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

The Quality of Economic Evaluations of Interventions to Improve Women and Child Health in Latin America: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to characterize and assess the reporting and methodological quality of health economic evaluations (HEEs) of interventions to improve women's and children's health in Latin America from 2004 to 2023.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed was searched for HEEs published between 2004 and 2023. The search terms included HEEs or cost-benefit analysis, Latin America or Latin American countries, and pediatrics and/or gynecology. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were HEEs; published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; and focused on pediatrics and/or gynecology in Latin America. Data extraction included study characteristics, methodological aspects, reporting, and methodological quality based on the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists.

RESULTS

Of 141 articles identified, 55 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles were cost-effectiveness evaluations conducted in Colombia and were aimed at pediatric patients. The quality assessment revealed that most Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies items were reported in at least 60% of the articles and that the study setting, justification for study perspective, bias acknowledgment, and subgroup analyses were the least frequently reported items.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights that although the number of HEEs in pediatrics and/or gynecology in Latin American countries is growing, to improve the transparency and generalizability of HEEs, the reporting and methodological quality of HEEs need to be improved. Seven key areas were identified for improving adherence to international quality standards.

Single inhaler combination inhaled corticosteroid-formoterol as both maintenance and reliever (SMART) compared with a step up of treatment with fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting β2-agonist maintenance with a short-acting β2-agonist as reliever in adolescents and adults with poorly controlled asthma in Colombia: a cost-utility analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-utility of single inhaler combination inhaled corticosteroid and a long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABAs) as both maintenance and reliever (SMART) compared with a step-up maintenance treatment with a fixed medium to high dose of ICS combined with LABA and a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) as reliever (ICS-LABA maintenance plus SABA) among patients aged 12 years or more with poorly controlled asthma in Colombia.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate the costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma treated for 12 months. The main effectiveness data were obtained from a recent meta-analysis. The main outcome was the variable ''quality-adjusted life-years'' (QALYs).

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that the budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) SMART strategy was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US $3,062.37 vs. $4,462.02 average cost per patient over 12 months) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.8511 vs. 0.8258 QALYs on average per patient over 12 months) compared with ICS-LABA maintenance plus SABA at step 4, thus leading to dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma at GINA step 3 or 4, the BUD/FORM SMART strategy at either step 3 or 4 is cost-effective compared with the ICS-LABA maintenance plus SABA at step 4 strategy, because it shows a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

A cost-utility analysis of single maintenance and reliever (SMART) therapy as compared to step 3 fixed-dose therapy in patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma

OBJECTIVES

A significant percentage of patients with asthma appear to benefit from the addition of long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) to ICS to achieve better control of their disease. The aim of the present study was to determine the cost-utility of single inhaler combination inhaled ICS/LABAs as both maintenance and reliever (SMART) versus remaining at the same treatment step with fixed-dose ICS-LABA maintenance with a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) as reliever in patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate the costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma treated for 12 months. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from a recent meta-analysis. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that compared with remaining at the same GINA treatment step with ICS/LABA maintenance plus SABA reliever, ICS/LABAs as SMART was associated with lower costs, US$2,906.92 versus $4,462.02 average cost per patient, and the greatest gain in QALYs, 0.8540 versus 0.8258 QALYs on average per patient, thus leading to dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with remaining at the same GINA treatment step with ICS/LABA maintenance plus SABA reliever, ICS/LABAs as SMART is more cost-effective in patients aged 12 years or more with uncontrolled asthma. This is because ICS/LABAs as SMART showed a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

Biological treatments in childhood asthma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim is to update the information currently available for the use of biologics in severe asthma in children, in order to facilitate their prescription as far as possible.

RECENT FINDINGS

The appearance of biologics for the treatment of severe asthma has meant a revolutionary change in the therapeutic approach to this disease. Currently, five biologics have been approved for severe asthma in children and/or adolescents by the regulatory agencies: omalizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab and tezepelumab. But despite their positive results in terms of efficacy, there are still relevant points of debate that should induce caution when selecting the most appropriate biologic in a child with severe asthma. Indeed, safety is essential and, for several of the existing treatments, the availability of medium-term to long-term data in this regard is scarce.

SUMMARY

The use of biologics can facilitate the therapeutic paradigm shift from pleiotropic treatments to personalized medicine. However, the choice of the most appropriate biologics remains a pending issue. On the other hand, to the extent that several of the biologics have been available for a relatively short time, the most robust evidence in terms of efficacy and safety in children is that of omalizumab.

Cost effectiveness of omalizumab for severe asthma in Colombia

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically binds to free human immunoglobulin E. The introduction of this drug raises concerns about economic impact in scenarios with constrained. This study aimed to estimate the cost utility of omalizumab in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia.

METHODS

We used a Markov state-transition model to estimate the cost and QALYs associated with omalizumab compared to standard of care; from a third payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. This model used local costs while utilities were derived from international literature. Cost and transition probabilities were obtained from a mixture of Colombian-specific and internationally published data.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of omalizumab versus standard of care is US$3 481. The mean incremental benefit of omalizumab versus standard of care 0.094 QALY. The incremental expected cost per unit of benefit is estimated at US$36846 per QALY. There is only a probability of 0.032 that Omalizumab is more cost-effective than standard of care at a threshold of US$5180 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Omalizumab is not cost-effective in adults with severe asthma uncontrolled in Colombia. If the cost of Omalizumab is reduced by 83%, this treatment would be cost-effective in our country. 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.

Effects of omalizumab combined with budesonide formoterol on clinical efficacy, pulmonary function, immune function, and adverse reactions in children with moderate and severe allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of combining omalizumab with budesonide formoterol to treat children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, and investigate the effect of this combination therapy on pulmonary and immune functions.

METHODS

The data of 88 children with moderate and severe allergic asthma, who were admitted to our hospital between July 2021 and July 2022, were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned either to control group (n = 44; received budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) or experimental group (n = 44; received omalizumab subcutaneous injection + budesonide formoterol inhalation therapy) using computer-generated randomization. The clinical efficacy, asthma control (measured using childhood Asthma-Control Test [C-ACT] score), pulmonary function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s, forced vital capacity, and peak expiratory flow), immune function (cluster of differentiation 3 cells [CD3⁺ cells], cluster of differentiation 4 cells [CD4⁺ cells], immunoglobulin G, immunoglobulin A, and immunoglobulin E), and adverse reactions were observed and compared between both groups.

RESULTS

After treatment, the experimental group had improved levels of pulmonary function and immune function indexes, higher C-ACT scores, and a higher overall response rate than the control group (P < 0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions was not significantly different between both groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of omalizumab with budesonide formoterol for treating moderate and severe allergic asthma in children demonstrated promising clinical efficacy and improved their pulmonary and immune functions, leading to more rational asthma control. The combined regimen demonstrated satisfactory clinical safety and deserved clinical promotion.

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.

The Use of Bacterial Lysate for the Prevention of Wheezing Episodes in Preschool Children: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although increasing recent evidence has shown the efficacy of bacterial lysate therapy for the prevention of wheezing episodes and asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients, evidence of its cost-effectiveness in preschool patients is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-utility of bacterial lysate therapy as an add-on to standard care of preschool children with recurrent wheezing.

METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the study, we used a Markov simulation model with 3 mutually exclusive nonabsorbent states (regular Markov chain). Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a recent systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses (5 randomized controlled trials, 433 children). Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national health care system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was quality-adjusted life-years. To assess the robustness of the model's results, we performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US $694.03 vs $830.71 average cost per patient) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9211 vs 0.9154 QALYs on average per patient), thus showing dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care for treating preschool children with recurrent wheezing is a dominant strategy because it showed a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

Real-world effectiveness of omalizumab for severe allergic asthma treatment in Colombia

Background

The allergic phenotype is responsible for more than 50% of severe asthma cases. In a stepwise approach, add-on treatments such as anti-IgE are used for severe allergic asthma (SAA). This study was aimed to describe the real-world effectiveness of omalizumab in adult and pediatric patients with SAA in Colombia.

Methods

This was an observational, non-interventional, retrospective study. Data from patients with SAA that received at least one month of treatment with omalizumab was obtained from medical records at eight sites in Colombia. Time-zero (t − 0) was defined as the date of initiation of omalizumab, and data was gathered for a 12-month period before t − 0 and a 12-month period after t − 0. Clinical outcomes, including exacerbations, were assessed at 6 and 12 months. Effectiveness of omalizumab was evaluated in terms of the reduction of the risk of exacerbations (annualized rate).

Results

We included 143 patients with SAA. There was a decrease of 72.4% of the annualized rate of clinically significant asthma exacerbations during the year after omalizumab (from 1.74 before to 0.48 after) with a substantial reduction of the risk of exacerbations by 56.7% (RR [95% CI] 0.43 [0.30–0.63] p < 0,001).

Conclusion

The use of omalizumab in Colombia as a treatment for SAA notably reduced the risk of clinically significant exacerbations. This study is the first to evaluate omalizumab real-life effectiveness in pediatric and adult patients in the country.

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.