Economic impact of severe asthma in Spain: multicentre observational longitudinal study

The economic burden of asthma prior to death: a nationwide descriptive study

Background

In addition to the clinical burden, asthma is responsible for a high economic burden. However, little is known about the economic burden of asthma prior to death.

Objective

We performed an economic analysis to describe the costs during 12 and 24 months prior to asthma death between 2013 and 2017 in France.

Methods

An observational cohort study was established using the French national health insurance database. Direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as costs related to absence from the workplace, were included in the analysis.

Results

In total, 3,829 patients were included in the final analysis. Over 24 and 12 months prior to death, total medical costs per patient were €27,542 [26,545-28,641] and €16,815 [16,164-17,545], respectively. Total medical costs clearly increased over 24 months prior to death. Over 12 months prior to death, costs increased significantly according to age categories, with mean total costs of €8,592, €15,038, and €17,845, respectively, for the categories <18 years old, 18-75 years old, and 75+ years old (p < 0.0001). Over 12 months prior to death, costs were statistically higher in patients with a dispensation of six or more SABA canisters compared to those with a dispensation of five or less canisters (p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, comorbidities, hospital as location of death, and dispensation of 12 or more canisters of SABA per year are independent factors of the highest costs.

Conclusion

To conclude, the economic burden of asthma death is high and increases with time, age, and SABA dispensation.

Cost-effectiveness and resource use analysis of patients with asthma before and after treatment with mepolizumab in a real-life setting

OBJECTIVE

To define the cost-effectiveness and health resource use of mepolizumab in a cohort of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in real-life conditions in Spain.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective, single-center study. Patients included were diagnosed with severe eosinophilic asthma and treated with mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneous (SC) 4-weekly for 12 months. Outcomes evaluated: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), number of exacerbations, disease control with the Asthma Control Test (ACT), Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), and direct and indirect cost per patient.

RESULTS

12 months after mepolizumab initiation, a significant decrease in exacerbations was shown, from a mean (standard deviation [SD]) of 3.1 (2.6) to 0.7 (1.5), an increase from 4.9 (0.4) to 6.1 (0.5) in AQLQ, and from 14.9 (5.7) to 21.5 (3.9) in ACT scores. The number of cortico-dependent patients significantly decreased from 53.3% to 13.3% during this period. There was a significant decrease of 94% in the cost of hospitalization, from a mean (SD) of €4063.9 (5423.9) pretreatment to €238.6 (1306.9) post-treatment (p = 0.0003). Total costs decreased significantly from a median of €2,423.1 (1,512.8; 9,320.9) pretreatment to €1,177.5 (965.0; 1,737.8) post-treatment if mepolizumab was excluded. ICER per exacerbation avoided was €3606.9, per 3-point ACT score increase €3934.8, and per 0.5-point AQLQ score increase €3606.9.

CONCLUSIONS

Mepolizumab improves control of asthma and quality of life in patients with severe diseases in a cost-effectiveness range. The number of exacerbations decreased, and there was a clear reduction in primary care visits and hospitalizations. Further economic analyses of biological therapies for asthma are required.

A cross-sectional study to evaluate utility measure and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma in Spain

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The utility measure is a method to quantify health-related quality of life according to the preference values that patients attach to their health status. This study aimed to estimate the utility measure of patients with controlled and uncontrolled severe asthma (SA) in Spain, separately. Additionally, other characteristics (sociodemographic, clinical, and healthcare resource use [HCRU]) were also assessed for both SA populations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 159 patients with SA in Spain. Data were collected from medical records and directly from the patients during the study visit. Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 was used to classify patients with controlled and uncontrolled SA.

RESULTS

Most of the patients were female (72.0% uncontrolled SA and 63.6% controlled SA). The mean (SD) EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) score was 0.88 (0.14) and 0.70 (0.25) in controlled and uncontrolled SA, respectively. The mean (SD) Asthma Quality-of-Life-5D (AQL-5D) score was 0.93 (0.09) and 0.85 (0.09) in controlled and uncontrolled SA, respectively. Emergency visits (19.2 vs. 2.7%) and hospitalizations (7.7% vs. no hospitalization) were more common among uncontrolled SA than controlled SA. Mean (SD) number of visits to primary care and pneumologists in uncontrolled SA vs. controlled SA was 4.1 (2.8) vs. 2.5 (3.0) and 3.7 (3.5) vs. 2.8 (2.2), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The study provides data on utility measures among patients with SA in Spain for the first time. Patients with uncontrolled SA had lower HRQoL and higher HCRU than patients with controlled SA. Therefore, the implementation of measures that improve HRQoL among patients with uncontrolled SA is highly recommended.

Comprehensive Observational Study in a Large Cohort of Asthma Patients after Adding LAMA to ICS/LABA

INTRODUCTION

Adding LAMA to LABA/ICS is recommended to improve control in patients with persistent asthma.

METHODS

This observational, retrospective, before-and-after study considered patients diagnosed with asthma who started LABA/ICS + LAMA treatment (triple therapy, TT) between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 and had been treated with LABA/ICS (dual therapy, DT) in the year before. Changes in lung function and exacerbation rates, healthcare resource utilization, and healthcare and non-healthcare costs (€2019) were estimated in patients with asthma in clinical practices in Spain. Data from computerized medical records from seven Spanish regions were collected ±1 year of LAMA addition.

RESULTS

4740 patients (64.1 years old [SD: 16.3]) were included. TT reduced the incidence of exacerbations by 16.7% (p < 0.044) and the number of patients with exacerbations by 8.5% (p < 0.001) compared to previous DT. The rate of patients with severe exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids and their hospitalization rates significantly decreased by 22.5% and 29.5%. TT significantly improved FEV1, FVC, and FEV1/FVC, saving €571/patient for society. Younger patients with asthma (18-44 years old) and patients with severe asthma (FEV1 < 60%) performed better upon the initiation of TT.

CONCLUSIONS

TT reduced asthma exacerbations, improved lung function and reduced healthcare costs vs. DT, particularly in patients requiring systemic corticosteroids to treat severe exacerbations.

Treatment Patterns of Monoclonal Antibodies in Patients With Severe Uncontrolled Asthma Treated by Pulmonologists in Spain

Introduction and objectives

The use of monoclonal antibody (mAb)-based therapies is becoming the new standard of care for severe uncontrolled asthma (SUA). Even though patients may qualify for one or more of these targeted treatments, based on different clinical criteria, a global vision of mAb prescription management in a large sample of hospitals is not well characterised in Spain.The objective was to give a global vision of mAb prescription management in a large sample of hospitals in Spain.

Materials and methods

We used an aggregate data survey method to interview pulmonology specialists in a large sample of Spanish centres (90). The following treatment-related information was obtained on patients treated with mAbs: specific mAbs prescribed, treatment interruption, switch and restart and the reasons for these treatment changes.

Results

mAb prescription was more frequent in females (13.3% females vs 7.4% males; p < 0.001). There were no differences in prevalence by hospital complexity level. In contrast, there were differences by geographical area. Omalizumab was the most prescribed mAb (6.2%), followed by mepolizumab (2.9%). Discontinuation of Omalizumab (due to a lack of effectivity) and switches from this mAb to mepolizumab were more frequent. Very few restarts to the first treatment were observed after a switch from ≥2 mAbs.

Conclusions

Omalizumab appeared as the most prescribed mAb in SUA but was also the most withdrawn; a specific and objective characterisation of patients with SUA, along with asthma phenotyping, and together with further evaluation of safety and effectiveness profiles, will lead to future progress in the management of SUA with mAbs.

Advances in the work of multidisciplinary teams for the care of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. A post-COVID vision (TEAM 2.0 project)

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease with a high health, social and economic impact, particularly in the case of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA). For this reason, new strategies are especially necessary to improve its approach, with a personalized approach to each patient and from a multidisciplinary perspective, in addition to integrating the new telemedicine and telepharmacy practices promoted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, the TEAM 2.0 project ("Work in Multidisciplinary Asthma Teams") has been developed, following the TEAM project carried out in 2019, with the aim of updating and prioritizing good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA in a post pandemic context and analyze the progress made. A coordinating group, made up of eight multidisciplinary teams of hospital pharmacists, pulmonologists, and allergists, carried out an updated bibliographic review, sharing of good multidisciplinary practices, and analysis of advances. Through five regional meetings with other experts with experience in SUA, the good practices identified were shared and subjected to debate, evaluation and prioritization. In total, 23 good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA, grouped into five work areas: 1) Organization of work in multidisciplinary teams, 2) Patient education, self-management and adherence, 3) Health results, data monitoring and persistence, 4) Telepharmacy and experiences implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5) Training and research, were evaluated and prioritized by 57 professionals from the field of Hospital Pharmacy, Pulmonology, Allergology and Nursing. This work has made it possible to update the roadmap of priority actions to continue advancing in optimal models of care for patients with AGNC in a post-COVID-19 context.

[Translated article] Advances in the work of multidisciplinary teams for the care of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma. A post-COVID vision (TEAM 2.0 project)

Asthma is a chronic respiratory disease with a high health, social and economic impact, particularly in the case of Severe Uncontrolled Asthma (SUA). For this reason, new strategies are especially necessary to improve its approach, with a personalized approach to each patient and from a multidisciplinary perspective, in addition to integrating the new telemedicine and telepharmacy practices promoted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this context, the TEAM 2.0 project ("Work in Multidisciplinary Asthma Teams") has been developed, following the TEAM project carried out in 2019, with the aim of updating and prioritizing good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA in a post pandemic context and analyze the progress made. A coordinating group, made up of eight multidisciplinary teams of hospital pharmacists, pulmonologists, and allergists, carried out an updated bibliographic review, sharing of good multidisciplinary practices, and analysis of advances. Through five regional meetings with other experts with experience in SUA, the good practices identified were shared and subjected to debate, evaluation and prioritization. In total, 23 good multidisciplinary work practices in SUA, grouped into five work areas: 1) Organization of work in multidisciplinary teams, 2) Patient education, self-management and adherence, 3) Health results, data monitoring and persistence, 4) Telepharmacy and experiences implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic and 5) Training and research, were evaluated and prioritized by 57 professionals from the field of Hospital Pharmacy, Pulmonology, Allergology and Nursing. This work has made it possible to update the roadmap of priority actions to continue advancing in optimal models of care for patients with AGNC in a post-COVID-19 context.

Geographical differences in the use of oral corticosteroids in patients with severe asthma in Spain: heat map based on existing databases analyses

BACKGROUND

Although there are currently alternative treatments to the long-term use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in severe asthma, recent studies show excessive use depending on geography and differences in medical practice. The objective of the study was to describe the differences in OCS use for severe asthma across the Spanish geography.

METHODS

This is a real-world study using existing databases (year 2019): longitudinal patient database (EMR), based on electronic medical records, and database of pharmacological consumption (Sell-in) in basic healthcare areas. With EMR, the percentage of OCS prescriptions corresponding to patients with severe asthma (ICD-9 "asthma" and prescription of biological treatment and/or high dose of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting inhaled β2 agonists) was calculated. This percentage was transferred to the OCS consumption of each basic healthcare area as reported in the Sell-in database and a national heat map was created. The estimation of OCS use in patients with severe asthma per 100,000 inhabitants for each region was calculated by grouping basic healthcare areas and the mean OCS use per patient for different regions in Spain was also estimated.

RESULTS

Patients with severe asthma in Spain were mostly female (69.6%), with a mean age (SD) of 57.6 years (18.01). Median time (Pc25-Pc75) since asthma diagnosis was 83.1 months (34.65-131.56). Of all patients with OCS prescriptions in 2019 identified in EMR, 4.4% corresponded to patients with severe asthma. Regions with the highest OCS use were Asturias, Andalucía, and Galicia, whereas those with the lowest use were Navarra, Baleares, Madrid and País Vasco. The mean OCS use per patient with severe asthma in 2019 throughout Spain was 1099.85 mg per patient, ranging from 782.99 mg in Navarra to 1432.64 in Asturias.

CONCLUSIONS

There are geographical differences between Spanish regions with respect to the use of OCS in patients with severe asthma. The national mean consumption of OCS per patient with severe asthma and year is above the limits that indicate good asthma control.

Long-Term Outcome of Occupational Asthma From Irritants and Low-Molecular-Weight Sensitizers

BACKGROUND

The short-term asthma outcome of irritant-induced asthma (IIA) is poorer than that of low-molecular-weight (LMW) sensitizer-induced occupational asthma (OA).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term asthma outcome of IIA and LMW-induced OA and to determine which baseline features are associated with a poor long-term outcome.

METHODS

This follow-up questionnaire study assessed 43 patients diagnosed with IIA and 43 patients with LMW-induced OA at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health in 2004-2018. The baseline results were analyzed to detect features associated with uncontrolled asthma (Asthma Control Test [ACT] score of ≤19, or ≥2 exacerbations or ≥1 serious exacerbation within 1 year) at follow-up.

RESULTS

The median interval since OA diagnosis was 6.3 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 4.4-11.3 years). Uncontrolled asthma was more frequent with IIA than with LMW-induced OA (58% vs 40%, adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-10.81). Poor symptom control was the main factor for this difference (median [IQR] ACT score of 18 [15-22] vs 21 [18-23], P = .036, respectively). Among all participants, older age (OR: 1.08 per year, 95% CI: 1.02-1.15), a fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) value <20 ppb (OR: 5.08, 95% CI: 1.45-17.80), and uncontrolled asthma at baseline (OR: 3.94, 95% CI: 1.31-11.88) were associated with uncontrolled asthma at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term asthma control of IIA appears to be inferior to that of LMW-induced OA. Older age, a low FeNO value, and uncontrolled asthma at baseline might indicate a worse long-term outcome among those with IIA and LMW-induced OA.

Epidemiology, Treatment and Health Care Resource Use of Patients with severe Asthma in Germany – a retrospective Claims Data Analysis

BACKGROUND

Asthma causes various clinical symptoms, including unpredictable severe exacerbations, and even though most patients can achieve a reasonable disease control due to adequate treatment, some patients do not. This study seeks to describe healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and treatment of asthma and severe asthma patients in Germany.

METHOD

A retrospective claims data analysis has been conducted on adult asthma patients and a subset of patients with severe asthma, identified during July 2017 - June 2018. A proxy was used to identify severe asthma patients based on therapy options recommended within the German treatment guideline for treating these patients. These include (i) biologics, (ii) medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in conjunction with LABA/montelukast and antibiotics/oral corticosteroids (OCS), and (iii) long-term OCS therapy. HCRU and treatment of patients were observed during a 1-year follow-up period (July 2018 - June 2019).

RESULTS

The study included 388 932 adult asthma patients (prevalence: 7.90%), with 2.51%-12.88% affected by severe asthma (depending on the definition). 22.60% of all asthma patients experienced hospitalizations (severe asthma: 36.11%). Furthermore, 13.59% received OCS (severe asthma: 39.91%), but only 0.18% (severe asthma: 1.25%) received biologics. Only 23.95% (severe asthma: 41.17%) visited a pulmonologist.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of severe asthma patients receive long-term OCS therapy. However, less than 50% have seen a pulmonologist who would typically seek a change in treatment to avoid the long-term consequences of OCS. To optimize the treatment of severe asthma in Germany, better referral of these patients to specialists is needed and considering potential treatment alternatives.

Uncontrolled severe T2 asthma: Which biological to choose? A biomarker-based approach

In recent years, advances in knowledge of molecular mechanisms involved in asthma have changed uncontrolled severe asthma (USA) treatment, with the appearance of biological treatment. USA is a heterogeneous entity with different endotypes and phenotypes. Nowadays, the biological drugs approved with asthma indication are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab and dupilumab. Tezepelumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States and, recently, by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). All these biological drugs have shown their efficacy in clinical trials, especially in reducing exacerbations, improving asthma control, quality of life, pulmonary function, and withdrawing systemic corticosteroids or at least reducing their daily dose, with some differences between them. Except for mepolizumab and reslizumab, biological drugs have different targets and thus different therapeutic indications should be expected; however, in some patients, more than one drug could be indicated, making the election more difficult. Because there are no direct comparisons between biological drugs, some biomarkers are used to choose between them, but they are not unbeatable. In this article, an algorithm to choose the first biological drug in a specific patient is proposed based on different study results and patient' characteristics.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF BENRALIZUMAB VERSUS MEPOLIZUMAB AND DUPILUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH SEVERE UNCONTROLLED EOSINOPHILIC ASTHMA IN SPAIN

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of benralizumab (benra) vs. mepolizumab (mepo) and dupilumab (dupi) for the treatment of patients with severe uncontrolled asthma from the Spanish Health System perspective.

METHODS

Exacerbations avoided, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs in a 5-year period were estimated with a Markov model for a cohort of 1,000 patients in which, based on published evidence, 31% of the patients received biologics + oral corticosteroids (OCS) and 69% received only biologics. Efficacy data (exacerbation reduction and OCS elimination) were derived from a matching-adjusted indirect comparison. Published EQ-5D utilities per health state (biologic alone, biologic + OCS, standard of care + OCS, exacerbations, and post-exacerbations) were used for QALY estimation. Utility decrements associated with exacerbation management [-0.1 (OCS or emergency visits), -0.2 (hospitalization)] derived from the literature were applied. Costs (€, 2022) included drug acquisition (ex-factory price), administration and disease management. An expert panel (2 pneumologists and 1 pharmacist) validated all inputs.

RESULTS

Benra was more effective (52.21 QALYs) than mepo (51.39 QALYs) and dupi (51.30 QALYs). Benra avoided more exacerbations (2.87 exacerbations) compared to mepo (4.70 exacerbations) and dupi (5.11 exacerbations) for the 5-year horizon. Total costs/patient were €56,093.77 (benra), €59,280.45 (mepo) and €62,991.76 (dupi), resulting in benra dominating (more QALYs with lower costs) vs. mepo and dupi.

CONCLUSIONS

Benralizumab can be considered as a dominant treatment alternative vs. other biologic drugs for the treatment of uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma patients in Spain.

Characteristics and treatment patterns of patients with asthma on multiple-inhaler triple therapy in Spain

The aim of this observational, retrospective study was to describe characteristics, treatment patterns, and adherence among patients with asthma who initiated multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in Catalonia, Spain. This study used data of patients initiating MITT in 2016 from the SIDIAP (Information System for Research in Primary Care) database, which covers ~80% of the Catalonian population (5.8 million). Of 1,204 patients initiating MITT, 361 (30.0%) stepped down (discontinued ≥ 1 and continued ≥1 MITT component) and 89 (7.4%) stopped all three components of MITT for a period of 60 days during the following 12 months. In the follow-up period, 196 (16.3%) patients were considered adherent to MITT (>0.8 proportion of days covered [PDC]), with a mean (standard deviation) PDC of 0.52 (0.51) days. Given the low adherence and substantial rates of step down/discontinuation among patients initiating MITT, there is an urgent need to implement strategies to improve treatment adherence/persistence.

Real-world study in severe eosinophilic asthma patients refractory to anti-IL5 biological agents treated with benralizumab in Spain (ORBE study)

Background

Benralizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting the human interleukin-5 (IL-5) receptor (IL-5R), was used before marketing authorisation in Spain in a real world setting as part of an early-access programme (EAP) to treat patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with prior insufficient response or intolerance to anti-IL5 treatment (mepolizumab or reslizumab). The objective of this study is to describe the patient profile candidate for treatment and to assess benralizumab effectiveness.

Methods

This is an observational, retrospective, multicentre study in severe eosinophilic asthma patients refractory to other biological agents targeting the IL-5 pathway. Baseline characteristics included closest data, from the previous 12 months, to benralizumab treatment onset (index date). Patients were followed until the last treatment dosage while EAP was active (March to December 2018). Effectiveness was evaluated versus baseline, in patients who received at least three doses, with asthma control test (ACT), Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MiniAQLQ), annual severe exacerbation rate, oral corticosteroids treatment (OCS) and asthma-related healthcare resources utilization.

Results

Twenty-seven patients treated with benralizumab were included in the analysis. Effectiveness was assessed in 19 patients. Both questionnaires showed clinically meaningful differences, i.e. ACT score ≥ 3 and MiniAQLQ score ≥ 0.5, compared with baseline [mean (SD), 3.3 (6.8) and 1.2 (1.9), respectively]. Patients treated with OCS decreased during follow-up from 88.9% (n = 24/27) at baseline to 78.9% (n = 15/19) and 31.6% (n = 6/19) had an OCS dose reduction ≥ 50%. The difference in annual severe exacerbation rate during follow-up showed a significant reduction vs. baseline (2.12 per patient-year, 95% CI 0.99–3.24, p = 0.002). The differences in annual rate of non-scheduled primary care and specialist visits during follow-up indicated a significant decrease [2.28 per patient-year (95% CI 1.55–3.01; p < 0.001) and 1.47 per patient-year (95% CI 0.65–2.30; p = 0.004), respectively], as well as the difference in annual rate of number of emergency department visits [1.18 per patient-year (95% CI 0.51–1.85; p = 0.007)].

Conclusions

These results suggest that severe eosinophilic asthma patients receiving benralizumab, presented clinically meaningful improvement in asthma control and asthma-related QoL as well as OCS dose reduction. Results also aim to significant reductions in annual severe exacerbation rates, non-scheduled primary care and specialist visits, and emergency department visits rates.

Type 2-High Severe Asthma with and without Bronchiectasis: A Prospective Observational Multicentre Study

Introduction

Type 2-high severe asthma (T2-SA) is often associated with several comorbidities. To this extent, the coexistence of T2-SA and bronchiectasis (BE) is considered an emerging phenotype.

Methods

We performed a prospective observational multicentre study, including T2-SA patients. Chest HRCT confirmed the presence of BE. Data on exacerbations, pulmonary function, Asthma Control Test (ACT), chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH), chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), oral corticosteroid (OCS) dosage, eosinophils in peripheral blood and FeNO were recorded. The Bhalla score was used for radiological assessment of T2-SA+BE patients and the Bronchiectasis Severity Index (BSI) was calculated.

Results

A total of 113 patients (mean age 55 ± 11 years, 59.3% female) were enrolled. Co-presence of BE was confirmed in 50/113 (44.2%) patients who identified the T2-SA+BE group. CRS and CRSwNP were more prevalent in T2-SA+BE vs T2-SA [respectively, 42/50 (84%) vs 37/63 (58.7%), p = 0.004 and 27/50 (54%) vs 27/63 (42.9%), p = 0.0165]. Furthermore, T2-SA+BE patients reported more CMH compared to T2-SA [29/50 (58%) vs 15/63 (23.8%), p = 0.0004], were more frequently on chronic OCSs intake [28/50 (56%) vs 22/63 (34.9%), p = 0.0357] and experienced more exacerbations/year [10 (4-12) vs 6 (4-12), p = 0.0487]. In a multivariate logistic regression model, the presence of CRS, CMH and daily OCS intake were associated with BE presence with a 78% (95% CI: 69-88) accuracy. Median Bhalla score was 18.3 (16-20) (Mild radiological severity). Median BSI was 6 (4-8) and only 6/50 (12%) had a BSI score ≥9. Significant inverse linear relationship between BSI and ACT (r = -0.6095, p < 0.0001), FEV₁% (r = -0.3297, p = 0.0353) and FEV₁ mL (r = -0.4339, p = 0.0046) were found.

Conclusion

Type 2 inflammation could have a causative role in BE development. Chest HRCT is mandatory when a diagnosis of T2-SA is made, especially in presence of CRS, CMH and chronic OCS intake. Early BE detection may be crucial to improve T2-SA patients' outcomes.

A systematic literature review of burden of illness in adults with uncontrolled moderate/severe asthma

BACKGROUND

There are limited published data on the burden of moderate/severe uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to better understand the impact of moderate-to-severe asthma in the US, the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Japan, and Australia in terms of prevalence, clinical measures, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and economic burden, for patients whose asthma is uncontrolled despite inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β₂-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy.

RESULTS

The prevalence of uncontrolled asthma among patients with moderate/severe disease varied but was as high as 100% in some subgroups. Patients with uncontrolled asthma generally had poor lung function (mean/median pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]: 1.69-2.45 L; mean/median pre-bronchodilator percent predicted FEV₁: 57.2-79.7). There was also a substantial but variable exacerbation burden associated with uncontrolled asthma, with the annualised rate of exacerbations ranging from 1.30 to 7.30 when considering various patient subgroups. Furthermore, the annualised rate of severe exacerbations ranged from 1.66 to 3.60. The HRQoL burden measured using disease-specific and generic instruments consistently demonstrated substantial impairment of HRQoL for those with uncontrolled asthma; Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores ranged from 3.00 to 5.20, whilst EurQol-5 Dimensions index scores ranged from 0.53 to 0.59. Direct, indirect and total costs together with consumption of other healthcare resources associated with managing uncontrolled asthma were also substantial in the population studied; no caregiver burden was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that significant unmet needs exist for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the availability of ICS/LABA therapy. Novel treatments are needed to help reduce the burden to patients, healthcare systems and society.

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.

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.

Statins for asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common chronic respiratory disease. People with asthma have inflammation of their airways that causes recurrent episodes of wheezing, breathlessness and chest tightness, with or without a cough. Statins possess multiple therapeutic effects, including lowering lipid levels in the blood. Statins are reported to have a potential role as an adjunct treatment in asthma. However, comprehensive evidence of the benefits and harms of using statins is required to facilitate decision making.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of statins as an adjunct therapy for asthma in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for studies in the Cochrane Airways Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid SP and Embase Ovid SP, from their inception dates We handsearched the proceedings of major respiratory conferences. We also searched clinical trials registries for completed, ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews to identify additional studies. The search is current to 7 February 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group design that assessed statins for at least 12 weeks' duration. We considered all participants with a clinical diagnosis of asthma to be eligible, regardless of age, sex, disease severity and previous or current treatment. We planned to include studies reported as full text, those published as abstract only, and unpublished data.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened and selected the studies, extracted outcome data and intervention characteristics from included studies, and assessed risk of bias according to standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We resolved any disagreement through discussion.

MAIN RESULTS

We found only one trial involving a total of 60 people living with asthma. The trial compared the effect of atorvastatin with a placebo (dummy treatment containing lactose) in treating people with chronic asthma. The trial did not report data for the primary outcomes or adverse events. There was uncertainty about the relative effect on forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) and peak expiratory flow (PEF) in the atorvastatin group compared with the placebo group. The study did not report serious adverse effects for the interventions. The included study had internal discrepancies in its reported data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of very low certainty, so we are unable to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and safety of statins to treat asthma. High-quality RCTs are needed to assess the effect of statins on people with asthma. Well-designed multicentre trials with larger samples and longer duration of treatment are required, which assess outcomes such as adverse events, hospital utilisation and costs, to provide better quality evidence. Future studies that include subgroups of obese people with asthma are also required.

Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma Treatment in Italy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from PROXIMA Study

Introduction

Inadequately controlled severe asthma patients require additional therapy accounting for significant clinical and economic burden. Our analysis aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in the management of severe allergic asthma in Italy based on observational data from the PROXIMA study.

Methods

Observational data on efficacy, healthcare resource utilization and changes in quality of life at 12 months after the initiation of omalizumab were examined to estimate the cost-effectiveness compared to pre-omalizumab period and results were expressed with Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER). The cost–utility analysis estimated the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Direct health costs were assessed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

Results

Omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, number of hospitalizations, physician visits, and improved quality of life after 12 months of treatment. Omalizumab had a greater effectiveness than pre-omalizumab treatment involving 0.132 QALYs gained and led to a €3729 per patient reduction in direct healthcare costs, excluding the add-on treatment cost. Nevertheless, the addition of omalizumab cost led to €7478 increase in total direct costs with respect to pre-omalizumab period. Based on difference in total direct cost and difference in QALY between post and pre-omalizumab period, the ICER was €56,847. According to sensitivity analysis, omalizumab provided a cost-effective use of NHS resources, already at 20% discounted price.

Conclusion

This study offers a real-world evidence of omalizumab effectiveness in Italy. Despite the high acquisition cost of the innovative drug, omalizumab is a sustainable treatment option for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in severe refractory eosinophilic asthma: results in clinical practice

Background

Asthma is an inflammatory disease of the airways with symptoms that vary over time and intensity, sometimes leading to disability or even death. Eosinophilic asthma accounts for 25% of cases of severe asthma. It is mediated by eosinophils regulated by interleukin-5 (IL-5), the target of mepolizumab, which has been recently licensed as an add-on treatment of severe refractory eosinophilic asthma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of mepolizumab in clinical practice.

Methods

A multicentre, retrospective, and descriptive study covering a year was conducted in a province of Spain with more than 500,000 inhabitants. Every patient prescribed with mepolizumab since its introduction into the hospital was included in the study. Clinical parameters were collected from the pharmacists' counselling reports from electronic prescription software and electronic patient records. Effectiveness was assessed as a decrease in the exacerbation frequency and/or a reduction in the use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) compared to the previous year.

Results

A total of 25 patients were studied, but only 23 could be evaluated by the cut-off date. A decrease in the exacerbation frequency was observed in 19 (82.6%) patients, 11 of them without any exacerbation during the treatment. A relative reduction of 87% in the exacerbation rate per year was obtained. A total of 15 patients were on regular OCS - 9 patients (60%) reduced their average dose, whilst 4 (26.7%) patients completely abandoned OCS. Safety was evaluated based on reported adverse effects. Adverse events were observed in 12 patients, the most common being headache, arthralgia, and dizziness/nausea.

Conclusion

Mepolizumab has been shown to be effective based on the high decrease in the exacerbation frequency and reduced use of OCS. Reported adverse effects were mostly mild and appeared in half of the patients; some of the adverse events had not been previously described in pivotal trials.