The costs and consequences of omalizumab in uncontrolled asthma from a USA payer perspective

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine.

METHODS

We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000).

RESULTS

Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

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.

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 economics of precision health: preventing air pollution-induced exacerbation in asthma

The demonstrable value of precision medicine, in the context of common environmental exposures, has scarcely been explored. This study evaluated the cost effectiveness of a preventive personalised intervention to reduce the adverse effect of air pollution in the context of asthma.

A decision–analytic model was used to conduct a cost-utility analysis of prevention interventions in case of acute exposure to air pollution in mild asthma. Three different strategies, as follows, were compared: no preventive intervention; precision health strategy based on information from genotype testing, followed with treating high-risk patients; and prescribing additional medication to all mild asthmatics as a preventive intervention. The costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the base case and alternative scenarios were obtained through probabilistic analysis.

The results showed that the precision prevention intervention (anticipatory intervention for asthmatics, guided by relevant genetic abnormality, in the face of acute air pollution) is a cost-effective strategy compared with no such intervention, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD 49 555 per QALY. Furthermore, this strategy is a dominant strategy compared with an intervention that prescribes medication indiscriminately to all asthmatics.

The incorporation of genomic testing to stratify risk of asthmatics to pollution-driven exacerbations, and then tailoring a preventive intervention accordingly, may be cost effective relative to untailored methods. These results lend plausibility to the use of precision medicine for limiting asthma exacerbation in the context of air pollution and, potentially, other exposures.

Glutathione-S-transferase genotyping to determine the use of preventive asthma medication in the face of air pollution is cost effective in this model. Precision prevention in the setting of common environmental exposures may be used in other contexts.https://bit.ly/35Lab4b

Clinical and economic consequences of switching from omalizumab to mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma

Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS), which worsen patients’ health and increase healthcare spending. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic impact of switching from omalizumab (OMA) to mepolizumab (MEP) in patients eligible for both biologics, but not optimally controlled by omalizumab. We retrospectively enrolled uncontrolled severe asthmatic patients who switched from OMA to MEP during the last two years. Information included blood eosinophil count, asthma control test (ACT), spirometry, serum IgE, fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO), OCS intake, drugs, exacerbations/hospitalizations, visits and diagnostic exams. Within the perspective of Italian National Health System, a pre- and post-MEP 12-month standardized total cost per patient was calculated. 33 patients were enrolled: five males, mean age 57 years, disease onset 24 years. At OMA discontinuation, 88% were OCS-dependent with annual mean rate of 4.0 clinically significant exacerbations, 0.30 exacerbations needing emergency room visits or hospitalization; absenteeism due to disease was 10.4 days per patient. Switch to MEP improved all clinical outcomes, reducing total exacerbation rate (RR = 0.06, 95% CI 0.03–0.14), OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.005–0.08), and number of lost working days (Δ = − 7.9, 95% CI − 11.2 to − 4.6). Pulmonary function improved, serum IgE, FeNO and eosinophils decreased. Mean annual costs were €12,239 for OMA and €12,639 for MEP (Δ = €400, 95% CI − 1588–2389); the increment due to drug therapy (+ €1,581) was almost offset by savings regarding all other cost items (− €1,181). Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, not controlled by OMA, experienced comprehensive benefits by switching to MEP with only slight increases in economic costs.

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.

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 fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) measurement in predicting response to omalizumab in asthma

Purpose: To use a modeled analysis to examine the cost-effectiveness of utilizing fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) as a biomarker to aid in the identification of omalizumab responders in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Omalizumab is a biological drug used to treat asthma in adults and children 12 years and older. Patients and methods: We conducted a decision analysis in which two alternative strategies for predicting omalizumab response were assessed: 1) testing response via a 12-week trial of omalizumab and 2) using FeNO measurement to screen patients for likely omalizumab response prior to initiating a 12-week trial of omalizumab. In the standard of care arm, trial omalizumab responders continue on to receive 12 months of continuous omalizumab therapy. In the FeNO measurement predictor arm, patients with FeNO measurements >19.5 ppb are started on a trial of omalizumab. Trial omalizumab responders in this arm are then also tracked for 12 months of continuous omalizumab therapy. Results: Per-patient costs during the trial and initial treatment periods total $10,943 for FeNO + omalizumab and $13,703 for omalizumab only. The expected cost per responder during the trial period is $4,326 for FeNO + omalizumab and $7,786 for omalizumab only. Conclusion: Use of FeNO measurement to identify omalizumab responders decreases the expected per-patient cost by nearly 50% during the trial period and continues to show cost savings through the initial treatment period of 12 months. Our analysis may serve as a model for policy and clinical practice regarding the use of FeNO to determine omalizumab response and has widespread implications for health care payers, who may choose to require FeNO measurement and prespecify a minimum FeNO value to determine patient eligibility for omalizumab trial.

Using a dynamic adherence Markov model to assess the efficiency of Respiratory Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (RMTAC) on asthma patients in Malaysia

Background

Respiratory Medication Therapy Adherence Clinic (RMTAC) is an initiative by the Ministry of Health (MOH) Malaysia to improve patients’ medication adherence, as an adjunct to the usual physician care (UC). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combined strategy of RMTAC and UC (RMTAC + UC) vs. UC alone in asthma patients, from the MOH Malaysia perspective.

Methods

A lifetime horizon dynamic adherence Markov model with monthly cycle was developed, for quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and hospitalization averted outcomes. Transition probabilities of composite asthma control and medication adherence, utilities, costs, and mortality rates due to all causes were measured from local data sources. Effectiveness, exacerbation rates, and asthma mortality rates were taken from non-local data sources. One-way sensitivity analysis (SA) was conducted for assessing parameter uncertainties, whereas probabilistic SA (PSA) was conducted on a different set of utilities and effectiveness data. Costs were adjusted to 2014 US dollars ($). Both costs and benefits were discounted at a 3% rate annually.

Results

RMTAC + UC was found to be a dominant alternative compared to UC alone; $− 13,639.40 ($− 109,556.90 to $104,445.54) per QALY gained and $− 428.93 ($− 521.27 to ($− 328.69)) per hospitalization averted. These results were found to be robust against changes in all parameters except utilities in the one-way SA, and for both scenarios in PSA.

Conclusions

RMTAC + UC is more effective and yet cheaper than UC alone, from the MOH perspective. For the benefit of both MOH and patients, RMTAC is thus recommended to be remained, and expanded to more healthcare settings where possible.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12962-018-0156-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical and economic impact of a one-year treatment with omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma within a drug programme in Poland

Background

Allergic asthma is the most prevalent phenotype of severe asthma where treatment with omalizumab (OMB) has been proven to be particularly beneficial. In Poland, OMB therapy is available and reimbursed within a drug programme where strict inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined.

The objective of this study was to present a descriptive analysis regarding the trends in outcomes (clinical, quality of life, costs) among a cohort of patients who satisfy inclusion criteria for the initiation of OMB treatment and who successfully responded to OMB according to a set of objective criteria.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of data collected during the 52 weeks of OMB treatment was carried out. The study population was adolescents and adults with severe allergic asthma that was uncontrolled despite a combination of high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonists (LABA) and/or other controllers (leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), sustained-release theophylline, and short- or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (SAMA/LAMA), who were the first to finish the one-year treatment. A clinical and cost analysis for patients included in the programme was conducted comparing the one-year pre-treatment period to the one-year treatment period outcomes.

Results

Data of 85 patients who completed the first year of therapy were reviewed and analysed. Add-on OMB treatment resulted in a median decrease in exacerbation rate of 66% relative to the baseline and a reduction in oral steroid (OCS) dose by an average of 7.7 mg. At the end of the 52 weeks of therapy the changes in the quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ) and the asthma control questionnaire (ACQ) scores were 1.86 and 1.45 points, respectively. The mean cost of asthma treatment increased by an average of 15,979 EUR per patient per year (baseline period – 802 EUR/patient/year; OMB treatment – 16,781 EUR/patient/year). The cost to avoid one exacerbation was 17721 EUR.

Conclusion

The clinical outcomes for the observed subset of patients were highly improved. At the same time, costs of the treatment increased, mainly due to the high OMB costs. Other costs associated with a lower number of hospitalizations and ED and office visits and a reduction in OCS dose decreased. These descriptive data can be used for further investigation in defining patients who benefit the most from OMB treatment in clinical practice.

Pediatric severe asthma: a case series report and perspectives on anti-IgE treatment

Background

The primary goal of asthma management is to achieve disease control for reducing the risk of future exacerbations and progressive loss of lung function. Asthma not responding to treatment may result in significant morbidity. In many children with uncontrolled symptoms, the diagnosis of asthma may be wrong or adherence to treatment may be poor. It is then crucial to distinguish these cases from the truly “severe therapy-resistant” asthmatics by a proper filtering process. Herein we report on four cases diagnosed as difficult asthma, detail the workup that resulted in the ultimate diagnosis, and provide the process that led to the prescription of omalizumab.

Case presentation

All children had been initially referred because of asthma not responding to long-term treatment with high-dose inhaled steroids, long-acting β₂-agonists and leukotriene receptor antagonists. Definitive diagnosis was severe asthma. Three out four patients were treated with omalizumab, which improved asthma control and patients’ quality of life. We reviewed the current literature on the diagnostic approach to the disease and on the comorbidities associated with difficult asthma and presented the perspectives on omalizumab treatment in children and adolescents. Based on the evidence from the literature review, we also proposed an algorithm for the diagnosis of pediatric difficult-to-treat and severe asthma.

Conclusions

The management of asthma is becoming much more patient-specific, as more and more is learned about the biology behind the development and progression of asthma. The addition of omalizumab, the first targeted biological treatment approved for asthma, has led to renewed optimism in the management of children and adolescents with atopic severe asthma.

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

BACKGROUND

A significant minority of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA). A number of add-on therapies, including monoclonal antibodies (namely omalizumab) and more recently tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. 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 of asthma was created. Total costs (in 2013 US $) and health outcomes 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. Future costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at the rate of 3%. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at willingness-to-pay value of $50,000.

RESULTS

The 10-year discounted costs and QALYs for standard therapy were $38,432 and 6.79, respectively. The corresponding values for add-on therapy with tiotropium and with omalizumab were $41,535 and 6.88, and $217,847 and 7.17, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of add-on therapy with tiotropium versus standard therapy, and omalizumab versus tiotropium were $34,478/QALY, and $593,643/QALY, respectively. The model outcomes were most sensitive to the costs of omalizumab but were robust against other assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although omalizumab had the best health outcomes, add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY.

Targeting patients with asthma for omalizumab therapy: choosing the right patient to get the best value for money

The asthma syndrome has many manifestations, termed phenotypes, that arise by specific cellular and molecular mechanisms, termed endotypes. Understanding an individual's asthma phenotype helps clinicians make rational therapeutic decisions while the understanding of endotypes has led to the development of specific precision medications. Allergic asthma is an example of an asthma phenotype and omalizumab, a monoclonal antibody that neutralizes serum immunoglobulin (Ig)E, is a specific targeted treatment which was developed as a result of an understanding of the endotype of allergic asthma. Omalizumab has been widely used in clinical practice in Europe for over a decade as an add-on therapy to treat patients who have severe refractory allergic asthma. Over this period, many centres have reported their experience with omalizumab as an add-on therapy in patients with severe asthma. These 'real world' clinical effectiveness studies have confirmed the benefits, cost-effectiveness and clinical utility of this medication. Combining the outcomes of both sources of research has yielded important insights that may benefit patients with severe asthma, clinicians who treat them, as well as the funding agencies that reimburse the cost of this medication. The purpose of this review is to describe how to identify and evaluate a patient with asthma for whom treatment with omalizumab may be of clinical and cost-effective benefit. The assessment and investigations used to confirm allergic asthma, the objective assessment of adherence to asthma therapy and the expected benefits of add-on omalizumab treatment are described.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bronchial Thermoplasty, Omalizumab, and Standard Therapy for Moderate-to-Severe Allergic Asthma

BACKGROUND

Bronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. A few studies have suggested the clinical efficacy of this intervention. However, no study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BT compared to other alternative treatments for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, which currently include omalizumab and standard therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in the USA.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model with weekly cycles was developed to reflect the course of asthma progression over a 5-year time horizon. The study population was adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma whose asthma remained uncontrolled despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS, with or without long-acting beta-agonists [LABA]). A perspective of the health-care system was adopted with asthma-related costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and exacerbations as the outcomes.

RESULTS

For standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab, the discounted 5-year costs and QALYs were $15,400 and 3.08, $28,100 and 3.24, and $117,000 and 3.26, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BT versus standard therapy and omalizumab versus BT was $78,700/QALY and $3.86 million/QALY, respectively. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, the probability of BT being cost-effective was 9%, and 67%, respectively. The corresponding expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $155 and $1,530 per individual at these thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, increasing the costs of BT from $14,900 to $30,000 increased its ICER relative to standard therapy to $178,000/QALY, and decreased the ICER of omalizumab relative to BT to $3.06 million/QALY. Reducing the costs of omalizumab by 25% decreased its ICER relative to BT by 29%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available evidence, our study suggests that there is more than 60% chance that BT becomes cost-effective relative to omalizumab and standard therapy at the WTP of $100,000/QALY in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is a substantial uncertainty in the underlying evidence, indicating the need for future research towards reducing such uncertainty.

Long-term efficacy and safety of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, limited information is available to clinicians regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab treatment for allergic asthma. In this report, we aimed to (i) systematically review the evidence regarding the long-term efficacy of omalizumab in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma, and to (ii) discuss the cost-effectiveness evidence published for omalizumab in this patient population. A comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs; ≥52 weeks) was performed, and six studies met our final inclusion criteria (n = 2,749). Omalizumab was associated with significant improvements in quality of life and the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness. Omalizumab also allowed patients to completely withdraw from inhaled corticosteroid therapy and did not increase the overall incidence of adverse events. However, there was insufficient evidence that omalizumab reduced the incidence of exacerbations, and the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab varied across studies. Our data indicated that omalizumab use for at least 52 weeks in patients with persistent uncontrolled allergic asthma was accompanied by an acceptable safety profile, but it lacked effect on the asthma exacerbations. Use of omalizumab was associated with a higher cost than conventional therapy, but these increases may be cost-effective if the medication is used in patients with severe allergic asthma.

Pediatric asthma: guidelines-based care, omalizumab, and other potential biologic agents

Over the past several decades, the evidence supporting rational pediatric asthma management has grown considerably. As more is learned about the various phenotypes of asthma, the complexity of management will continue to grow. This article focuses on the evidence supporting the current guidelines-based pediatric asthma management and explores the future of asthma management with respect to phenotypic heterogeneity and biologics.

Omalizumab in an allergology clinic: real life experience and future developments

Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody that reduces levels of circulating IgE and expression of IgE high affinity receptor (FCɛRI) on mast cells and basophils. Its role in the therapy of allergic asthma and urticaria is well established. According to GINA guidelines, omalizumab should be considered as an important alternative to systemic corticosteroids in uncontrolled asthma. Several ongoing trials will evaluate omalizumab efficacy in the treatment of other allergic diseases and conditions. Further studies are needed to answer several practical questions on the optimal duration of treatment and possible biomarkers to predefine a cohort of responders to this therapy.

Omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin E antibody: state of the art

A large number of trials show that the anti-immunoglobulin (Ig) E antibody omalizumab is very effective in patients with severe allergic asthma. This is acknowledged in consensus documents. The drug also has a good safety profile and a pharmacoeconomic advantage due to a reduction in the number of hospitalizations for asthma attacks. In recent years, some studies have shown that omalizumab is effective also in nonallergic asthma. Effects on the complex signaling mechanisms leading to activation of effector cells and to mediator release may account for this outcome. Indeed, omalizumab has been reported to be effective in a number of IgE-mediated and non-IgE-mediated disorders. Concerning the former, clinical efficacy has been observed in rhinitis, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, latex allergy, atopic dermatitis, allergic urticaria, and anaphylaxis. In addition, omalizumab has been demonstrated to be able to prevent systemic reactions to allergen immunotherapy, thus enabling completion of treatment in patients who otherwise would have to stop it. Concerning non-IgE-mediated disorders, omalizumab has been reported to be effective in nasal polyposis, autoimmune urticaria, chronic idiopathic urticaria, physical urticaria, idiopathic angioedema, and mastocytosis. Current indications for treatment with omalizumab are confined to severe allergic asthma. Consequently, any other prescription can only be off-label. However, it is reasonable to expect that the use of omalizumab will be approved for particularly important indications, such as anaphylaxis, in the near future.

Allergic disorders at a venerable age: a mini-review

This review focuses on 3 allergic disorders of persons coming up against venerable age: asthma, allergic rhinitis, and atopic dermatitis. The prevalence of allergic diseases in the elderly ranges from 5 to 10% and appears to be rising. A gradual decline in immune function, termed immunosenescence, and age-related changes in tissue structure influence the development of these disorders. Common complications are comorbidities, polypharmacy, and adverse effects of drugs. The elderly have difficulty mounting protective immune responses against newly encountered antigens. The integrity of epithelial barriers is compromised, leading to a chronic, subclinical inflammatory state and an enhanced Th2 (allergic) immune response. Undiagnosed asthma is frequent in elderly persons (about 8%) and still more commonplace in those with respiratory symptoms. Poorly controlled asthma in the elderly undermines their functional status and leads to a loss of autonomy and social isolation that may delay seeking medical services. Aggravation of allergic rhinitis coincides with exacerbation of asthma, whereas treatment of nasal inflammation improves control of the asthma. Atopic dermatitis is a chronically relapsing inflammatory skin disease often associated with respiratory allergy.

Omalizumab: clinical use for the management of asthma

Omalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that binds circulating IgE antibody, is a treatment option for patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma whose asthma is poorly controlled with inhaled corticosteroids and inhaled long-acting β₂ agonist bronchodilators. This review considers the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and place in management of omalizumab in asthma and focuses particularly on key articles published over the last three years. Omalizumab reduces IgE mediated airway inflammation and its effect on airway remodeling is under investigation. Recent long-term clinical trials confirm the benefits of omalizumab in reducing exacerbations and symptoms in adults and in children with moderate to severe allergic asthma. No clinical or immunological factor consistently predicts a good therapeutic response to omalizumab in allergic asthma. In responders, the duration of treatment is unclear. The main adverse effect of omalizumab is anaphylaxis, although this occurs infrequently. Preliminary data from a five-year safety study has raised concerns about increased cardiovascular events and a final report is awaited. Clinical trials are in progress to determine whether omalizumab has efficacy in the treatment of non-allergic asthma.

Update on optimal use of omalizumab in management of asthma

Omalizumab is a humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody recently approved for the treatment of severe allergic asthma. This drug inhibits allergic responses by binding to serum IgE, thus preventing interaction with cellular IgE receptors. Omalizumab is also capable of downregulating the expression of high affinity IgE receptors on inflammatory cells, as well as the numbers of eosinophils in both blood and induced sputum. The clinical effects of omalizumab include improvements in respiratory symptoms and quality of life, paralleled by a reduction of asthma exacerbations, emergency room visits, and use of systemic corticosteroids and rescue bronchodilators. Omalizumab is relatively well-tolerated, and only rarely induces anaphylactic reactions. Therefore, this drug represents a valid option as add-on therapy for patients with severe persistent allergic asthma inadequately controlled by high doses of standard inhaled treatments.

Randomized trial of omalizumab (anti-IgE) for asthma in inner-city children

BACKGROUND

Research has underscored the effects of exposure and sensitization to allergens on the severity of asthma in inner-city children. It has also revealed the limitations of environmental remediation and guidelines-based therapy in achieving greater disease control.

METHODS

We enrolled inner-city children, adolescents, and young adults with persistent asthma in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial at multiple centers to assess the effectiveness of omalizumab, as compared with placebo, when added to guidelines-based therapy. The trial was conducted for 60 weeks, and the primary outcome was symptoms of asthma.

RESULTS

Among 419 participants who underwent randomization (at which point 73% had moderate or severe disease), omalizumab as compared with placebo significantly reduced the number of days with asthma symptoms, from 1.96 to 1.48 days per 2-week interval, a 24.5% decrease (P<0.001). Similarly, omalizumab significantly reduced the proportion of participants who had one or more exacerbations from 48.8 to 30.3% (P<0.001). Improvements occurred with omalizumab despite reductions in the use of inhaled glucocorticoids and long-acting beta-agonists.

CONCLUSIONS

When added to a regimen of guidelines-based therapy for inner-city children, adolescents, and young adults, omalizumab further improved asthma control, nearly eliminated seasonal peaks in exacerbations, and reduced the need for other medications to control asthma. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Novartis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00377572.).