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 ß-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 impact of mepolizumab in uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma, in real life.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Severe asthma is burdened by frequent exacerbations and use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) which worsen patients' health and increase healthcare spending. Aim of this study was to assess the clinical and economic effect of adding mepolizumab (MEP) for the treatment of these patients. METHODS: Patients >18 years old, referred to 8 asthma clinics, starting MEP between May 2017 and December 2018, were enrolled and followed-up for 12 months. Information in the 12 months before mepolizumab were collected retrospectively. The evaluation parameters included: OCS use, number of exacerbations/hospitalizations, concomitant therapies, comorbidity, and annual number of working days lost due to the disease. The primary objective was to compare the annual total cost per patient pre- and post-MEP. Secondary outcomes included rates of exacerbations and number of OCS-dependent patients. RESULTS: 106 patients were enrolled in the study: 46 male, median age 58 years. Mean annual cost pre- and post-MEP (cost of biologic excluded) was €3996 and €1,527, respectively. Total savings due to MEP resulted in €2469 (95%CI 1945-2993), 62% due to exacerbations reduction and 33% due to productivity increase. Such savings could fund about 22% of the total cost of MEP for one year. The introduction of MEP induced a clinical benefit by reducing both OCS-dependent patients (OR = 0.12, 95%CI 0.06-0.23) and exacerbation rate (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.15-0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe eosinophilic asthma experienced a clinical benefit in asthma control adding MEP to standard therapy. Biologic therapy can be, partially, funded by the savings produced by patients' improvement.

A budget impact analysis of bronchial thermoplasty for severe asthma in clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Fully 80% of asthma-related deaths occur in patients with uncontrolled disease and 50% of all costs are attributable to this subgroup. Although asthma is costly, direct costs and loss of productivity have only recently been extensively studied, partly as a result of the introduction of new and more costly treatment options. A 5-year population-based budget impact model in the perspective of the Emilia Romagna of Italy regional healthcare service compared the impact of adding adjuvant bronchial thermoplasty (BT) for a population of patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma treated with standard care (SC) with or without adjuvant omalizumab (OMAL). METHODS: The model compared the budget impact of two scenarios: the first examined a population treated either with SC alone or with administration of OMAL concurrent to SC; the second examined a population treated either with SC alone or with either the concurrent administration of OMAL or BT. RESULTS: The cost for treating asthmatics patients in Emilia Romagna with BT would require 17.7 million Euros during the initial year; these costs would be offset by savings of 1 million Euros, 10.5 million Euros, and up to 19.2 million Euros during third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite the increase in direct costs, the complementary treatment of patients with either BT or OMAL in addition to SC may not only help the clinician to meet the needs of a greater number of patients, but also decreases emergency room visits and hospitalizations, as well as generates economic savings in the longer term.

Clinical and pharmacoeconomic aspects of omalizumab: a 4-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the stability of the effectiveness of omalizumab as add-on treatment in 11 patients with severe persistent allergic asthma followed for 4 years. Secondary outcomes were safety and economic impact, in terms of use of healthcare resources. METHODS: This retrospective study was designed to analyse a series of patients with severe allergic asthma treated with omalizumab. Patients were initially enrolled as part of the CIGE025A2425 international multicentre clinical trial. At the end (week 32), 11 responsive patients went on to complete the study and continued omalizumab treatment until June 2010. The monitoring visits coincided with the timescales planned for administering the drug and for the follow up. To estimate the economic impact, the PRE-POST treatment comparison was obtained by comparing the annual pretreatment costs with an annual average of the 4-year posttreatment period costs RESULTS: After 4 years, 81.8% of patients showed a good/excellent Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness scale score and 81.2% showed an excellent increase (>1.5) in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score. The average forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) at 4 years was 75.3% compared with the predicted normal value for each patient, with a net increase (p = 0.009) compared with baseline FEV(1) values (58.6%). The frequency of serious exacerbations dropped by 94.7% compared with the pretreatment period, while mild-moderate exacerbations fell by 41.8%. A reduction in costs was observed for hospital admissions (97.3%), visits to emergency department (ED) (97.5%) and mild-moderate exacerbations (84%). The average cost reduction of concomitant drugs remained at 36%. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the effectiveness and reliability of omalizumab over the long term, while providing an excellent safety profile. The additional cost due the use of omalizumab was offset by the medium- and long-term savings associated with the reduction in hospital admissions and access to ED.