immunomodulatory biologics may foster advances in the treatment of allergies.

The standard treatment for an allergic response is anti-histamines, steroids and anti-IgE antibodies. Here the authors present a genetic circuit that senses IL-4 and IL-13 and responses with DARPin production to bind IgE.

Anti-IL5 therapies for asthma

BACKGROUND

This review is the first update of a previously published review in The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2015). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) is the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which cause airway inflammation and are a classic feature of asthma. Monoclonal antibodies targeting IL-5 or its receptor (IL-5R) have been developed, with recent studies suggesting that they reduce asthma exacerbations, improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and lung function. These are being incorporated into asthma guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of therapies targeting IL-5 signalling (anti-IL-5 or anti-IL-5Rα) with placebo on exacerbations, health-related qualify of life (HRQoL) measures, and lung function in adults and children with chronic asthma, and specifically in those with eosinophilic asthma refractory to existing treatments.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, clinical trials registries, manufacturers' websites, and reference lists of included studies. The most recent search was March 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen studies on 6000 participants met the inclusion criteria. Four used mepolizumab, four used reslizumab, and five used benralizumab. One study in benralizumab was terminated early due to sponsor decision and contributed no data. The studies were predominantly on people with severe eosinophilic asthma, which was similarly but variably defined. Eight included children over 12 years but these results were not reported separately. We deemed the risk of bias to be low, with all studies contributing data being of robust methodology. We considered the quality of the evidence for all comparisons to be high overall using the GRADE scheme, with the exception of intravenous mepolizumab because this is not currently a licensed delivery route.All of the anti-IL-5 treatments assessed reduced rates of 'clinically significant' asthma exacerbation (defined by treatment with systemic corticosteroids for three days or more) by approximately half in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma on standard of care (at least medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)) with poorly controlled disease (either two or more exacerbations in the preceding year or Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 1.5 or more). Non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab also showed a significant reduction in exacerbation rates, but no data were available for non-eosinophilic participants, and mepolizumab or reslizumab.We saw modest improvements in validated HRQoL scores with all anti-IL-5 agents in severe eosinophilic asthma. However these did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference for ACQ and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), with St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) only assessed in two studies. The improvement in HRQoL scores in non-eosinophilic participants treated with benralizumab, the only intervention for which data were available in this subset, was not statistically significant, but the test for subgroup difference was negative.All anti-IL-5 treatments produced a small but statistically significant improvement in mean pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory flow in one second (FEV1) of between 0.08 L and 0.11 L.There were no excess serious adverse events with any anti-IL-5 treatment, and indeed a reduction in favour of mepolizumab that could be due to a beneficial effect on asthma-related serious adverse events. There was no difference compared to placebo in adverse events leading to discontinuation with mepolizumab or reslizumab, but significantly more discontinued benralizumab than placebo, although the absolute numbers were small (36/1599 benralizumab versus 9/998 placebo).Mepolizumab, reslizumab and benralizumab all markedly reduced blood eosinophils, but benralizumab resulted in almost complete depletion, whereas a small number remained with mepolizumab and reslizumab. The implications for efficacy and/or adverse events are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall our study supports the use of anti-IL-5 treatments as an adjunct to standard of care in people with severe eosinophilic asthma and poor control. These treatments roughly halve the rate of asthma exacerbations in this population. There is limited evidence for improved HRQoL scores and lung function, which may not meet clinically detectable levels. There were no safety concerns regarding mepolizumab or reslizumab, and no excess serious adverse events with benralizumab, although there remains a question over adverse events significant enough to prompt discontinuation.Further research is needed on biomarkers for assessing treatment response, optimal duration and long-term effects of treatment, risk of relapse on withdrawal, non-eosinophilic patients, children (particularly under 12 years), and comparing anti-IL-5 treatments to each other and, in people eligible for both, to anti-immunoglobulin E. For benralizumab, future studies should closely monitor rates of adverse events prompting discontinuation.

Pharmacoeconomics of Biologic Therapy

Novel biologic agents have allowed clinicians to achieve improved patient outcomes. Appropriate pharmacoceconomic analyses demand evaluation of all relevant costs, including the treatments, the disease and comorbidities, and costs of alternative treatments, including their short- and long-term side effects. Only with complete data can the value of therapies be correctly estimated. By assessing costs, pharmacoeconomic studies complement studies of efficacy and safety, helping to determine the relationships of treatment and outcome. This article provides a broad framework for understanding and evaluating published economic analyses and identifying the key costs and benefits caring for patients with asthma and other immune diseases.

Targeting patients with asthma for omalizumab therapy: choosing the right patient to get the best value for money

The asthma syndrome has many manifestations, termed phenotypes, that arise by specific cellular and molecular mechanisms, termed endotypes. Understanding an individual's asthma phenotype helps clinicians make rational therapeutic decisions while the understanding of endotypes has led to the development of specific precision medications. Allergic asthma is an example of an asthma phenotype and omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E, is a specific targeted treatment which was developed as a result of an understanding of the endotype of allergic asthma. Omalizumab has been widely used in clinical practice in Europe for over a decade as an add-on therapy to treat patients who have severe refractory allergic asthma. Over this period, many centres have reported their experience with omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma. These 'real world' clinical effectiveness studies have confirmed the benefits, cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of this medication. Combining the outcomes of both sources of research has yielded important insights that may benefit patients with severe asthma, clinicians who treat them, as well as the funding agencies that reimburse the cost of this medication. The purpose of this review is to describe how to identify and evaluate a patient with asthma for whom treatment with omalizumab may be of clinical and cost-effective benefit. The assessment and investigations used to confirm allergic asthma, the objective assessment of adherence to asthma therapy and the expected benefits of add-on omalizumab treatment are described.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe Persistent Asthma in Real Clinical Practice in Spain

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that targets circulating immunoglobulin E molecules to treat severe uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of omalizumab compared with standard treatment for the control of severe persistent asthma according to data from patients treated in a specialized asthma unit.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study in the setting of the Pulmonology and Respiratory Allergy Service, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. Data were collected by review of medical records of 86 uncontrolled severe persistent asthma patients treated with omalizumab from January 2005 to April 2014. Effectiveness was assessed by the reduction in asthma exacerbations and 3-point increases in the Asthma Control Test (ACT) score. The economic evaluation was performed from the societal perspective, including direct health costs (resource use and drug treatments) and indirect costs (disease impact on labor productivity) in 2016 Euros. The time horizon was 12 months before and after the initiation of treatment with omalizumab. Results were expressed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Taking into account only direct costs, the ICERs were €1487.46 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1241.21-1778.34) per exacerbation avoided and €5425.13 (95 % CI 4539.30-6551.03) per 3-point increase in the ACT. When indirect costs were included, the ICERs were €1130.93 (95 % CI 909.08-1392.86) per exacerbation avoided, and €4124.79 (95 % CI 3281.69-5186.73) per 3-point increase in the ACT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma.

Impact of omalizumab on medical cost of childhood asthma in Japan

Omalizumab is effective in children with severe asthma, but its impact on medical cost in Japan is not clear. We evaluated the impact of omalizumab on medical cost by comparing the pre- vs post-omalizumab-initiation medical costs of 12 children with severe asthma who received omalizumab for 2 years, and calculating incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for omalizumab therapy. Health outcome was measured as hospital-free days (HFD). The median total medical costs and medication fee per patient increased significantly after omalizumab initiation because of the high cost of omalizumab. The median hospitalization fee per patient, however, decreased significantly after omalizumab initiation due to reduction in hospitalization. Omalizumab led to an estimated increase of 40.8 HFD per omalizumab responder patient per 2 years. The cost was JPY 20 868 per additional HFD. Omalizumab can therefore reduce hospitalization cost in children with severe asthma in Japan.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty, Omalizumab, and Standard Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. A few studies have suggested the clinical efficacy of this intervention. However, no study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BT compared to other alternative treatments for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, which currently include omalizumab and standard therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in the USA.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model with weekly cycles was developed to reflect the course of asthma progression over a 5-year time horizon. The study population was adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma whose asthma remained uncontrolled despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS, with or without long-acting beta-agonists [LABA]). A perspective of the health-care system was adopted with asthma-related costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and exacerbations as the outcomes.

RESULTS

For standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab, the discounted 5-year costs and QALYs were $15,400 and 3.08, $28,100 and 3.24, and $117,000 and 3.26, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BT versus standard therapy and omalizumab versus BT was $78,700/QALY and $3.86 million/QALY, respectively. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, the probability of BT being cost-effective was 9%, and 67%, respectively. The corresponding expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $155 and $1,530 per individual at these thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, increasing the costs of BT from $14,900 to $30,000 increased its ICER relative to standard therapy to $178,000/QALY, and decreased the ICER of omalizumab relative to BT to $3.06 million/QALY. Reducing the costs of omalizumab by 25% decreased its ICER relative to BT by 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study suggests that there is more than 60% chance that BT becomes cost-effective relative to omalizumab and standard therapy at the WTP of $100,000/QALY in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is a substantial uncertainty in the underlying evidence, indicating the need for future research towards reducing such uncertainty.

Systematic review of models used in economic analyses in moderate-to-severe asthma and COPD

BACKGROUND

Respiratory diseases exert a substantial burden on society, with newer drugs increasingly adding to the burden. Economic models are often used, but seldom reviewed.

PURPOSE

To summarize economic models used in economic analyses of drugs treating moderate-to-severe/very severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This study searched Medline and Embase from inception to the end of February 2015 for cost-effectiveness/utility analyses that examined at least one drug against placebo, another drug, or other standard therapy in asthma or COPD. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data with differences adjudicated via consensus discussion. Data extracted included model used and its qualities, validation methods, treatments compared, disease severity, analytic perspective, time horizon, data collection (pro- or retrospective), input rates and sources, costs and sources, planned sensitivity analyses, criteria for cost-effectiveness, reported outcomes, and sponsor.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 53 articles; 14 (25%) on asthma and 39 (75%) COPD. Markov models were commonly used for both asthma and COPD-related economic evaluations. Relatively few studies validated their model. For asthma-related studies, 10 examined inhaled corticosteroids and nine studied omalizumab. Placebo or standard therapy was the comparison in 11 studies and active drugs in the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies include validation of their models. Furthermore, controversy concerning some results was uncovered in this study, which needs to be avoided in the future.

Comparison of Costs and Clinical Outcomes Between Hospital and Outpatient Administration of Omalizumab in Patients With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical outcomes and costs between two administration strategies of omalizumab treatment.

METHOD

We evaluated two cohorts of patients with uncontrolled severe asthma over a 1-year period. Patients received the treatment in the primary care center in Hospital A and conventional hospital administration in Hospital B.

RESULTS

We studied 130 patients, 86 in Hospital A and 44 in Hospital B, 30 men (24%) and 100 women (76%), age 50 ± 15 years, FEV1% 67 ± 22%, body mass index (BMI) 28 ± 6 kg/m(2), 639 ± 747 UI IgE/mL, followed for 24 ± 11 months (12-45), Asthma Control Test (ACT) score 12 ± 4 and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) 3 ± 2. There were no significant pretreatment differences between the groups in hospital admissions and emergency room visits in the previous year, nor in proportion of patients receiving oral steroids. Evaluations were performed at baseline and after 12 months of treatment, revealing significant differences in ACT (P<0.001), ACQ (P<0.001), improvement in FEV1% (P<0.001), reduction in total admissions (P<0.001), days of hospitalization (P<0.001), emergency room visits (P<0.001), cycles and doses of oral steroids (P<0.001) compared to the previous year. Hospitalization costs, emergency room visits, unscheduled visits to primary care and to the pulmonologist were significantly reduced in each hospital and on the whole, but administration and travel costs were 35% lower in the ambulatory strategy adopted in Hospital A.

CONCLUSION

The administration of omalizumab in ambulatory health centers achieved the same clinical results as a hospital administration strategy, but with lower costs.

Omalizumab therapy for children and adolescents with severe allergic asthma

Omalizumab, a therapeutic humanized monoclonal antibody specific for human IgE, was introduced in clinical practice more than a decade ago as an add-on therapy for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in patients aged ≥12 years. Omalizumab has been demonstrated to be effective in adults with uncontrolled persistent asthma, with an excellent safety profile. In simple terms, omalizumab works by inhibiting the allergic cascade, that is, by neutralization of the circulating free IgE. This leads to reduction in the quantity of cell-bound IgE, downregulation of high-affinity IgE receptors, and, eventually, prevention of mediator release from effector cells. Evidence is far less abundant on the role of omalizumab in pediatric asthma. Although efficacy and safety of omalizumab in children and adolescents with uncontrolled, persistent allergic asthma has been recognized as well, further studies are needed to clarify a number of open questions in this specific patient population.

Mepolizumab versus placebo for asthma

BACKGROUND

Mepolizumab is a human monoclonal antibody against interleukin-5 (IL-5), the main cytokine involved in the activation of eosinophils, which in turn causes airway inflammation. Recent studies have suggested these agents may have a role in reducing exacerbations and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There are no recommendations for the use of mepolizumab in adults or children in the recent update of the BTS/SIGN guidelines (BTS/SIGN 2014).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of mepolizumab with placebo on exacerbations and HRQoL in adults and children with chronic asthma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register (CAGR) of trials, clinical trial registries, manufacturers' websites and the reference lists of included studies. Searches were conducted in November 2013 and updated in November 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing mepolizumab versus placebo in adults and children with asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and analysed outcomes using a random-effects model. We used standard methods expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies on 1707 participants met the inclusion criteria. Only two studies included children (over 12 years of age), but they did not report separate findings for the adolescents. Seven studies involved intravenous mepolizumab alone; one included a subcutaneous arm. There was heterogeneity in the severity and clinical pattern of asthma among the participants in the eight studies, varying from mild to moderate atopic asthma, to persistent asthma and eosinophilic asthma with recurrent exacerbations. Selection bias was a concern in several of the studies included in this review.Four trials compared intravenous mepolizumab to placebo in relation to HRQoL. Two studies measured scores from the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), which showed a non-significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.01 to 0.44; participants = 682), in the direction favouring mepolizumab. The third study used the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and found a significant difference between mepolizumab and placebo (MD 6.40, 95% CI 3.15 to 9.65; participants = 576), which indicated a clinically important benefit favouring mepolizumab. A fourth study noted that there was no significant difference but did not provide any data. The two studies in people with eosinophilic asthma showed a reduction in clinically significant exacerbation rates (Risk Ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.64; participants = 690). However, an analysis of four studies that were not confined to people with eosinophilic asthma indicated considerable heterogeneity and no significant difference in people with one or more exacerbations between mepolizumab and placebo using a random-effects model (Risk Ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31; participants = 468; I(2) = 59%).The analysis of serious adverse events indicated a significant difference favouring mepolizumab (Risk ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.80; participants = 1441; studies = 5; I(2) = 0%). It was not possible to combine the results for adverse events, and we deemed the quality of this evidence to be low.A single study compared subcutaneous mepolizumab to placebo in 385 adults with severe eosinophilic asthma and found an improvement in HRQoL scores and a reduction in asthma exacerbations, including exacerbations requiring admission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not possible to draw firm conclusions from this review with respect to the role of mepolizumab in patients with asthma. Our confidence in the results of this review are limited by the fact that the intravenous route is not currently licensed for mepolizumab, and the evidence for the currently licenced subcutaneous route is limited to a single study in participants with severe eosinophilic asthma.The currently available studies provide evidence that mepolizumab can lead to an improvement in health-related quality of life scores and reduce asthma exacerbations in people with severe eosinophilic asthma.Further research is needed to clarify which subgroups of patients with asthma could potentially benefit from this treatment. Dosage, ideal dosing regimens and duration of treatment need to be clarified, as the studies included in this review differed in their protocols. There are no studies reporting results from children, so we cannot comment on treatment for this age group. At the present time, larger studies using licenced treatment regimens are required to establish the role of mepolizumab in the treatment of severe asthma.

Cost-effectiveness of asthma therapy: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Asthma has an important impact in terms of both direct and indirect costs. In Europe, the disease costs € 19 000 million a year. Moreover, the cost is greater among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and is even higher when the work productivity is also taken into account. Improved control of the disease results in cost savings. In this context, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies offer important information for clinicians in deciding the best treatment options for asthmatic patients and contribute to ensure an efficient use of the available healthcare resources.

METHODS

An English and Spanish literature search using electronic search engines (PubMed and EMBASE) was conducted in peer-review journals, from 2009 to June 2014. In order to perform the search for the most suitable and representative articles, key words were selected ("asthma", "cost-effectiveness", "cost-utility", "QALY", "cost-benefit", "economic impact of asthma" "healthcare cost", "asthma treatment" and "work productivity with asthma").

RESULTS

Two-hundred forty-three titles and abstracts were identified by the primary literature search. The full text of the potentially 76 eligible papers was reviewed, and 22 articles were qualified to be finally included.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides a comprehensive review on the evidence of cost-effectiveness of asthma treatments derived from the published literature and offers an overall summary of the socioeconomic burden of asthma and its relationship with the degree of disease control. Management alternatives, such as the use of combination therapy with ICS/LABA or omalizumab, when administered according to their current therapeutic indications, have been shown to be cost-effective.

The discovery and development of omalizumab for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The evolution in immunological methods used to assess human allergic diseases has led to the identification of immunoglobulin E (IgE) as a diagnostic biomarker and a potential therapeutic target. Innovative technologies in molecular biology and immunogenetics contributed to the development of a selective blocking agent, disclosing new therapeutic perspectives in the treatment of allergic asthma. Omalizumab is the most advanced humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody that specifically binds serum-free IgE. Omalizumab also interrupts the allergic cascade by preventing binding of IgE with FcεRI receptors on mast cells, basophils, antigen-presenting cells and other inflammatory cells.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the discovery strategy and preclinical development of omalizumab. Furthermore, it also provides a clinical overview of the key trials leading to its launch and a detailed analysis of safety and post-marketing data.

EXPERT OPINION

The clinical efficacy of omalizumab in allergic asthma has been well documented in clinical trials, involving adults, adolescents and children with moderate-to-severe and severe allergic asthma. To date, omalizumab has also been approved in chronic idiopathic urticaria for patients 12 years and older who remain symptomatic despite high dosages of H1 antihistamines. Omalizumab has also been investigated in many other different patient populations beyond allergic asthma and may yet have an application to other indications. While omalizumab is the only mAb available for treating allergic asthma, the authors anticipate that new mAbs will emerge in the future that overcome omalizumab's current limitations.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, limited information is available to clinicians regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab treatment for allergic asthma. In this report, we aimed to (i) systematically review the evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma, and to (ii) discuss the cost-effectiveness evidence published for omalizumab in this patient population. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥52 weeks) was performed, and six studies met our final inclusion criteria (n = 2,749). Omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in quality of life and the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness. Omalizumab also allowed patients to completely withdraw from inhaled corticosteroid therapy and did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events. However, there was insufficient evidence that omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, and the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab varied across studies. Our data indicated that omalizumab use for at least 52 weeks in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma was accompanied by an acceptable safety profile, but it lacked effect on the asthma exacerbations. Use of omalizumab was associated with a higher cost than conventional therapy, but these increases may be cost-effective if the medication is used in patients with severe allergic asthma.

Optimizing the position and use of omalizumab for severe persistent allergic asthma using cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

There has been some controversy on whether the costs of omalizumab outweigh its benefits for severe persistent allergic asthma.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to resolve the uncertainties and limitations of previous analyses and establish the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab under the list price and Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discounted price for the UK National Health Service.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of omalizumab under the perspective of the National Health Service. Outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Patient subgroups were defined post hoc on the basis of data collected in clinical trials: previous hospitalization, on maintenance oral corticosteroids, and three or more previous exacerbations.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from £30,109 to £57,557 per QALY gained depending on the population considered using the PAS price; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were over a third higher using the list price. Omalizumab is likely to be cost-effective at the threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained in the severe subgroups if the improvement in health-related quality of life from omalizumab is mapped from an asthma-specific measure to the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (vs. the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire directly collected from patients) or asthma mortality refers to death after hospitalization from asthma (vs. asthma-mortality risk in the community).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab is more favorable under the PAS price, it represents good value for money only in severe subgroups and under optimistic assumptions regarding asthma mortality and improvement in health-related quality of life. For these reasons, omalizumab should be carefully targeted to ensure value for money.

Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents

Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics.

Methotrexate as an oral corticosteroid-sparing agent in severe asthma: the emergence of a responder asthma endotype

Background

Sustained use of oral corticosteroids is associated with significant side effects. It is therefore of interest to find a corticosteroid-sparing agent. In two meta-analyses, methotrexate resulted in a rather small reduction in the oral corticosteroid maintenance dose. We have used methotrexate as an oral corticosteroid-sparing agent in consecutive patients with severe bronchial asthma and find a need for a real-life observational study to evaluate the effect of methotrexate in clinical practice.

Methods

We analyzed the clinical data of 13 oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma patients with a mean prednisolone dose of 15 mg/day for up to 8 years. The diagnosis of asthma based on the clinical history, positive bronchodilator reversibility test, and variable airflow obstruction was secured by bronchial biopsies in all patients. We reviewed the literature and found 12 studies evaluating methotrexate as an oral corticosteroid-sparing agent in severe asthma and calculated the mean daily reduction in mg of prednisolone.

Results

Oral corticosteroids could be reduced in 8/13 patients, 61.5% (mean reduction 9.0 mg/day), and stopped in six of these patients. Five patients had no reduction and remained oral corticosteroid-dependent. Patients with the highest oral corticosteroid doses experienced the greatest reductions. Two patients stopped methotrexate due to side effects. FEV1 remained unaffected by methotrexate treatment and corticosteroid reduction.

Conclusions

Methotrexate has significant oral corticosteroid-sparing effect while maintaining an unaltered asthma control and spirometry. Methotrexate seems an effective oral corticosteroid-sparing agent in a significant proportion of patients with severe asthma. The specific asthma phenotype/endotype that responds needs further study.

The "e" in cost-effectiveness analyses. A case study of omalizumab efficacy and effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analysis evidence

This article is a call for increased use of real-world evidence in health technology assessment and related policy and decision making. There is currently a disconnect between evidence used to guide regulatory approval of therapies and evidence used to inform therapeutic coverage and reimbursement decisions. Public and private payers need to understand not only whether an intervention works but also whether it offers good value compared with licensed alternatives (not placebo) as they are used in the real-world practice and population (not in a controlled trial environment). Addressing such concerns requires evidence to be drawn from a wide range of study designs, but with consideration and weighting given to their relative strengths and weaknesses, as well as their position on the pragmatic-explanatory (i.e., effectiveness-efficacy) continuum. The potential impact of using different types of evidence to inform cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is discussed for omalizumab, comparing and contrasting a CEA model informed by an omalizumab efficacy trial to a CEA model drawing primarily on evidence from effectiveness observational studies of omalizumab. There was reasonable agreement between the two omalizumab CEA models, although the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio generated by the effectiveness observational study-driven model was more favorable for omalizumab. Health technology assessment bodies and payers must use their judgment to determine which components of efficacy-based and effectiveness-based CEA evidence are most closely aligned with their goals. For each CEA evidence component, perhaps the two E's form bounds of the truth as well as a fuller picture of the uncertainty surrounding the truth.

A budget impact analysis of bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Fully 80% of asthma-related deaths occur in patients with uncontrolled disease and 50% of all costs are attributable to this subgroup. Although asthma is costly, direct costs and loss of productivity have only recently been extensively studied, partly as a result of the introduction of new and more costly treatment options. A 5-year population-based budget impact model in the perspective of the Emilia Romagna of Italy regional healthcare service compared the impact of adding adjuvant bronchial thermoplasty (BT) for a population of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma treated with standard care (SC) with or without adjuvant omalizumab (OMAL).

METHODS

The model compared the budget impact of two scenarios: the first examined a population treated either with SC alone or with administration of OMAL concurrent to SC; the second examined a population treated either with SC alone or with either the concurrent administration of OMAL or BT.

RESULTS

The cost for treating asthmatics patients in Emilia Romagna with BT would require 17.7 million Euros during the initial year; these costs would be offset by savings of 1 million Euros, 10.5 million Euros, and up to 19.2 million Euros during third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite the increase in direct costs, the complementary treatment of patients with either BT or OMAL in addition to SC may not only help the clinician to meet the needs of a greater number of patients, but also decreases emergency room visits and hospitalizations, as well as generates economic savings in the longer term.

Loss of asthma control after cessation of omalizumab treatment: real life data

INTRODUCTION

Many clinical and observational studies have demonstrated effectiveness of omalizumab (OMA) in the treatment of severe asthma, but the optimal duration of the therapy remains unknown.

AIM

The article presents the authors' clinical experience on OMA cessation in routine practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Due to new reimbursement criteria, OMA therapy has been interrupted in 11 subjects (6 women/5 men). The mean age of patients was 50.73 ±14.16 years, the mean time of severe asthma duration was 13.54 ±6.05 years. All of them had an excellent/good response to OMA. The duration of OMA therapy was 67.73 ±11.64 months.

RESULTS

Nine out of 11 patients had severe asthma exacerbation within the first 5 months after the OMA withdrawal. The mean time to the first severe exacerbation was 7.56 ±2.67 weeks. Between the time of OMA cessation and the time of reassessment, the mean score of Asthma Control Questionnaire increased from 2.58 ±0.71 to 3.63 ±1.26 points and the mean score of Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire decreased from 4.3 ±1.91 to 3.18 ±1.17 points. The mean oral corticosteroids (OCS) dose increased from 4.61 ±3.0 mg/day to 33.33 ±13.12 mg/day. The number of exacerbations within the last 12 months increased from 1.6 ±0.67 to 5.2 ±1.4, and the number of hospitalizations or emergency room (ER) attendence increased from 0.11 ±0.31 to 1.56 ±1.26.

CONCLUSIONS

These data indicate that the withdrawal of OMA therapy after the successful long-term therapy may cause severe asthma exacerbations. Therefore, the decision regarding cessation of OMA treatment should be undertaken individually after careful weighing benefits and risks, especially in patients with a long history of severe asthma, treated with high doses of OCS before OMA introduction, near-fatal asthma events and/or aggravation of asthma during previous episodes of interruptions in OMA treatment.

Eligibility for treatment with omalizumab in Italy and Germany

Omalizumab is an add-on therapy for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. In Europe, patients must fulfil a number of additional criteria to become eligible for omalizumab therapy, creating a challenge for epidemiology studies to quantify the potential patient pool. Thus, and in the absence of robust data, the number of omalizumab-eligible patients has remained unclear. To assess eligible patient numbers, a chart-audit design approach was employed to measure epidemiology variables based on patient-level data. 770 patient charts were reviewed in designated towns in Germany and Italy, in collaboration with >200 primary care physicians (PCPs) and respiratory specialists (RS). This study sample represents >50% and >70% of local RS in these designated towns of Germany and Italy, respectively. Of patient charts evaluated, 4 patients were currently receiving omalizumab. A further 31 patients (12 PCP; 19 RS) were evaluated as omalizumab-eligible (i.e. fulfilled all product label criteria) but were not receiving the drug. Extrapolating to a national level, this yields >6500 eligible patients in Germany, and >3200 in Italy. Furthermore, this study sample revealed a significant number of PCPs treating uncontrolled severe asthma patients without referral to RS; these patients are not consistently evaluated for FEV1, aero-allergen sensitivity, a qualitative understanding of severe exacerbations, and day and night-time symptoms. This study suggests that significant numbers of omalizumab-naïve severe allergic asthma patients in Germany/Italy are eligible for omalizumab therapy. Despite proven benefits in uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, adjunctive omalizumab therapy is underutilized.

Newer treatments in the management of pediatric asthma

Asthma control remains a significant challenge in the pediatric age range in which ongoing loss of lung function in children with persistent asthma has been reported, despite the use of regular preventer therapy. This has important implications for observed mortality and morbidity during adulthood. Over the past decade, there has been an emergence of other treatment adjuncts, such as anti-Immunoglobulin E (IgE)-directed therapy, low dose theophylline, and the use of macrolide antibiotics, yet their exact role in asthma management remains unclear, despite omalizumab now being incorporated into several international asthma guidelines. As with many aspects of pediatric care, this is driven by a lack of appropriately designed pediatric trials. Extrapolation of data reported in adult studies may be appropriate for adolescent asthma, but is not for younger age groups, in which important pathophysiological differences exist. Novel drugs under development offer potential for benefit in the future, but to date existing data are in most cases limited to adults. Pediatric asthma also offers unique potential to prevent or modify the underlying pathophysiology. Although attempts to do so have been unsuccessful to date, advances may yet come from this approach, as our understanding about the interaction between genetics, environmental factors, and viral illness improve. This review provides an overview of the newer treatment options available for management of pediatric asthma and discusses the merits of other novel therapies in development, as we search to optimize management and improve future outcomes.

A study into efficacy of omalizumab therapy in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma at a tertiary referral centre for asthma in Ireland

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic airway disease characterized by airway inflammation, bronchial hyperresponsiveness and airflow obstruction. Patients with persistent symptoms despite maximum standard treatment as per Global Initiative of Asthma guidelines are considered to have severe persistent asthma. Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody licenced for use as an add-on therapy in these patients.

AIM

To assess the clinical benefit amongst responders to omalizumab therapy at a tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

This was a retrospective audit assessing the effect of omalizumab therapy on asthma control, frequency of exacerbation and hospitalization rates over 6 months before and after therapy.

RESULTS

The study included 30 responders (14 females). There was a reduction in exacerbation and hospitalization rates following initiation of omalizumab, 73 and 91%, respectively (P-value < 0.0001). The number of exacerbations decreased from 3.48 ± 2.20 to 0.93 ± 0.83 and the mean number of admissions decreased from 1.07 ± 1.1 to 0.1 ± 0.40 over the study duration (P < 0.001). There was 73% reduction in the weekly need for rescue salbutamol therapy with mean of 30.33 ± 6.49 puffs to 8.23 ± 1.51 puffs after omalizumab therapy (P < 0.0001). Seventy-nine per cent of patients were able to reduce their maintenance oral corticosteroid therapy.

CONCLUSION

Overall, responders to omalizumab therapy are less likely to experience an asthma exacerbation and hospitalization. They were also more likely to reduce maintenance corticosteroid therapy and the need for rescue reliever therapy. These data suggest that omalizumab has proven effective in improving health outcomes for a cohort of carefully selected patients with severe allergic asthma in Ireland.

Novel therapies in asthma: leukotriene antagonists, biologic agents, and beyond

Asthma is one of the most common conditions seen in clinical practice and carries both a significant disease burden in terms of patient morbidity and a high economic burden in both direct and indirect costs. Despite this, it remains a comparatively poorly understood disease, with only modest advances in treatment over the past decade. Corticosteroids remain the cornerstone of therapy. Both patient compliance with medications and physician adherence to evidence-based guidelines are often poor, and a high percentage of patients continue to have inadequately controlled disease even with optimal therapy. Following a contextual overview of the current treatment guidelines, this review focuses on novel asthma therapies, beginning with the introduction of the leukotriene receptor antagonist zafirlukast in the 1990s, continuing through advanced endoscopic therapy and into cytokine-directed biologic agents currently in development. Along with clinically relevant biochemistry and pharmacology, the evidence supporting the place of these therapies in current guidelines will be highlighted along with data comparing these agents with more conventional treatment. A brief discussion of other drugs, such as those developed for unrelated conditions and subsequently examined as potential asthma therapies, is included.

Difficult-to-treat asthma in childhood

Asthma continues to be one of the greatest burdens to healthcare resources throughout the developed world. In most cases, good symptom control can be achieved with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids, and can be cared for in the primary and secondary healthcare systems. However, there is a group in whom control is not achieved despite high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and maximal add-on therapies; these are children with problematic severe asthma that should be referred to a specialist team for further investigation and management. In this review we aimed to provide an evidence-based guide for pediatricians providing care for children with asthma in secondary healthcare settings. The review focuses on a proposed investigation and management strategy for children aged between 6 and 16 years with problematic severe asthma, and is supported as far as possible by evidence from the literature. We first address recent advances in nomenclature and then discuss our proposed course of investigation and management of these children. Distinction of children with true, severe, therapy-resistant asthma from those with asthma that is difficult to treat because of unaddressed underlying modifiable factors is critical and is discussed in detail.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for the Treatment of Severe Asthma in Japan and the Value of Responder Prediction Methods Based on a Multinational Trial

OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab improves health outcomes for patients with severe asthma. The purpose of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis of omalizumab from a societal perspective by using the results from a randomized controlled trial in Japan, and explore the efficient use of omalizumab.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model to compare omalizumab add-on therapy with standard therapy. Patients transitioned between symptom-free, day-to-day, and exacerbation states. Our model had a lifetime horizon in which 5-year omalizumab add-on therapy was followed by standard therapy. Preference-based utilities were extracted from another study. We estimated the expected value of perfect information for patients' response to omalizumab.

RESULTS

In the base case, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for omalizumab add-on therapy was US $755,200 (95% credible interval [CI] $614,200-$1,298,500) per quality-adjusted life-year gained, compared with standard therapy alone. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to asthma-related mortality, exacerbation risk, and omalizumab cost. The ICER for a responder subgroup was 22% lower than that in the base case. Individual and population expected value of perfect informations for the response were $4100 (95% CI $2500-$6000) and $28 million (95% CI $17 million-$42 million) per year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

With a willingness-to-pay of $45,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, omalizumab was not cost-effective in Japan. Confining omalizumab therapy to previously predicted responders, however, may be a reasonable strategy to reduce the ICER, as the cost-effectiveness was observed to improve for these patients. Further studies should be conducted to explore responder prediction methods. Decreasing the price of omalizumab would improve cost-effectiveness.

Anti-immunoglobulin e therapy

The importance of immunoglobulin E (IgE) in atopic disorders such as asthma, allergic rhinitis, food allergies, and atopic dermatitis is well established. Elevation of total serum IgE is typically found in many atopic patients, and in predisposed individuals, allergen-specific IgE is produced. The availability of humanized monoclonal antibodies against IgE has provided a new therapeutic option and tool to explore the role IgE in allergic diseases and the effects of inhibiting IgE itself. Omalizumab is a humanized, monoclonal antibody that recognizes and binds to the Fc portion of the IgE molecule. Administration of omalizumab results in a rapid and substantial decrease in free IgE in serum. Consequently, the activity of cell populations involved in allergic inflammation, including mast cells, eosinophils, basophils, and antigen-presenting cells, is affected as well. Clinically, anti-IgE therapy has already been proven to be useful in the treatment of asthma and allergic rhinitis. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the mechanisms of action of anti-IgE therapy as well as its efficacy in the treatment of allergic diseases, especially asthma. Considerations regarding dosing and safety of omalizumab will be addressed as well.