Prevalence, T2 Biomarkers, and Cost of Severe Asthma in the Era of Biologics: The BRAVO-1 Study

Background: The last decade has seen new classifications of the pathophysiology of asthma that have changed the treatment options available. Objectives: To update data on the prevalence of T2 asthma, comorbidities, biomarker characterization, and costs of severe asthma in patients aged ≥12 years, taking into account new classifications and treatment options. Methods: Retrospective, observational, nationwide study using a top-down approach. Data were obtained from BIG-PAC®, an electronic medical record database of 1.7 million patients in Spain. The study population comprised patients aged ≥12 years who had received medical care during the period 2016-2017 and been diagnosed with asthma at least 1 year prior to the index date. Patients were followed for 1 year. Results: The prevalence of asthma was 5.5%. Asthma was severe in 3031 of these patients (7.7%), 81.2% of whom presented T2 asthma. Among patients with severe asthma, 64.1% had uncontrolled disease, 31.2% were oral corticosteroid–dependent (37% in the uncontrolled severe asthma group), and only 3.8% were receiving biologics. The most common T2 comorbidities were allergic rhinitis (66.1%), atopic dermatitis (29.1%), and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (14.6%). Mortality rates in the total population and uncontrolled severe asthma groups were 4.2% and 5.5%, respectively. The total annual costs per patient with severe asthma were €5890 (uncontrolled) and €2841 (controlled). Conclusions: In the era of biologics, most severe asthma patients present T2 asthma. Despite the availability of new treatments, rates of oral corticosteroid–dependent patients with uncontrolled severe asthma remain high, although biologics continue to be underused. The costs of uncontrolled severe asthma are twice as high as those of controlled severe asthma. (AU)

Introducción: En la última década se han concadenado una serie de clasificaciones de la fisiopatología del asma que han cambiado las opciones de tratamientos disponibles. Objetivos: Actualizar los datos de prevalencia del asma T2, comorbilidades, caracterización de biomarcadores y costes del asma grave en pacientes ≥12 años en esta nueva situación. Métodos: Estudio retrospectivo, observacional y de ámbito nacional con un enfoque descendente. Los datos se obtuvieron de BIG-PAC®, una base de datos de historias clínicas electrónicas de 1,7 millones de pacientes en España. Se incluyeron pacientes ≥12 años que habían recibido atención médica durante el periodo 2016-2017 y que habían sido diagnosticados de asma al menos un año antes de la fecha índice y fueron seguidos durante un año. Resultados: La prevalencia del asma fue del 5,5%. De estos pacientes, 3.031 presentaban asma grave (7,7%), de los cuales el 81,2% presentaba asma T2. Entre los pacientes con asma grave, el 64,1% no estaban controlados, el 31,2% eran dependientes de corticosteroides orales (37% en el grupo de asma grave no controlada) y solo el 3,8% estaban en tratamiento con biológicos. Las comorbilidades T2 más frecuentes fueron la rinitis alérgica (66,1%), la dermatitis atópica (29,1%) y la rinosinusitis crónica con poliposis nasal (14,6%). Las tasas de mortalidad en los grupos de asma grave total y no controlada fueron del 4,2% y del 5,5%, respectivamente. Los costes totales anuales por paciente con asma grave fueron de 5.890 euros (no controlado) y 2.841 euros (controlado). Conclusiones: En la era de los biológicos, la mayoría de los pacientes con asma grave presentan asma T2. A pesar de la disponibilidad de nuevos tratamientos, las tasas de pacientes con asma grave no controlados y dependientes de corticosteroides orales siguen siendo altas, y los biológicos siguen estando infrautilizados. Los costes del asma grave no controlada duplican los del asma grave controlada. (AU)

Cost comparison of dupilumab and omalizumab for the treatment of severe allergic asthma patients from the Brazilian private healthcare system perspective / Comparação dos custos de dupilumabe e omalizumabe para o tratamento de pacientes com asma alérgica grave na perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro

Objective: To compare the costs of dupilumab and omalizumab for treating severe allergic asthma patients from the perspective of the Brazilian private healthcare system. Methods: Using clinical and demographic inputs from the literature, we simulated a cohort of 5,000 severe allergic asthma patients and estimated the treatment cost with omalizumab. Results: In the simulated cohort, 81.3% were female, the mean body weight was 75.1 kg (SD 13.1), and the mean serum IgE was 532 IU/mL (SD 688). All patients were eligible for treatment with dupilumab, but 830 (16.6%) were ineligible for treatment with omalizumab due to serum IgE level and/or body weight combinations, according to the product label. Over four weeks, the mean dose of omalizumab was 537 mg (SD 285). The annual mean per-patient cost for treatment with omalizumab was BRL 110,783.89 (SD 58,385.81), ranging from BRL 31,797.49 to BRL 246,643.15. The treatment cost with dupilumab is BRL 111,724.21 for the first year and BRL 107,599.91 for subsequent years. Conclusions: We observed slightly lower mean treatment costs with dupilumab than with omalizumab. However, while the treatment cost with dupilumab is fixed and predictable, the treatment cost with omalizumab is highly variable, depending on patients' characteristics. Health managers should consider these findings for reimbursement and clinical protocol development decisions.

Objetivo: Comparar os custos de dupilumabe e omalizumabe para o tratamento de pacientes com asma alérgica grave na perspectiva do sistema de saúde privado brasileiro. Métodos: Utilizando parâmetros clínicos e demográficos a partir de dados da literatura, simulamos uma coorte com 5.000 pacientes com asma alérgica grave e estimamos o custo de tratamento com o omalizumabe. Resultados: Na coorte simulada, 81,3% eram do sexo feminino, com peso médio de 75,1 kg (DP 13,1) e IgE sérica de 532 IU/mL (DP 688). Todos os pacientes eram elegíveis para o tratamento com dupilumabe, porém 830 (16,6%) não eram elegíveis para o tratamento com omalizumabe devido a combinações específicas de IgE sérica e/ou peso corporal, de acordo com a bula do produto. Para o período de 4 semanas, a dose média de omalizumabe foi de 537 mg (DP 285). O custo médio anual por paciente do tratamento com omalizumabe foi de R$ 110.783,89 (DP 58.385,81), variando de R$ 31.797,49 a R$ 246.643,15. O custo do tratamento com dupilumabe é de R$ 111.724,21 no primeiro ano e R$ 107.599,91 nos anos seguintes. Conclusões: Foi observado que o custo médio do tratamento com dupilumabe é ligeiramente menor que o custo com omalizumabe. Todavia, enquanto o custo do tratamento com dupilumabe é fixo e previsível, o custo do tratamento com omalizumabe é altamente variável, dependendo de características dos pacientes. Esses achados devem ser considerados pelos gestores de saúde para decisões sobre reembolso e desenvolvimento de protocolos clínicos.

Prevalence, T2-biomarkers and cost of severe asthma in the era of biologics: The BRAVO-1 study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The last decade has seen a new era of classifications of asthma pathophysiology which have changed the treatment options available. To update the figures of prevalence of T2 asthma, comorbidities, biomarker characterization and costs of severe asthma in patients≥12-years-old adapted to this new situation. METHODS: Retroprospective, observational, nationwide study using a top-down approach. Data were obtained from the BIG-PAC®, an electronic medical record database of 1.7 million patients in Spain. Patients≥12-years-old who had received medical care during the period 2016-2017 and diagnosed with asthma at least one year prior to the index date were included and followed for one year. RESULTS: Prevalence of asthma was 5.5%. Of these patients, asthma was severe in 3.031 (7.7%), 81.2% of whom presented T2 asthma. Among severe asthma patients, 64·1% were uncontrolled, 31.2% were Oral corticosteroids-dependent (37% in the uncontrolled severe asthma group) and only 3.8% were on biologics. The most common T2 comorbidities were allergic rhinitis (66·1%), atopic dermatitis (29·1%) and chronic rhinositis with nasal polyps (14.6%). Mortality rates in the total and the uncontrolled severe asthma groups were 4.2% and 5.5% respectively. The total annual costs per patient with severe asthma were 5.890€ (uncontrolled) and 2.841€ (controlled). CONCLUSIONS: In the era of biologics, most severe asthma patients present T2 asthma. Despite the availability of new treatments, the rates of uncontrolled and oral corticosteroids-dependent patients with severe asthma remain high, but biologics still underused. The costs of uncontrolled severe asthma are twice as high as those of controlled severe asthma.

Biologics and global burden of asthma: A worldwide portrait and a call for action.

Biologics for severe asthma can significantly impact on the burden of disease and also have the potential to reduce asthma mortality. By reviewing the literature and contacting the pharmaceutical companies, the present paper aims at providing a worldwide snapshot of biologic drugs availability, related with the trend of asthma mortality rate, as a marker of the burden of the disease. A decline in the global rate of annual asthma mortality was observed until the 1980s, but overall no further reduction occurred, and the current mortality estimation is 0.19 deaths per 100.000 people. A higher mortality rate has been registered in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), where poor socioeconomic conditions and lack of access to the medical resources are more relevant. The availability of monoclonal antibodies is mainly limited to the developed and high-income countries. Furthermore the overall "asthma management system" in LMICs suffers from a number of restrictions that hamper the widespread availability of biologics besides their costs. The availability of generic drugs in the field of biologics for severe asthma could contribute to facilitate their widespread accessibility. But before that, awareness and expertise regarding severe asthma, and proper tools to assess and manage it, deserve to be shared worldwide. Collaboration projects involving physicians from all the countries through the scientific Academies network and with the support of the Companies active in the field may provide an initial concrete opportunity.

Multimorbidity in Asthma, Allergic Conditions and COPD Increase Disease Severity, Drug Use and Costs: The Finnish Pharmacy Survey.

BACKGROUND: Asthma, allergic conditions, and COPD overlap, but the effect of them and their combinations on disease severity, need for drugs, use of healthcare, and costs is poorly known. OBJECTIVE: To study how different allergic diseases co-occur in asthma and allergy patients and evaluate the use of medication well as drug and healthcare costs. METHODS: Nationwide Allergy Barometer Survey was carried out in the Finnish pharmacies during 1 week in September 2016. Altogether, 956 patients (5-75 years) who purchased asthma or allergy drugs with prescription participated in 351 pharmacies. RESULTS: Of the participants, 78% reported physician-diagnosed asthma, 57% allergic rhinitis, 24% atopic eczema, 21% food allergy, 20% allergic conjunctivitis, 8% anaphylaxis, and 8% COPD. One-third of the patients had at least three conditions, and multimorbidity was common across all age groups. Disease severity increased with the number of coexisting conditions, and asthma severity also with age. Patients with asthma alone used on average 3.8 drugs with the annual costs of EUR 661. This increased to 4.9 drugs and EUR 847 in asthmatics with multimorbidity. For all participants, costs of drugs and healthcare services together during the preceding year were on average EUR 1,214, of which 56% were drug costs. The costs doubled to EUR 2,714 in 65 subjects (7%) who had both asthma and COPD. CONCLUSIONS: In asthma and allergy, multimorbidity and polypharmacy are major concerns. Disease severity, drug use, and costs increased with multimorbid conditions. To reduce the burden, allergy management should be better integrated and more comprehensive.