Clinical characteristics of complete responders versus non-complete responders to omalizumab, benralizumab and mepolizumab in patients with severe asthma: a long-term retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with severe asthma may benefit from treatment with biologics, but evidence has been mostly collected from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which patients' characteristics are different from those encountered in asthma patients in the real-world setting. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical features of complete responders versus non-complete responders to long-term treatment with biologics in patients with severe asthma attended in routine daily practice. METHODS: Data of a cohort of 90 patients with severe asthma who were treated with biologics (omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab) for at least 12 months and were followed up to March 2022. Data recorded included clinical characteristics and effectiveness of treatment (exacerbation, Asthma Control Test [ACT] score, lung function, use of maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]), FeNO, and blood eosinophils at baseline, at 12 months, and at the end of follow-up. Complete response is considered if, in addition to not presenting exacerbations or the use of mOCS, the ACT score was >20 and, the FEV1 >80% predicted. RESULTS: An improvement in all asthma control parameters was observed after 12 months of treatment and a mean follow-up of 55 months. After 12 months of treatment 27.2% of patients met the criteria of complete response and this percentage even increased to 35.3% at the end of follow-up. Long-term complete response was associated to better lung function with mepolizumab and omalizumab treatment and to less previous exacerbations in the benralizumab group. The main cause of not achieving a complete response was the persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab improved the clinical outcomes of patients with severe asthma in a clinic environment with similar effect sizes to RCTs in the long term follow-up. Airflow obstruction, however, was a predictor of a non-complete response to biologics.

Treatment with anti-IgE and anti-IL-5 biologics significantly improved clinical outcomes in severe asthma patients.The rate of complete responders of 27.2% at 12 months even increased to 35.3% at the end of a mean follow-up of 55 months.The persistence of an airflow obstructive pattern was the main cause of the failure to achieve complete response.

Hidden costs of antiretroviral treatment: the public health efficiency of drug packaging.

While the overall percentage of unused antiretroviral medicines returned to the hospital pharmacy is low, their cost is quite high. Adverse events, treatment failure, pharmacokinetic interactions, pregnancy, or treatment simplification are common reasons for unplanned treatment changes. Socially inefficient antiretroviral packages prevent the reuse of drugs returned to the hospital pharmacy. We defined antiretroviral package categories based on the excellence of drug packaging and analyzed the number of pills and costs of drugs returned during a period of 1 year in a hospital-based HIV unit attending to 2,413 treated individuals. A total of 6,090 pills (34% of all returned antiretrovirals) - with a cost of 47,139.91 € - would be totally lost, mainly due to being packed up in the lowest efficiency packages. Newer treatments are packaged in low-excellence categories of packages, thus favoring the maintenance of these hidden costs in the near future. Therefore, costs of this low-efficiency drug packaging, where medication packages are started but not completed, in high-cost medications are substantial and should be properly addressed. Any improvement in the packaging by the manufacturer, and favoring the choice of drugs supplied through efficient packages (when efficacy, toxicity, and convenience are similar), should minimize the treatment expenditures paid by national health budgets.

Hidden costs of HIV treatment in Spain: inefficiency of the antiretroviral drug packaging.

INTRODUCTION: Antiretroviral drugs in Spain are delivered by law only in hospital pharmacies. Commercial packages meet variable quality standards when dispensed drugs are returned due to treatment changes or adherence problems Nearly 20-25% of the initial regimens will be changed at 48 weeks for different reasons. We evaluated the economic impact on public health system of the inability of using returned drugs due to inefficient packaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We defined socially efficient packaging as the best adapted one to being delivered in unit dose to outpatients and classified: Class A - Drug packed in unit doses with complete info (name of drug, dosage in mg, lot, and expiring date) in each unit, maintaining complete information of the drug if returned when the external package is opened. Class B - packed in blisters with complete info in the blister, but not in unit doses, without special conservation conditions (should be re-packed in unit doses in the pharmacy before its dispensation to assure a class A excellence). Class C - packed in plastic containers with complete info written only on a label over the container, would allow repackaging only before its initial delivery, but not when returned. Class D - drug packed in plastic containers with manufacturer's warning that the product cannot be placed outside of the original package due to special conditions of conservation (fridge, humidity) that doesn't allow a unit dose repackaging or reusing an opened container. We analysed a 12-month period (July 2011-June 2012) in a hospital-based HIV outpatient pharmacy that serves 2413 treated individuals. RESULTS: Patients generated 23,574 visits to pharmacy, and received 48,325 drug packages, with 2.529.137 pills delivered. The patients suffered 1051 treatment changes for any reason. A total amount of 122.945€ in treatment were returned to pharmacy in opened packages during the study period. 47.139.91€ would be totally lost, mainly due to being packaged in class C and D boxes, the equivalent of treating 78 patients with rilpivirine/TDF/FTC during 1 month. Class A and B packages in bad condition represented only 1.1% of the cost. However, 75.805€ came from returned packages in good condition that could potentially be reused. Most of the treatment changes were not foreseeable. CONCLUSIONS: A significant economic budget is lost through socially inefficient antiretroviral packages. Newer treatments are packaged in C and D categories, therefore maintaining these hidden costs in the near future. Any improvement in the excellence of packaging by the manufacturer, and favouring the choice of drugs supplied through efficient packages (when efficacy, toxicity and convenience are similar) should minimize the treatment expenditures paid by national health budgets.