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

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Identification of Asthma Phenotypes in the Spanish MEGA Cohort Study Using Cluster Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The definition of asthma phenotypes has not been fully established, neither there are cluster studies showing homogeneous results to solidly establish clear phenotypes. The purpose of this study was to develop a classification algorithm based on unsupervised cluster analysis, identifying clusters that represent clinically relevant asthma phenotypes that may share asthma-related outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a multicentre prospective cohort study, including adult patients with asthma (N=512) from the MEGA study (Mechanisms underlying the Genesis and evolution of Asthma). A standardised clinical history was completed for each patient. Cluster analysis was performed using the kernel k-groups algorithm.

RESULTS

Four clusters were identified. Cluster 1 (31.5% of subjects) includes adult-onset atopic patients with better lung function, lower BMI, good asthma control, low ICS dose, and few exacerbations. Cluster 2 (23.6%) is made of adolescent-onset atopic asthma patients with normal lung function, but low adherence to treatment (59% well-controlled) and smokers (48%). Cluster 3 (17.1%) includes adult-onset patients, mostly severe non-atopic, with overweight, the worse lung function and asthma control, and receiving combination of treatments. Cluster 4 (26.7%) consists of the elderly-onset patients, mostly female, atopic (64%), with high BMI and normal lung function, prevalence of smokers and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

We defined four phenotypes of asthma using unsupervised cluster analysis. These clusters are clinically relevant and differ from each other as regards FEV1, age of onset, age, BMI, atopy, asthma severity, exacerbations, control, social class, smoking and nasal polyps.

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.

Osteoporosis in Patients With Respiratory Diseases

Climate change, environmental pollution, and virus epidemics have sharply increased the number of patients suffering from respiratory diseases in recent years. Prolonged periods of illness and drug use increase the occurrence of complications in these patients. Osteoporosis is the common bone metabolism disease with respiratory disturbance, which affects prognosis and increases mortality of patients. The problem of osteoporosis in patients with respiratory diseases needs more attention. In this review, we concluded the characteristics of osteoporosis in some respiratory diseases including COPD, asthma, COVID-19, tuberculosis, and lung cancer. We revealed that hypoxia was the common pathogenesis of osteoporosis secondary to respiratory diseases, with malnutrition and corticosteroid abuse driving the progression of osteoporosis. Hypoxia-induced ROS accumulation and activated HIF-1α lead to attenuated osteogenesis and enhanced osteoclastogenesis in patients with respiratory diseases. Tuberculosis and cancer also invaded bone tissue and reduced bone strength by direct infiltration. For the treatment of osteoporosis in respiratory patients, oral-optimized bisphosphonates were the best treatment modality. Vitamin D was a necessary supplement, both for calcium absorption in osteogenesis and for improvement of respiratory lesions. Reasonable adjustment of the dose and course of corticosteroids according to the etiology and condition of patients is beneficial to prevent the occurrence and development of osteoporosis. Additionally, HIF-1α was a potential target for the treatment of osteoporosis in respiratory patients, which could be activated under hypoxia condition and involved in the process of bone remodeling.