Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in severe persistent asthma in Spain: a real-life perspective

Unanswered questions on the use of biologics in pediatric asthma

The emergence of biologic therapies for the management of asthma has been a revolutionary change in our capacity to manage this disease. Since the launch of omalizumab, several other biologics have been marketed or are close to being marketed, suggesting that a plethora of monoclonal antibodies can be expected in the coming years. This will facilitate the transition to the paradigm of personalized medicine, but on the other hand will decisively further complicate the choice of the most appropriate treatment, in the absence of reliable enough biological markers. For these reasons, along with the relatively short time of use with these treatments, there are recurrently arising questions for which there are not even moderately documented answers, and for which the only solution must be based, with all reservations, on the combination of indirect evidence and expertise. In this paper, we attempt to address such questions, providing relevant commentaries and considering the whole width of the evidence base.

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.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of severe pediatric allergic asthma-Results of a real-life study in Spain

BACKGROUND

Severe pediatric allergic asthma (SPAA) induces a huge economic burden in terms of direct, indirect, and intangible costs. The use of omalizumab for the treatment of these patients has produced a significant improvement in several clinical outcomes, but at the same time, the cost for the management of the disease has also increased. The aim of this report was to evaluate whether the use of omalizumab is cost-effective.

METHODS

A sample of 426 children with SPAA from the ANCHORS (Asthma iN CHildren: Omalizumab in Real-life in Spain) study was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the avoidance of moderate-to-severe exacerbations (MSE) and also for the improvement in childhood Asthma Control Test (c-ACT) or the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ5). We retrospectively collected data on health encounters and drug consumption before and up to 6 years after the beginning of the treatment with omalizumab.

RESULTS

The ICER per avoided MSE was €2107 after 1 year, and it consistently decreased to €656 in those followed up to 6 years. Similarly, the ICER for the minimally important difference in control tests showed a decrease from €2059 to €380 per each 0.5 points of improvement in ACQ5 and from €3141 to €2322 per each 3 points improvement in c-ACT, at years 1 and 6, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of OMZ is a cost-effective option for most children with uncontrolled SPAA, especially those who have frequent exacerbations; the costs are progressively reduced in successive years of treatment.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Omalizumab for Severe Allergic Asthma in Japan Using Real-World Evidence

OBJECTIVES

Omalizumab is a recommended add-on therapy for patients with severe allergic asthma who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with standard of care (SoC). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab compared with SoC applying real-world clinical outcomes in adult patients with severe allergic asthma in Japan.

METHODS

A validated Markov model was adapted for Japan and compared the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as an add-on therapy to SoC versus SoC alone using the most recently updated price of omalizumab. A Japanese real-world postmarketing surveillance and a pivotal randomized clinical trial were used as inputs for clinical effectiveness. Japanese life tables and literature were accessed for mortality data and unit costs were extracted from a Japanese insurance claims database. Quality of life data were retrieved from the clinical trial.

RESULTS

In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for omalizumab add-on therapy was ¥2.85 million per quality-adjusted life-year gained (approximately €21 000; 1€ = ¥133.26) compared with SoC alone. The model appeared to be most sensitive to changes in clinically significant severe exacerbation fatality, day-to-day asthma symptom utilities for SoC, discount rates for benefits, day-to-day asthma symptom utilities for omalizumab responders, time horizon, and the annual cost of omalizumab. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of omalizumab being cost-effective was 93% to 98% at a threshold of ¥5 to ¥6 million (willingness-to-pay for 1 quality-adjusted life-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab add-on therapy is cost-effective compared with SoC alone in Japan in severe allergic asthma population who are uncontrolled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroid and other controllers.

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Availability of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments for severe asthma would be beneficial to patients and national healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditure after incorporating benralizumab into the standard treatment of refractory eosinophilic asthma.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 12 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. The main effectiveness parameters measured were: the avoidance of one asthma exacerbation, a 3-point increase in the asthma control test (ACT) score, and the difference in utility scores (health-related quality of life) between a 1-year baseline treatment and 1-year benralizumab treatment. The health economic evaluation included direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS

After 1 year of treatment with benralizumab, patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma showed an improvement in all the effectiveness parameters analysed: improvement of asthma control and lung function, and decrease in the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (both as corticosteroid courses and maintenance therapy), and inhaled corticosteroid use. The total annual cost per patient for the baseline and benralizumab treatment periods were €11,544 and €14,043, respectively, reflecting an increase in costs due to the price of the biological agent but a decrease in costs for the remaining parameters. The ICER was €602 per avoided exacerbation and €983.86 for every 3-point increase in the ACT score.

CONCLUSIONS

All the pharmacoeconomic parameters analysed show that treatment with benralizumab is a cost-effective option as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma.

Real-World Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Severe Allergic Asthma: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

BACKGROUND

Assessment of clinical outcomes in the real-world corroborates findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis evaluated real-world data of omalizumab on treatment response, lung function, exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (OCS) use, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), health care resource utilization (HCRU), and school/work absenteeism at 4, 6, and 12 months after treatment.

METHODS

Observational studies in patients with severe allergic asthma (≥6 years) treated with omalizumab for ≥16 weeks, published from January 2005 to October 2018, were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. A random-effects model was used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

In total, 86 publications were included. Global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE) was good/excellent in 77% patients at 16 weeks (risk difference: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-0.84; I² = 96%) and in 82% patients at 12 months (0.82, 0.73-0.91; 97%). The mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second was 160, 220, and 250 mL at 16 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months, respectively. There was a decrease in Asthma Control Questionnaire score at 16 weeks (-1.14), 6 months (-1.56), and 12 months (-1.13) after omalizumab therapy. Omalizumab significantly reduced annualized rate of severe exacerbations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.56; I² = 96%), proportion of patients receiving OCS (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75; I² = 96%), and number of unscheduled physician visits (mean difference: -2.34, 95% CI: -3.54 to -1.13; I² = 98%) at 12 months versus baseline.

CONCLUSION

The consistent improvements in GETE, lung function, and PROs, and reductions in asthma exacerbations, OCS use, and HCRU with add-on omalizumab in real-life confirm and complement the efficacy data of RCTs.

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.

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)].

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in real world uncontrolled allergic asthma patients

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab compared with standard of care in the treatment and control of severe persistent asthma, using the outcomes from the Portuguese subpopulation of the eXpeRience registry.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic cost-effectiveness analysis based on real world data from the eXpeRience registry which recruited 62 patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic asthma from 20 participating centers in Portugal. Response to omalizumab treatment was measured prospectively up to 24 months by the physician's Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE). Retrospective data on patients' clinical symptoms, asthma control, lung function, exacerbations, and healthcare utilization were available for up to 12 months before omalizumab initiation and served as the standard of care comparator. The number of exacerbations (severe and non-severe), the number of clinical episodes, the number of days absent from work and/or school, and GETE response to therapy were considered as effectiveness outcomes. Following a societal perspective, as cost indicators, both direct and indirect costs were considered. Direct costs relate to the cost of omalizumab, standard of care and clinical episodes (emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and unscheduled doctor visits). Indirect costs relate to the societal cost of work absenteeism. Unit costs for clinical episodes and drugs were taken from official sources within the Portuguese Health Authority. A univariate sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A rate of 1.5 exacerbations per patient-year was estimated following omalizumab treatment compared with 8.2 exacerbations per patient-year prior to omalizumab initiation, implying an 82.1% reduction in the incidence of exacerbations following omalizumab treatment relative to standard of care alone. A 54.1% reduction in GETE score was also observed in favor of omalizumab treatment. The mean cost per person-year was 3023є in the 12 months of standard of care prior to omalizumab and 16,111є in the period of treatment with omalizumab. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 2244є/exacerbation avoided, and 1750є/unit decrease in GETE classification.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that adding omalizumab to the treatment of patients with uncontrolled severe persistent asthma reduces the number of exacerbations, improving overall treatment effectiveness at an acceptable cost from a societal perspective.

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.

Omalizumab and long-term quality of life outcomes in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma: a systematic review

Background:

Asthma is a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory airways disease, with a considerable impact on quality of life (QoL). To express the effects of asthma on patients’ subjective experience, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) represent an important instrument. The asthma QoL questionnaire (AQLQ) is one of the main PROs among these.

Materials and methods:

To identify long-term asthma-related QoL outcomes associated with omalizumab therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma, we developed a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. Published real-world effectiveness studies of adults or adolescents (12 years or older) with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab for at least 48 weeks were reviewed. Sources used were Medline (PubMed), the Cochrane Library and Google Scholar up to February 2018. In addition, a cross-referencing search was conducted to complete the revision.

Results:

A total of 255 potential papers were identified in the first search through the database. After full-text viewing, eight articles were finally included in the review. We summarized the results according to the study design, patient baseline characteristics and effectiveness outcomes assessed by AQLQ score results: variation from baseline to the end of study. Results confirmed the long-term benefits of omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with uncontrolled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Since there is a lot of evidence on omalizumab effectiveness, we aimed to focus on how a therapy can change patient’s QoL in a long time period. Data showed long-term effects of omalizumab treatment on subjective (PROs) and objective (lung function, corticosteroid use, hospitalizations, asthma exacerbation) effectiveness measures.

Conclusion:

Studies included in our review were observational trials that, due to their design, present a potential risk of selection bias in the patients included. Beyond this limit, the evaluation of QoL using the AQLQ showed a clear increase over time, following both 48 weeks and 9 years of observation, where QoL improvements still were significant over baseline values.

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

Objective: To describe resource use and costs of severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma.Method: Secondary analysis of an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study that estimated the economic impact of severe asthma. The study was carried out in severe asthma units of the pulmonology and allergy services of 20 public hospitals (inclusion period: June to November 2016). The study included adult patients diagnosed with severe asthma according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus in the stable phase (no exacerbation during the last 2 months), and with at least one severe exacerbation during the study period (12 months). Healthcare resource use due to severe exacerbations (emergency visits, hospitalizations and pharmacological treatment) was recorded. The direct health costs associated with severe exacerbations were calculated by multiplying the resources used by the corresponding unit cost (in 2018 euros).Results: 134 patients with ≥1 severe exacerbation were included: 63% were female and the mean age was 54 years. 249 severe exacerbations were registered. There were 1.5 physician visits at primary care, hospital care and/or emergency room per episode, 13% of episodes required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 7.2 days. Systemic corticosteroids were prescribed in 92% of exacerbations. The mean direct cost was €758.7/exacerbation (95% confidence interval: 556.8-1,011.1), of which 82% was due to hospitalizations (€623.3/episode). Considering only episodes requiring hospital admission, the mean cost increased by €4,997/exacerbation.Conclusions: It was estimated that the economic impact of a severe exacerbation in Spanish patients with severe asthma was €758.7/exacerbation.

Economic Impact and Clinical Outcomes of Omalizumab Add-On Therapy for Patients with Severe Persistent Asthma: A Real-World Study

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a fully humanized monoclonal antibody indicated as add-on therapy to improve asthma control in patients with severe persistent allergic asthma.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate social, healthcare expenditure and clinical outcomes changes after incorporating omalizumab into standard treatment in the control of severe asthma.

METHODS

In this multicentre retrospective study, a total of 220 patients were included from 15 respiratory medicine departments in the regions of Andalusia and Extremadura (Spain). Effectiveness was calculated as a 3-point increase in the Asthma Control Test (ACT) and a reduction in the annual number of exacerbations. The economic evaluation included both direct and indirect costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Results from the year before and the year after incorporation of omalizumab were compared.

RESULTS

After adding omalizumab, improvement of lung function, asthma and rhinitis according to patient perception, as well as the number of exacerbations and asthma control measured by the ACT score were observed. Globally, both healthcare resources and pharmacological costs decreased after omalizumab treatment, excluding omalizumab cost. When only direct costs were considered, the ICER was €1712 (95% CI 1487-1995) per avoided exacerbation and €3859 (95% CI 3327-4418) for every 3-point increase in the ACT score. When both direct and indirect costs were considered, the ICER was €1607 (95% CI 1385-1885) for every avoided exacerbation and €3555 (95% CI 3012-4125) for every 3-point increase.

CONCLUSIONS

Omalizumab was shown to be an effective add-on therapy for patients with persistent severe asthma and allowed reducing key drivers of asthma-related costs.

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

Objective: Estimate the economic impact of severe asthma from the Spanish social perspective through the estimation of the associated annual direct and indirect costs. Methods: Observational, longitudinal, retrospective study carried out in 20 Spanish secondary settings (Pulmonology and Allergy Services) among patients aged ≥18, diagnosed with severe asthma according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus and who have not experienced an exacerbation in the previous 2 months. Asthma-related healthcare resource utilization as well as asthma-related days off work were collected over a retrospective 12-month period from medical records review (inclusion period: June to November 2016). Total costs were calculated by multiplying the natural resource units used within 1 year by the corresponding unit cost. Costs were expressed in Euros for 2018. Results: A total of 303 patients were included, mean age was 54 years old and 67% were women. There were 5.7 physician visits per patient (3.3 in secondary care). The most common pharmacologic treatment was fixed dose combination of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-adrenergic agonists (96.7%), followed by leukotriene receptor antagonists (57.1%). 134 patients (44.2%) had at least one severe asthma exacerbation (mean: 1.9 exacerbation/patient), of whom 22 patients required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 10.9 days/patient. Mean sick leave due to severe asthma was 9.1 days per patient per year. Mean annual direct cost (confidence interval 95%) was €7472/patient (€6578-8612). The cost per exacerbation was €1410/patient. When indirect costs were added (€1082/patient [€564-1987]), the total annual mean cost rose to €8554/patient (€7411-10199). Conclusions: Taking the social perspective, the economic impact of severe asthma in Spain was estimated to be €8554/patient/year.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of childhood asthma

INTRODUCTION

Omalizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds and inhibits free serum immunoglobulin E, a mediator involved in the clinical manifestations of allergic asthma. Evidence for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma is based primarily on studies in adolescents and adults. However, there is increasing evidence of its utility in children with allergic asthma aged 6-12 years. Areas covered: This article reviews efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of omalizumab in the treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in children aged 6-12 years in clinical trials and in studies in clinical practice. Pharmacoeconomic aspects of its use among this population and the positioning of omalizumab in pediatric asthma management guidelines are also discussed. Additionally, an algorithm for the management of poorly controlled severe pediatric asthma in children older than 6 years is proposed. Electronic databases, such as PubMed, were searched for terms Asthma and Omalizumab and for asthma management guidelines. Expert commentary: Add-on omalizumab is an effective maintenance therapy in children aged 6-12 years with poorly controlled moderate-to-severe allergic asthma treated with medium-high inhaled corticosteroids doses and inhaled long-acting β2-agonists. Omalizumab appears safe in children in both clinical trials and real-life setting and may be cost-effective.

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.

Asthma Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Are We Using the Recommended Outcomes in Estimating Value?

BACKGROUND

Asthma medication cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) lack the qualitative assessment regarding whether they capture the National Institutes for Health (NIH) 2012 recommended outcomes necessary to allow robust cross-study comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the current asthma outcomes used in CEAs and recommend a direction for improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane, and NHSEED from January 2010 through December 2015. Key words included (1) cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, economic evaluation, health economics, or cost-benefit AND (2) asthma. All CEA studies evaluating 1 or more asthma medication were included. Authors assessed each CEA study with respect to asthma-specific NIH outcome recommendations including core (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, medication, interventions costs), supplemental (visit categories and work/school absence), and emerging (academic/job-related) asthma outcomes. Besides outcomes of each CEA, issues that could prevent robust cross-study comparison were identified and thematically summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 12 pre-NIH and 14 post-NIH recommendation CEAs were included. Eleven (91.7%) and 14 (100%) of the pre-/post-NIH studies included at least 1 core outcome, respectively. Of the 26 total studies, 7 (26.9%) included asthma-specific outpatient visit categories, 6 (23.1%) included asthma school or work absences, 5 (19.2%) included respiratory health care use, and none of the studies included emerging outcomes. Other issues that hamper cross-study comparison include lack of standardized cost data, time frames, quality-of-life measures, and incorporation of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of NIH-recommended asthma core outcomes has improved, there is still room for improvement in using supplemental and emerging outcomes. To allow robust cross-study comparisons, future work should focus on further standardizing of data sources and methods.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting

OBJECTIVE

Omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy has proven to be efficacious in severe asthma patients for whom exacerbations cannot be controlled otherwise. Moreover, evidence from different healthcare settings suggests reduced healthcare resource utilization with omalizumab. Based on these findings, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting.

METHODS

A previously published Markov model was adapted using Brazil-specific unit costs to compare the costs and outcomes of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy vs standard-of-care therapy alone. Model inputs were largely based on the eXpeRience study. Costs and health outcomes were calculated for lifetime-years and were annually discounted at 5%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

An additional cost of R$280,400 for 5.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years was estimated with the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$53,890. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that discount rates, standard-of-care therapy exacerbation rates, and exacerbation-related mortality rates had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

LIMITATIONS

Assumptions of lifetime treatment adherence and rate of future exacerbations, independent of previous events, might affect the findings. The lack of Brazilian patients in the eXpeRience study may affect the findings, although sample size and baseline characteristics suggest that the modeled population closely resembles Brazilian severe allergic asthma patients.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that omalizumab as an add-on therapy is more cost-effective than standard-of-care therapy alone for Brazilian patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, based on the World Health Organization's cost-effectiveness threshold of up to 3-times the gross domestic product.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Antibody to FcεRIα Suppresses Immunoglobulin E Binding to High-Affinity Receptor I in Allergic Inflammation

PURPOSE

High-affinity receptor I (FcεRI) on mast cells and basophils plays a key role in the immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated type I hypersensitivity mediated by allergen cross-linking of the specific IgE-FcεRI complex. Thus, prevention of IgE binding to FcεRI on these cells is an effective therapy for allergic disease. We have developed a strategy to disrupt IgE binding to FcεRI using an antibody targeting FcεRIα.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fab fragment antibodies, which lack the Fc domain, with high affinity and specificity for FcεRIα and effective inhibitory activity against IgE-FcεRI binding were screened. IgE-induced histamine, β-hexosaminidase and Ca²⁺ release in basophils were determined by ELISA. A B6.Cg-Fcer1a(tm1Knt) Tg(FCER1A)1Bhk/J mouse model of passive cutaneous anaphylaxis (PCA) was used to examine the inhibitory effect of NPB311 on allergic skin inflammation.

RESULTS

NPB311 exhibited high affinity to human FcεRIα (KD=4 nM) and inhibited histamine, β-hexosaminidase and Ca²⁺ release in a concentration-dependent manner in hFcεRI-expressing cells. In hFcεRIα-expressing mice, dye leakage was higher in the PCA group than in controls, but decreased after NPB311 treatment. NPB311 could form a complex with FcεRIα and inhibit the release of inflammation mediators.

CONCLUSION

Our approach for producing anti-FcεRIα Fab fragment antibody NPB311 may enable clinical application to a therapeutic pathway in IgE/FcεRI-mediated diseases.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHOD

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost Effectiveness of Outpatient Asthma Clinics

INTRODUCTION

Asthma clinics (AC) are hospital outpatient services specialising in the management of asthma. In this study, we analysed the impact of these clinics on asthma management and their cost effectiveness in comparison with standard outpatient services.

METHODS

A case cross-over study in which all new patients seen in the AC of Lugo in 2012 were included. The case period was defined as one year following the first visit to the AC; the control period was defined as the preceding year. We calculated changes in clinical quality indicators for asthma management, and estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each additional patient treated and for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY) RESULTS: The number of patients (n=83, mean age 49 ± 15.2 years; 60.2% women) managed in the AC increased from 41% to 86%. The Asthma Control Test score increased from 18.7 ± 4.6 to 22.6 ± 2.3 (p<0.05) and FEV1 increased from 81.4% ± 17.5 to 84.4% ± 16.6 (p<0.05). The number of exacerbations, hospitalisations and visits to accident and emergency fell by 75%. The number of patients given combination LABA+ICS therapy fell from 79.5% to 41%. The use of other drug therapy increased: anticholinergics, from 3.6% to 16.9%; ICS in monotherapy, from 3.6% to 45.8%; and omalizumab, from 0% to 6%. ICERs per patient managed and per QALY gained were €1,399 and €6,876, respectively (social perspective).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment in ACs is cost-effective and beneficial in asthma management.

Cost-effectiveness of asthma therapy: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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