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

Cost-utility of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA in a middle-income country.

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, such as tiotropium bromide, have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting b2 agonists for patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of two interventions include standard therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators versus add-on therapy with tiotropium. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $5180.

RESULTS

The expected incremental cost per QALY (ICER) is estimated at US$-2637.59. There is a probability of 0.77 that tiotropium + ICS + LABA is more cost-effective than ICS + LABA at a threshold of US$5180 per QALY. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit is Tiotropium, with an expected net benefit of US$800. Our base-case results were robust to parameter variations in the deterministic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

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.

Optimizing asthma management: Role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Patients with asthma who are suboptimally responsive to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are frequently exposed to oral corticosteroids and high-dose ICS, which can lead to significant side effects. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in a subset of these patients. This review summarizes the results of key studies using LAMAs in patients with asthma aged 12 years or older. LAMA as an add-on treatment improved lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma across studies. The efficacy of LAMAs as an add-on to ICS was superior to that of placebo and ICS dose escalation and comparable with that of LABAs. LAMA plus ICS plus LABA provided modest improvements in bronchodilation and increased the time to first severe exacerbation versus ICS plus LABA. Single-inhaler triple therapy was associated with decreased health care resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness versus multiple inhalers. LAMAs were generally well tolerated; asthma exacerbations, bronchitis, and nasopharyngitis were common adverse events with LAMA in combination with ICS alone or ICS plus LABA. Thus, the overall evidence presented in this review supports the use of add-on LAMA treatment as a reasonable option in patients with asthma uncontrolled with ICS plus LABA or ICS alone.

The new era of add-on asthma treatments: where do we stand?

Globally, a small proportion (5-12%) of asthma patients are estimated to have severe disease. However, severe asthma accounts for disproportionately high healthcare resource utilization. The Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) management committee recommends treating patients with asthma with inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting β2-agonists and, when needed, adding a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist or biologic agent. Five biologics, targeting different effectors in the type 2 inflammatory pathway, are approved for asthma treatment. However, biologics have not been compared against each other or add-on inhaled therapies in head-to-head clinical trials. As a result, their positioning versus that of current and anticipated small-molecule strategies is largely unknown. Furthermore, with the emergence of biomarkers for predicting response to biologics, a more personalized treatment approach-currently lacking with inhaled therapies-may be possible. To gain perspective, we reviewed recent advances in asthma pathophysiology, phenotypes, and biomarkers; the place of biologics in the management and personalized treatment of severe asthma; and the future of biologics and small-molecule drugs. We propose an algorithm for the stepwise treatment of severe asthma based on recommendations in the GINA strategy document that accounts for the broad range of phenotypes targeted by inhaled therapies and the specificity of biologics. In the future, both biologics and small molecules will continue to play key roles in the individualized treatment of severe asthma. However, as targeted therapies, their application will continue to be focused on patients with certain phenotypes who meet the specific criteria for use as identified in pivotal clinical trials.

Asthma in the Americas: An Update: A Joint Perspective from the Brazilian Thoracic Society, Canadian Thoracic Society, Latin American Thoracic Society, and American Thoracic Society

Asthma affects a large number of people living in the Americas, a vast and diverse geographic region comprising 35 nations in the Caribbean and North, Central, and South America. The marked variability in the prevalence, morbidity, and mortality from asthma across and within nations in the Americas offers a unique opportunity to improve our understanding of the risk factors and management of asthma phenotypes and endotypes in children and adults. Moreover, a better assessment of the causes and treatment of asthma in less economically developed regions in the Americas would help diagnose and treat individuals migrating from those areas to Canada and the United States. In this focused review, we first assess the epidemiology of asthma, review known and potential risk factors, and examine commonalities and differences in asthma management across the Americas. We then discuss future directions in research and health policies to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and management of pediatric and adult asthma in the Americas, including standardized and periodic assessment of asthma burden across the region; large-scale longitudinal studies including omics and comprehensive environmental data on racially and ethnically diverse populations; and dissemination and implementation of guidelines for asthma management across the spectrum of disease severity. New initiatives should recognize differences in socioeconomic development and health care systems across the region while paying particular attention to novel or more impactful risk factors for asthma in the Americas, including indoor pollutants such as biomass fuel, tobacco use, infectious agents and the microbiome, and psychosocial stressor and chronic stress.

Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

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

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

Cost‑effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

In patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite management with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the additional use of omalizumab and tiotropium is recommended. Omalizumab is an expensive medication and doubts arise as to whether the benefit of this drug outweighs the additional expense of the drug. 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 was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs 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. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model showed that tiotropium was associated with lower cost than standard therapy and omalizumab (US$5590 vs. US$5693 vs. U$18,154 average annual cost per patient), and higher QALYs (11.8 vs. 11.3 vs. 11.9) average per patient), showing dominance respect to standard therapy. The probability that tiotropium provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

New Treatments for Asthma

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous chronic airway disease with high prevalence of uncontrolled disease. New therapies, including biologics, are now available to treat T2 high asthma. Treatment of T2 low asthma remains a challenge. Asthma guidelines need be to updated to incorporate new therapeutics.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

The Current State of Biologic Therapies for Treatment of Refractory Asthma

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease, with the immune processes behind the chronic inflammation underlying this disorder differing between the various identified asthma endotypes. In addition to heterogeneity in underlying disease pathophysiology, asthmatics fall across a broad spectrum of disease severity and can vary greatly in their response to convention asthma therapies. A small percentage of patients with severe persistent asthma will remain uncontrolled despite treatment with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and a long-acting beta-agonist. Less than two decades ago, there were few options for these treatment-refractory asthmatics beyond chronic systemic steroids, with their myriad of treatment-limiting side effects. However, in recent years, there have been a growing number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologic medications with targets that include immunoglobulin E (IgE), interleukin-5 (IL-5), the IL-5 receptor and the IL-4/IL-13 receptor-alpha subunit. The current FDA-approved biologics for severe persistent asthma are omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab. These monoclonal antibodies have been shown to improve asthma control, decrease asthma exacerbations and decrease glucocorticoid dependence in certain subsets of patients with asthma. The optimal biologic for treatment of severe asthma varies from patient to patient, depending on the underlying pathophysiology of the patient's disease. For each of these medications, there are certain biomarkers that can help predict whether a patient is likely to respond favorably to the medication. This review will discuss the currently approved biologics for severe persistent asthma, including their indications, efficacy and side effects.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The cost-effectiveness of azithromycin in reducing exacerbations in uncontrolled asthma

Add-on azithromycin (AZM) results in a significant reduction in exacerbations among adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of add-on AZM in terms of healthcare and societal costs.The AMAZES trial randomly assigned 420 participants to AZM or placebo. Healthcare use and asthma exacerbations were measured during the treatment period. Healthcare use included all prescribed medicine and healthcare contacts. Costs of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were estimated based on overall consumption and published estimates of costs. The value of an avoided exacerbation was based on published references. Differences in cost between the two groups were related to differences in exacerbations in a series of net monetary benefit estimates. Societal costs included lost productivity, over the counter medicines, steroid induced morbidity and AMR costs.Add-on AZM resulted in a reduction in healthcare costs (mean (95% CI)) including nights in hospital (AUD 433.70 (AUD 48.59-818.81) or EUR 260.22 (EUR 29.15-491.29)), unplanned healthcare visits (AUD 20.25 (AUD 5.23-35.27) or EUR 12.15 (EUR 3.14-21.16)), antibiotic costs (AUD 14.88 (AUD 7.55-22.21) or EUR 8.93 (EUR 4.53-13.33)) and oral corticosteroid costs (AUD 4.73 (AUD 0.82-8.64) or EUR 2.84 (EUR 0.49-5.18)); all p<0.05. Overall healthcare and societal costs were lower (AUD 77.30 (EUR 46.38) and AUD 256.22 (EUR 153.73) respectively) albeit not statistically significant. The net monetary benefit of add-on AZM was estimated to be AUD 2072.30 (95% CI AUD 1348.55-2805.23) or (EUR 1243.38 (EUR 809.13-1683.14) assuming a willingness to pay per exacerbation avoided of AUD 2651 (EUR 1590.60). Irrespective of the sensitivity analysis applied, the net monetary benefit for total, moderate and severe exacerbations remained positive and significant.Add-on AZM therapy in poorly controlled asthma was a cost-effective therapy. Costs associated with AMR did not influence estimated cost-effectiveness.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tiotropium in Elderly Patients with Severe Asthma Using Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium has the potential to alleviate asthmatic symptoms caused by the aging of lungs. However, few studies have focused on specific treatments for elderly patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding tiotropium to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in elderly patients with severe asthma using real-world data.

METHODS

Phase I was a retrospective cohort study using the National Health Insurance claims data to measure clinical and economic outcomes. In phase II, a Markov model was constructed to evaluate cost-effectiveness from Korean health care system perspective, based on phase I, including 2 health states, and an asthma exacerbation event. We estimated cost given in 2018 US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Subgroup analyses for patients with poorly controlled symptoms (frequent short-acting beta-agonist users; frequent exacerbators) were performed.

RESULTS

In elderly patients with severe asthma, the incremental cost and effectiveness in the tiotropium group compared with the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist group were $2281 and 0.038 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $60,074/QALY, indicating that the addition of tiotropium is not a cost-effective alternative. Meanwhile, 2 subgroups with poorly controlled symptoms showed that adding tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative (frequent short-acting beta-agonist users $4078/QALY; frequent exacerbators $8332/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium shows a higher cost-effectiveness profile when applied to elderly patients with uncontrolled symptoms. These results using real-world evidence provide information beyond the clinical outcomes reported by randomized controlled trials, providing a complementary ground in establishing the reimbursement criteria of tiotropium for elderly patients with severe asthma.

Tiotropium in asthma - perspectives for the primary care physician

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by airway inflammation resulting from complex interactions between multiple hosts as well as environmental factors. As a chronic respiratory condition, asthma exerts a significant impact on patients and the healthcare system. Per the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with/without long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) should be used as the preferred controllers for the management of asthma. Despite a range of therapeutic options, many patients with asthma remain uncontrolled, resulting in an increased risk of hospitalization and emergency room visits and a worsened quality of life. Tiotropium (Spiriva®, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 1.25 µg, two puffs, once daily), delivered via the Respimat® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), was the first long-acting muscarinic antagonist to be approved as an add-on maintenance treatment option for patients with asthma aged ≥6 years at GINA steps 4 and 5. By binding to the muscarinic receptors M1 and M3 in the bronchial airways, tiotropium antagonizes the action of acetylcholine, leading to smooth muscle relaxation and reduced mucus secretion.The efficacy and safety of tiotropium add-on to ICS±LABA maintenance treatment have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with a range of asthma severities (mild, moderate, and severe) and across age groups (children, adolescents, and adults). Add-on tiotropium was found to be well tolerated and efficacious in all RCTs. Moreover, the findings from real-world studies complement results from RCTs, showing beneficial effects of tiotropium in reducing exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency room visits, and asthma worsening.In this review article, we discuss the pathophysiology of asthma and the role of tiotropium in the management of asthma from the perspective of a primary care physician.

Emerging muscarinic receptor antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The increased acetylcholine signaling in asthma pathophysiology offers the rationale for the use of LAMAs in the treatment of asthmatic patients. Tiotropium is still the only LAMA approved for use in asthma but there is a real interest in developing novel LAMAs for the treatment of asthma, or at least to extend this indication to other LAMAs already on the market.

AREAS COVERED

We examined and discussed trials and research that have studied or are evaluating the role of LAMAs already on the market in asthma and possible novel muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists.

EXPERT OPINION

Glycopyrronium and umeclidinium will soon be included in the GINA strategy with the same current indications of tiotropium. It is likely that the choice of the LAMA will be influenced not so much by its pharmacological profile as by the type of triple therapy chosen. It is extremely difficult to identify a new LAMA that is more effective than tiotropium, but is it plausible that new technologies that will allow delivering the drug in a more targeted way and with a lower risk of adverse effects may represent the real progress in the use of LAMAs in asthma in the coming years.

Health and economic consequences of applying the United States' PM2.5 automobile emission standards to other nations: a case study of France and Italy

OBJECTIVES

The US has among the world's strictest automobile emission standards, but it is now loosening them. It is unclear where a nation should draw the line between the associated cost burden imposed by regulations and the broader societal benefits associated with having cleaner air. Our study examines the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of introducing stricter vehicle emission standards in France and Italy.

STUDY DESIGN

Quasi-experimental study.

METHODS

We used cost-effectiveness modeling to measure the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost (Euros) of adopting more stringent US vehicle emission standards for PM2.5 in France and Italy.

RESULTS

Adopting Obama era US vehicle emission standards would likely save money and lives for both the French and Italian populations. In France, adopting US emission standards would save €1000 and increase QALYs by 0.04 per capita. In Italy, the stricter standards would save €3000 and increase QALYs by 0.31. The results remain robust in both the sensitivity analysis and probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model.

CONCLUSIONS

Adopting more stringent emission standards in France and Italy would save money and lives.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of Yu-Ping-Feng powder for asthma in children: a protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Asthma has become the most common chronic disease in children, which seriously affects children's health and growth. Yu-Ping-Feng powder (YPFP) is widely used for the treatment of asthma in children, but there are few meta-analyses to assess the add-on effects of YPFP in children with asthma. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the efficacy and safety of YPFP in the management of asthma in children.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science and the Chinese electronic databases including China Network Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedicine (CBM), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), and Wan Fang Database were searched for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of YPFP in children with asthma based on the eligibility criteria from the date of the database inception to 28 November 2018. Two reviewers assessed the articles and extracted data from the included RCTs independently. Data will be synthesized by either the fixed-effects or random-effects model according to a heterogeneity test. We will assess the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration Tool and overall quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). Primary outcomes include the improvement of symptoms including breathlessness, coughing, wheezing and the frequency of asthma exacerbations. Lung function, serum IgE level, blood eosinophil count, phlegm eosinophil count and adverse events will be assessed as the secondary outcomes. We will perform the data synthesis, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses in the Rev-Man version 5.3 software. A funnel plot will be established to evaluate reporting bias.

RESULTS

This systematic review and meta-analysis will review and synthesis current clinical evidence of YPFP for the treatment of asthma in children.

CONCLUSION

This analysis will provide high quality evidence of YPFP for the treatment of asthma in children.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018111223.

Efficacy of once-daily tiotropium Respimat in adults with asthma at GINA Steps 2-5

Tiotropium Respimat is an efficacious add-on to maintenance treatment in patients with symptomatic asthma. Currently, the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy recommends tiotropium for patients at Steps 4-5. To assess the clinical benefits of tiotropium Respimat across asthma severities, GINA Steps 2-5, a post hoc analysis of five double-blind trials (12-48-weeks; patients aged 18-75 years) investigated the effect of tiotropium Respimat, 5 μg or 2.5 μg, versus placebo, on peak forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) within 3 h post-dose (FEV_1(0-3h)) response, and Asthma Control Questionnaire-7 (ACQ-7) responder rate. GINA step grouping was based on patients' background treatment regimen. Baseline characteristics of patients (N = 2926) were balanced between treatments. Tiotropium Respimat showed consistent improvements in lung function across GINA steps; placebo-corrected peak FEV_1(0-3h) improvements after tiotropium Respimat 5 μg and 2.5 μg were: Step 2 (Week 8), 135 mL (95% confidence interval: 84, 187) and 155 mL (103, 206); Step 3 (Week 24), 187 mL (139, 235) and 235 mL (187, 283); Step 4 (Week 24), 111 mL (63, 159) and 181 mL (35, 326); Step 5 (Week 24; 5 μg only), 164 mL (5, 323). Asthma control improved with tiotropium Respimat versus placebo, showing statistical significance (nominal P value) with tiotropium Respimat 5 μg at Step 4 (odds ratio 1.36 [1.03, 1.78]). Safety profiles were similar between treatments. In conclusion, tiotropium Respimat add-on therapy improves lung function, and may improve asthma control, in adults across disease severities.

Single inhaler extrafine triple therapy in uncontrolled asthma (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER): two double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have assessed the efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapy in asthma. Here we report on two studies that compared the single-inhaler extrafine combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP; inhaled corticosteroid), formoterol fumarate (FF; long-acting β₂ agonist), and glycopyrronium (G; long-acting muscarinic antagonist) with the combination of BDP with FF.

METHODS

Two parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (Triple in Asthma With Uncontrolled Patients on Medium Strength of ICS + LABA [TRIMARAN] and Triple in Asthma High Strength Versus ICS/LABA HS and Tiotropium [TRIGGER]) recruited patients from 171 sites across 16 countries (TRIMARAN), and from 221 sites across 17 countries (TRIGGER). The sites were a mixture of secondary and tertiary care centres and specialised investigation units. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18-75 years) with uncontrolled asthma, a history of one or more exacerbations in the previous year, and previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid (TRIMARAN: medium dose; TRIGGER: high dose) plus a long-acting β₂ agonist. Enrolled patients were initially treated with BDP/FF (TRIMARAN: 100 μg BDP and 6 μg FF; TRIGGER: 200 μg BDP and 6 μg FF) for 2 weeks, then randomly assigned to treatment using an interactive response technology system with a balanced block randomisation scheme stratified by country. Patients, investigators, site staff, and sponsor staff were masked to BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF assignment. In TRIMARAN, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of BDP/FF/G (100 μg BDP, 6 μg FF, and 10 μg G) or BDP/FF (100 μg BDP and 6 μg FF), two inhalations twice daily. In TRIGGER, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to 52 weeks of BDP/FF/G (200 μg BDP, 6 μg FF, and 10 μg G) or BDP/FF (200 BDP and 6 μg FF), both two inhalations twice daily, or open-label BDP/FF (200 μg BDP and 6 μg FF) two inhalations twice daily plus tiotropium 2·5 μg two inhalations once daily. Coprimary endpoints for both trials (BDP/FF/G vs BDP/FF) were pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 26 and rate of moderate and severe exacerbations over 52 weeks. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02676076 (TRIMARAN), NCT02676089 (TRIGGER).

FINDINGS

Between Feb 17, 2016, and May 17, 2018, 1155 patients in TRIMARAN were given BDP/FF/G (n=579) or BDP/FF (n=576). Between April 6, 2016, and May 28, 2018, 1437 patients in TRIGGER were given BDP/FF/G (n=573), BDP/FF (n=576), or BDP/FF plus tiotropium (n=288). Compared with the BDP/FF group, week 26 predose FEV₁ improved in the BDP/FF/G group by 57 mL (95% CI 15-99; p=0·0080) in TRIMARAN and by 73 mL (26-120; p=0·0025) in TRIGGER, with reductions in the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations of 15% (rate ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·99; p=0·033) in TRIMARAN and 12% (0·88, 0·75-1·03; p=0·11) in TRIGGER. Four patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, one in TRIMARAN in the BDP/FF/G group and three in TRIGGER-one in the BDP/FF/G and two in the BDP/FF group. Three patients in the BDP/FF/G group in TRIMARAN and two patients in TRIGGER-one in the BDP/FF/G group and one in the BDP/FF group-had adverse events leading to death. None of the deaths were considered as related to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In uncontrolled asthma, addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist to inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β₂-agonist therapy improves lung function and reduces exacerbations.

FUNDING

Chiesi Farmaceutici.

New Treatments for Asthma

Asthma is a complex, heterogeneous chronic airway disease with high prevalence of uncontrolled disease. New therapies, including biologics, are now available to treat T2 high asthma. Treatment of T2 low asthma remains a challenge. Asthma guidelines need be to updated to incorporate new therapeutics.

A Systematic Review of Decision-Analytic Models for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Asthma Interventions

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the landscape of model-based economic studies in asthma and highlight where there is room for improvement in the design and reporting of studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the methodologies of model-based, cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma-related interventions was conducted. Models were evaluated for adherence to best-practice modeling and reporting guidelines and assumptions about the natural history of asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated based on their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). We also studied the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity in disease course, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-five models of asthma were included (33 Markov models, 10 decision trees, 2 closed-form equations). Novel biological treatments were evaluated in 12 studies. Some of the CHEERS' reporting recommendations were not satisfied, especially for models published in clinical journals. This was particularly the case for the choice of the modeling framework and reporting on heterogeneity. Only 13 studies considered any subgroups, and 2 explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Adherence to CHEERS requirements and the quality of models generally improved over time.

CONCLUSION

It would be difficult to replicate the findings of contemporary model-based evaluations of asthma-related interventions given that only a minority of studies reported the essential parameters of their studies. Current asthma models generally lack consideration of disease heterogeneity and do not seem to be ready for evaluation of precision medicine technologies.

Future perspectives of anticholinergics for the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Despite major advances in therapeutic interventions and the availability of detailed treatment guidelines, a high proportion of patients with symptomatic asthma remain uncontrolled. Asthma management is largely guided by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy and is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy with the use of additional therapies to achieve disease control. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators alone and in combination are the preferred add-on treatment options. Although long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a relatively recent addition to disease management recommendations for asthma, tiotropium has been extensively studied in a large clinical trial program. In Europe and the United States, tiotropium is approved for patients aged ≥6 years and uncontrolled on medium- to high-dose ICS/long-acting β2-agonists at GINA Steps 4 and 5 with a history of exacerbations. Evidence supports the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in adults in terms of lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo across a range of asthma severities. Similarly, clinical trials in patients aged 1-17 years have shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Furthermore, its efficacy makes tiotropium relatively easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice, irrespective of allergic status and without the need for patient phenotyping. Tiotropium is a cost-effective treatment that may offer an important alternative to other, more expensive add-on therapies. This review discusses the potential future position of LAMAs in clinical practice by considering the continuously evolving evidence. Prominence is given to tiotropium, the only LAMA supported by a structured clinical trial program in asthma to date, while also considering other recommended treatment options for patients with uncontrolled asthma. The importance of effective patient/caregiver-clinician communication and shared decision-making in enhancing treatment adherence is also highlighted.

Barriers to achieving asthma control in adults: evidence for the role of tiotropium in current management strategies

Despite the availability of a range of treatment options and management guidelines, a high proportion of adults with asthma remain uncontrolled. The challenge of managing uncontrolled asthma includes providing efficacious treatment while limiting side effects, recognizing situations when a change in asthma therapy is required, and considering patient preferences and satisfaction. In line with the Global Initiative for Asthma report, asthma management is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy and use of add-on therapies to achieve disease control. This review considers whether add-on options could be better utilized in clinical practice. A number of long-acting muscarinic antagonists are in development, but tiotropium is the most widely studied for use in asthma. Evidence demonstrating the efficacy of tiotropium as an add-on therapy to at least ICS in adults with symptomatic mild, moderate, and severe asthma is presented from randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. In addition, the benefit of tiotropium therapy in a wide range of patient phenotypes and disease severities without the need for biomarker assessment is discussed. Additional strategies that complement this approach, such as recognizing and overcoming barriers to adherence, ensuring optimal device use, and education and support to enhance patient–physician communication, are discussed. Physician education can also help raise awareness that additional management options are available for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remain uncontrolled on ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma in Chinese children

Objective: The addition of omalizumab to standard therapy has proven to be efficacious in children with severe allergic asthma. The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding omalizumab to standard treatment for asthma in Chinese pediatric patients.Methods: A Markov model was constructed to project the health and economic outcomes in pediatric patients with severe allergic asthma. Model inputs were obtained from the literature. Cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured over a five-year time horizon. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: For the base-case analysis, the addition of omalizumab to standard therapy yielded an incremental cost of $49,047 for 0.232 incremental QALY, led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $211,217/QALY. Sensitivity analyses were robust for these results.Conclusions: This study found that the addition of omalizumab is not a cost-effective strategy compared with standard therapy for children with severe allergic asthma in China due to its high cost.

Two decades with omalizumab: what we still have to learn

From its availability for clinical use nearly two decades ago for severe asthma, omalizumab has gained strong evidence of efficacy and safety in the treatment of severe asthma not controlled by standard-of-care therapy. It has been acknowledged by Global Initiative on Asthma guidelines as add-on therapy against severe uncontrolled asthma. Thanks to controlled trials supporting its efficacy, omalizumab has also been licensed for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria. The optimal duration of treatment in either disease has not been established. Despite its high price, omalizumab appears to be cost-effective in severe uncontrolled asthma as well as in chronic urticaria. The literature suggests a wide range of applications for omalizumab in various disorders regardless of allergic or non-allergic pathophysiology.

Managing Severe Asthma: A Role for the Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Tiotropium

Severe asthma is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Therapies must be maximized to gain control of a patient's severe asthma; however, avoiding overtreatment is also important. The mainstays of asthma maintenance treatment are inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β 2-agonsits (LABAs), with the option of supplementary add-on treatments. New add-on treatments for severe asthma have emerged over the past two decades, including personalized biological therapies that are guided by a patient's asthma phenotype. In addition, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium has been recommended as an add-on treatment for severe asthma. Phase III clinical trials have shown tiotropium in combination with ICS/LABA to be efficacious in patients with severe asthma. Further analyses of clinical trial data have indicated that there is no benefit in stratifying patients by phenotype to predict tiotropium efficacy. Furthermore, health economic studies suggest tiotropium to be a cost-effective treatment in patients with severe asthma. This review will present the evidence surrounding the role of tiotropium in severe asthma and will discuss the use of tiotropium add-on therapy before personalized medicine strategies in the stepwise process of gaining asthma control.

Tiotropium add-on to inhaled corticosteroids versus addition of long-acting β2-agonists for adults with asthma

Additional management options, and better use of current options, are needed to help support a large proportion of patients with asthma whose symptoms remain uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Here, we aim to review the safety and efficacy of adding tiotropium to ICS compared with adding a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) for adults whose asthma is not well controlled on ICS alone. Adding tiotropium to a background of ICS provides beneficial effects that are comparable with addition of a LABA in terms of lung function measures, exacerbations, asthma control and other endpoints. In addition, tiotropium and LABAs are both well tolerated. Some patients respond to either tiotropium or LABA treatment, but not both, suggesting that there are groups of patients that may respond better to one of these drugs. Currently, tiotropium is recommended as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma (Global Initiative for Asthma Steps 4 and 5) whose asthma is uncontrolled despite treatment with ICS/LABA. Tiotropium is also effective in patients with less severe disease and may benefit patients who experience adverse events from LABA treatment or where LABAs are ineffective. Tiotropium is therefore an important therapeutic option in asthma, not only as recommended as an add-on treatment with ICS/LABA, but also as an alternative to the addition of LABA to maintenance therapy with an ICS.

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.

The projected economic and health burden of sub-optimal asthma control in Canada

BACKGROUND

Achieving optimal control is the primary objective of asthma management. However, despite the existence of effective treatments, many patients experience periods of sub-optimal asthma control. The objective of this study was to quantify and project the future economic and health burden of sub-optimal asthma control in Canada.

METHODS

A probabilistic time-in-state model of asthma was created with inputs from published studies on the prevalence of asthma, levels of asthma control, and the impact of asthma control on costs and quality of life. In the primary analysis, we modeled the 20-year total direct costs (in 2014 Canadian dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from 2014 to 2033 in Canada. In the secondary analysis, we also incorporated indirect costs.

RESULTS

The undiscounted projected 20-year direct costs and QALYs lost attributable to sub-optimal asthma control were $24.40 billion and 1.82 million, respectively, from 2014 to 2033. The corresponding discounted values (at 3%) were $18.54 billion and 1.38 million. When indirect costs were considered, the total undiscounted and discounted costs of sub-optimal control were projected to be $280.49 billion, and $213.10 billion, respectively. A 10% reduction in prevalence of sub-optimal control in asthma was associated with 18% reduction in the economic and health burden of asthma over this time period.

DISCUSSION

Sub-optimal asthma control is associated with a substantial economic and health burden. Given that with evidence-based disease management asthma can be controlled in the majority of patients, strategies towards improving asthma management can be associated with a significant return on investment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not applicable.