WITHDRAWN: Pairwise indirect treatment comparison of dupilumab versus other biologics in patients with uncontrolled persistent asthma

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dupilumab versus omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab added to the standard of care in adults with severe asthma in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness studies evaluate health technologies and help choose treatments. The current study compared dupilumab to omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab in Colombian adults with severe uncontrolled type 2 asthma.

METHODS

Over a 5-year period, a Markov model was utilized to assess the costs of biological treatments and management of exacerbations, comparing various doses of exacerbations, comparing various doses of dupilumab, omalizumab, mepolizumab, and benralizumab as add-on treatments. It included a 5% annual discount rate per local HTA, and set willingness-to-pay at three times GDP per capita per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in Colombia.

RESULTS

Dupilumab (200 mg) exhibited greater QALYs and reduced overall costs compared to mepolizumab (100 mg), benralizumab (30 mg), and omalizumab (450 mg and 600 mg), with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALYgained being -$5.429, -$6.269, -$196.567 and -$991.007, respectively. Dupilumab had greater QALYs and costs versus omalizumab 300 mg (ICERof $200.653 per QALY, above the willingness-to-pay threshold of 3 × GDP per capita). Sensitivity analyses were consistent with base case results.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab 200 mg was strongly dominant versus omalizumab 450 mg and 600 mg, mepolizumab 100 mg, and benralizumab 30 mg; however, cost-effectiveness was not demonstrated versus omalizumab 300 mg. These results could assist healthcare professionals in choosing an appropriate biologic for treating severe type 2 asthma.

Controversies in Allergy: Choosing a Biologic for Patients with Severe Asthma

The availability of a range of new biological treatments targeting type-2 inflammation has provided new opportunities for patients with more severe asthma. Treatment has a bigger effect on exacerbations than day-to-day symptoms, and efficacy increases with increasing intensity of type-2 airway inflammation as reflected by the blood eosinophil count and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. The similarity of the clinical effects and target populations coupled with the absence of direct head-to-head comparative data makes it difficult to choose the right biologic for a given patient. In this review, we summarize the key efficacy data from phase 3 trials; discuss indirect comparisons; review clinical and laboratory variables that may be associated with a differential response to treatment; outline practical considerations that might be important to individual patients; and suggest an algorithm for choosing the most appropriate biologic to start with and the first choice to switch to.

Tezepelumab compared with other biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

AIMS

To compare the efficacy of tezepelumab with other approved biologics via indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) in patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe uncontrolled asthma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from a systematic literature review were synthesized using two different ITC approaches: network meta-analysis (NMA) and simulated treatment comparison (STC). Outcomes of interest were annualized asthma exacerbation rate (AAER) and AAER for exacerbations leading to hospitalization. To address potential heterogeneity between study populations, various subgroup analyses were performed for the NMA (based on blood eosinophil count, fractional exhaled nitric oxide level, and presence of allergic asthma), and for the STC, models were adjusted for potential treatment effect modifiers. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of study design (exclusion of non-placebo-controlled studies and non-phase 3 or 4 studies). Results were reported as rate ratios (RRs) with 95% credible/confidence intervals and ranking statistics were computed for the NMAs.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included in at least one of the ITCs. All biologics (tezepelumab, dupilumab, benralizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab) had similar efficacy, with no statistically significant RRs for either exacerbation outcome; however, tezepelumab was favorably associated with numerically lower AAERs and was ranked first in the network for both types of exacerbation outcome. This trend was consistent in the subgroup and sensitivity analyses. As with the primary NMA, the STC results did not demonstrate any significant differences between biologics, but point estimates were favorable towards tezepelumab.

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity between trials was observed among eligibility criteria and clinically important patient characteristics; however, the impact on findings is expected to be low, based on consistency across analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from both ITCs (NMA and STC) support the use of tezepelumab in a broad patient population of severe uncontrolled asthma of any phenotype.