Out-of-Pocket Costs of Biologic Treatments for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis in the Medicare Population

Current and Novel Biologic Therapies for Patients with Asthma and Nasal Polyps

A substantial portion of asthma and nasal polyps (NPs) share a common pathogenesis, which includes type 2-mediated inflammation. Distinct endotypes and phenotypes characterizing asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis have been identified. With emerging evidence describing pathophysiology, novel targets for biologic monoclonal antibody treatments have been developed. There are currently six biologic therapies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat asthma, including omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, three of these-omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab-are also approved for NPs.

The Inflation Reduction Act: Implications for Medicare spending and access to biologic therapies for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis and asthma

KEY POINTS

In 2021, Medicare spending on biologics was $926 million in Part B (FFS) and $1.3 billion in Part D (FFS/MA). Between 2017 and 2021, annual Medicare spending on biologics increased by approximately 200%. Between 2023 and 2025, Medicare Part D OOP costs for biologics will decrease by an estimated 50%-60%.

Trends in price, spending, and utilization of omalizumab among Medicare beneficiaries

KEY POINTS

Between January 2005 and January 2023, the average selling price of omalizumab increased by nearly 60%. Between 2016 and 2021, Medicare Part B and D spending on omalizumab totaled over $3.7 billion. Between 2016 and 2021, Medicare Part B and D utilization of omalizumab increased by approximately 30%.

Comparative short-term efficacy of endoscopic sinus surgery and biological therapies in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the safety and efficacy between endoscopic sinus surgery and different biologics in treating chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps in adults by reviewing the existing clinical trials.

METHODS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by 2 independent reviewers according to the PRISMA recommendations and any disagreement was resolved by a third investigator. Outcomes were measured through a random-effects model. We searched Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and other relevant sources from its inception to April 30, 2022. We included randomized controlled trials(RCTs) involving endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) or biologics in treating adult patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. Studies involving other miscellaneous diseases, non-RCT design, and insufficient participants or follow-up were excluded.

RESULTS

In this systematic review, five RCTs and 1748 patients were included. All the biologics, as well as ESS, could significantly improve key nasal outcomes in CRSwNP both at 6 months and 1 year. Dupilumab exhibited better efficacy than ESS in improving SNOT-22 scores at one year. However, ESS showed superiority over three biologics in improving nasal congestion scores (NCS) at two various time points, except for better efficacy of Dupilumab at 1 year. For the loss of smell scores, a greater improvement was observed in the Dupilumab cohort compared with other biologics and even ESS counterparts. Safety analysis showed no significant difference between the ESS cohort and biologic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, ESS showed comparable improvement in quality of life and symptoms to Omalizumab, Mepolizumab, and Benralizumab. Dupilumab seems to be more effective than ESS in selected items, whereas head-to-head trials and real-world studies are urgent to compare their efficacy. Our findings also showed that biologics could be applied as alternative or adjuvant therapy for uncontrolled severe CRSwNP.