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 four major medical centers in Turkey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe asthma, 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, 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 vs. 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 the 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.

What is the context? Severe asthma, a subset of difficult-to-treat asthma, refers to asthma that cannot be controlled despite adherence to optimized maximal therapy and treatment of contributing factors, or asthma that worsens when high-dose therapy is reduced.Omalizumab is the first biologic therapy approved for the treatment of allergic asthma. Its main role is to prevent the release of various inflammation factors that cause severe asthma episodes.Cost-effectiveness analysis is an economic method of determining how much more a new and better treatment costs relative to the current treatment in terms of how many life years (LY) and how many quality-adjusted life years (QALY) are gained with the new treatment. Cost-effectiveness results tell us how much more money is needed over the cost of the current treatment to achieve one additional LY, regardless of the quality of life, or one additional LY with good quality of life.No cost-effectiveness data obtained from actual clinical patient data are available for Turkey. What is new? Our study found that the addition of omalizumab to the current standard of care for severe asthma increases costs but also increases life years and quality-adjusted life years. The additional cost was less than what the World Health Organization assumes is reasonable for Turkey.This study used actual clinical patient data and noted that asthma patients in the omalizumab group used fewer health services, had a better clinical course, had a better quality of life, and lived longer with their disease under control.What is the impact? In severe asthmatic patients, adding omalizumab to standard-of-care, while more costly, yields better outcomes and is therefore cost-effective.The cost-effectiveness estimates fall within the margins of being cost-responsible. The Turkish public payer should strongly consider making omalizumab available to all eligible patients. This will enable working-age patients to work, and contribute to their families, while also strengthening the Turkish economy.

Thermo-SPT: A new skin prick test evaluation framework based on low-cost, portable smartphone thermography.

BACKGROUND: Although the skin prick test (SPT) is a reliable procedure to confirm IgE-dependent allergic sensitization in patients, the interpretation of the test is still performed manually, resulting in an error-prone procedure for the diagnosis of allergic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement an innovative SPT evaluation framework using a low-cost, portable smartphone thermography, named Thermo-SPT, to significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of SPT outcomes. METHODS: Thermographical images were captured every 60 s for a duration of 0 to 15 min using the FLIR One app, and then analysed with the FLIR Tool® . The definition of 'Skin Sensitization Region' area was introduced to analyse the time-lapse thermal changes in skin reactions over several time periods during the SPT. The Allergic Sensitization Index (ASI) and Min-Max Scaler Index (MMS) formulae were also developed to optimize the identification of the peak allergic response time point through the thermal assessment (TA) of allergic rhinitis patients. RESULTS: In these experimental trials, a statistically significant increase in temperature was detected from the fifth minute of TA for all tested aeroallergens (all p values < .001 ). An increase was observed in the number of false-positive cases, where patients with clinical symptoms not consistent with SPT were evaluated as positive on TA assessment, specifically for patients diagnosed with Phleum pratense and Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus. Our proposed technique, the MMS, has demonstrated improved accuracy in identifying P. pratense and D. pteronyssinus compared with other SPT evaluation metrics, specifically starting from the fifth minute. For patients diagnosed with Cat epithelium, although not statistically significant initially, an increasing trend was determined in the results at the 15 min (ΔT (T15 - T0 ), p = .07 ; ASIT15 , p < .001 ). CONCLUSIONS: This proposed SPT evaluation framework utilizing a low-cost, smartphone-based thermographical imaging technique can enhance the interpretability of allergic responses during the SPT, potentially reducing the need for extensive manual interpretation experience as standard SPTs.

How do we manage asthma? Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns among pulmonologists and allergists.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns between pulmonologists and allergists for adult asthma in Turkey.Methods: Questionnaire-based data were gathered from 236 pulmonologists and 62 allergists, who had been members of the Turkish Thoracic Society and Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in January-March 2021. Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to determine the factors associated with primary reliever preferences.Results: Of the 298 physicians, 39% encountered at least five asthma patients daily. Spirometer was used frequently by both the allergists (82.3%) and pulmonologists (77.5%) for asthma diagnosis. Budesonide was the most preferred inhaler corticosteroid. Formoterol/budesonide was the most preferred ICS/LABA combination, followed by beclomethasone/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol for asthma treatment. For mild asthmatics, formoterol/ICS was the most preferred (72.6%) reliever among allergists, whereas salbutamol was the most preferred (66.1%) among pulmonologists (p < 0.001). Age and workplace were associated with salbutamol preference of doctors for mild asthmatics. Age, specialty, and patient examination time were significantly associated with salbutamol preference for severe asthmatics.Conclusions: The use of diagnostic tools, such as a spirometer, for asthma diagnosis was compatible with the guidelines. While recent updates of the guidelines indicate that salbutamol should not be used solely in mild asthmatics due to its harmful effects in long-term use, it still was the most preferred drug by pulmonologists. Postgraduate education programs are needed to improve compliance with the guidelines.

Turkish version of the Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire: assessment of reliability and validity.

PURPOSE: The first disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaire in patients with drug hypersensitivity, Drug Hypersensitivity Quality of Life Questionnaire (DrHy-Q), was developed and validated recently. The aim of this study was to assess validity, reliability and responsiveness to interventions of the Turkish version of the DrHy-Q. METHODS: The Turkish version of the DrHy-Q was administered to prospectively enrolled 736 patients with drug hypersensitivity from ten allergy units. To assess validity, all patients completed the validated Turkish version of Psychological General Well-Being Index (PGWBI). For test-retest reliability, 182 patients completed the DrHy-Q 1 week after the first questionnaire administration without any intervention. Responsiveness was assessed on 97 patients who had a DrHy-Q recorded at a follow-up visit after the intervention. RESULTS: The internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the scale were adequate (Cronbach's alpha = 0.934, intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.783). The DrHy-Q scores showed weak negative correlations with the PGWBI total and domain scores (r = - 0.378 to -0.254, p < 0.001). DrHy-Q was able to discriminate the patients with one drug hypersensitivity reaction from the patients with two and above two reactions (p = 0.012 and p < 0.001, respectively), and the patients who experienced a respiratory reaction from the patients who did not (p = 0.018). However, it did not discriminate the patients with comorbid disease including psychiatric comorbidity (p > 0.05). The baseline DrHy-Q scores were significantly higher than the post-intervention scores (p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: The Turkish version of DrHy-Q is reliable and valid for evaluating quality of life in patients with drug hypersensitivity, and it appeared responsive to interventions.

Minimum prick test panel for adult patients with asthma and rhinitis in Ankara, Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: Determination of the number and type of allergens needed to be tested in epidemiological studies is important in order to identify most of the sensitized subjects with a cost-effective approach. This study aimed to investigate the minimum skin prick test panel for the identification of at least 95% of the sensitized subjects with symptoms of asthma and/or allergic rhinitis (AR) in Ankara, Turkey. METHODS: Skin prick test results of 7492 patients who were referred to our outpatient clinic with clinical symptoms of asthma and/or AR between 1991 and 2005 were evaluated retrospectively. Seven allergens were tested in all and 13 allergens in 4202 patients. The allergen group needed for detection of 95% of the sensitized subjects was determined for both the 7 and 13 allergen panels. The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee of Hacettepe University. RESULTS: The atopy prevalences in the whole study population and in 4202 patients tested with the 13 allergen panel were calculated as 32.2% and 42.6%, respectively. Three allergens (Phleum pratense, Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus and Artemisia vulgaris) within the 7 allergen panel were adequate for the identification of at least 95% of the sensitized subjects. Olea europae was added to the previous three allergens when the 13 allergen panel was applied. CONCLUSION: Three to four allergens are sufficient for identification at least 95% of sensitized subjects with asthma and/or AR in Ankara, Turkey.