Cost-utility of as-needed ICS-formoterol versus to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Recent asthma guidelines, such as the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), recommend in adult patients as-needed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)-formoterol as an alternative to maintenance ICS in mild to moderate persistent asthma. The introduction of these recommendations concerns whether using as-needed budesonide-formoterol would be more cost-effective than to maintenance ICS. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared to short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.37 QALYs and per patient per year on as-needed ICS-formoterol and a reduction in the discounted cost per person-year, of as-needed ICS-formoterol to maintenance ICS, of US$40. This position of dominance of as-needed ICS-formoterol negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: Low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients with mild asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain.

AIM: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.

Effect of compliance with GOLD treatment recommendations on COPD health care resource utilization, cost, and exacerbations among patients with COPD on maintenance therapy.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) report for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) focuses on reducing existing symptoms, decreasing the risk of future exacerbations, and improving health status by recommending specific drug therapy based on exacerbation risk and symptoms. However, disparities exist between evidence-based recommendations and clinical practice. Research that quantifies the real-world effect of COPD regimen alignment with the GOLD recommendations on clinical and economic outcomes is needed. OBJECTIVE: To compare COPD-related health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, as well as exacerbation rates, among patients with COPD on maintenance therapy based on 2017 GOLD treatment recommendation compliance status per GOLD ABCD risk group classification in a U.S. commercially insured/Medicare Advantage population. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized administrative claims data in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. The COPD population was identified using a previously validated claims-based predictive model. Among this population, patients with ≥ 1 claim for a COPD maintenance medication (earliest maintenance fill-date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and March 31, 2017, were identified. Patients were required to be aged ≥ 40 years, have ≥ 12 months of pre-index and ≥ 30 days of post-index health plan enrollment, with no diagnosis for asthma, cystic fibrosis, and/or lung cancer at any time from January 1, 2013, to March 31, 2018. Patients were categorized into exacerbation risk/symptomatology groups according to the 2017 GOLD ABCD assessment recommendations and were then classified into treatment-compliance status based on their maintenance therapy. Multivariable analyses were conducted to examine post-index COPD-related HRU, costs, and exacerbations by compliance status. RESULTS: The primary analytical study sample included 38,382 patients in the GOLD A/B group and 6,525 in the GOLD C/D group. Patients were further categorized into GOLD A (n = 19,345), B (n = 19,037), C (n = 1,865), and D (n = 4,670). GOLD-compliant regimens were observed in 32.9% of patients in the GOLD A/B group and in 58.9% of patients in the GOLD C/D group. Inhaled corticosteroid-containing regimens were the most commonly observed noncompliant regimen. Patients on compliant regimens had significantly fewer COPD-related inpatient and emergency department visits and therefore had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs in both the GOLD A/B and C/D cohorts. Similar results were observed for individual GOLD cohorts B, C, and D. These savings were offset by increased pharmacy expenditures. Being on GOLD guideline-compliant regimens significantly reduced the risk of exacerbation by 8% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92; P < 0.0001) in the GOLD A/B cohort and by 12% (HR = 0.88; P = 0.0005) in the GOLD C/D cohort, and was also associated with a significantly reduced exacerbation rate in the GOLD A/B (rate ratio [RR] = 0.93; P < 0.0001) and GOLD C/D (RR = 0.93; P = 0.0129) groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests a continuing trend of high prevalence of suboptimal prescriber compliance to GOLD treatment recommendations. Treatment regimens compliant with GOLD recommendations were associated with improvement in exacerbations, reduced COPD-related HRU, and COPD-related medical cost offsets. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli and Shaikh are employees of BIPI. Willey is an employee of HealthCore, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. Zhou was an employee of HealthCore at the time of study execution. Data were presented in part during an AMCP webinar (recording not made public) held in lieu of the Spring 2020 AMCP conference, which was canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The subtle nuances of intranasal corticosteroids.

BACKGROUND: In the specialty of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, intranasal corticosteroids are the mainstay treatment for inflammatory processes within the nasal cavity. All too often, physician prescribing patterns are based on previous training, personal experience, and interactions with industry. The purpose of this commentary is to review the nuances of each intranasal corticosteroid. COMMENTARY: There are nine intranasal corticosteroids approved for use in Canada. Each are discussed in detail, including their indication, bioavailability, effects on intranasal environment, and factors around patient adherence. Off-label use of budesonide irrigations is also discussed and cost information is presented in reference format for all available intranasal corticosteroids. CONCLUSION: Although the efficacy of each intranasal corticosteroid has been shown to be similar, prescribing should be tailored based on bioavailability, intranasal environment, and factors that impact patient adherence such as dosing, cost and tolerability.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Economic impact of severe asthma exacerbations in Spain: multicentre observational study.

Objective: To describe resource use and costs of severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma.Method: Secondary analysis of an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study that estimated the economic impact of severe asthma. The study was carried out in severe asthma units of the pulmonology and allergy services of 20 public hospitals (inclusion period: June to November 2016). The study included adult patients diagnosed with severe asthma according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus in the stable phase (no exacerbation during the last 2 months), and with at least one severe exacerbation during the study period (12 months). Healthcare resource use due to severe exacerbations (emergency visits, hospitalizations and pharmacological treatment) was recorded. The direct health costs associated with severe exacerbations were calculated by multiplying the resources used by the corresponding unit cost (in 2018 euros).Results: 134 patients with ≥1 severe exacerbation were included: 63% were female and the mean age was 54 years. 249 severe exacerbations were registered. There were 1.5 physician visits at primary care, hospital care and/or emergency room per episode, 13% of episodes required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 7.2 days. Systemic corticosteroids were prescribed in 92% of exacerbations. The mean direct cost was €758.7/exacerbation (95% confidence interval: 556.8-1,011.1), of which 82% was due to hospitalizations (€623.3/episode). Considering only episodes requiring hospital admission, the mean cost increased by €4,997/exacerbation.Conclusions: It was estimated that the economic impact of a severe exacerbation in Spanish patients with severe asthma was €758.7/exacerbation.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg or twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses. RESULTS: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: A population-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend stepping down asthma treatment to the minimum effective dose to achieve symptom control, prevent adverse side effects, and reduce costs. Limited data exist on asthma prescription patterns in a real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of doses prescribed to a UK general asthma population and assess whether stepping down medication increased exacerbations or reliever use, as well as its impact on costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used nationwide UK primary care medical records, 2001-2017, to identify 508,459 adult asthma patients managed with preventer medication. Prescriptions of higher-level medication: medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICSs + add-on medication (long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], leukotriene receptor antagonist [LTRA], theophylline, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) steadily increased over time (2001 = 49.8%, 2017 = 68.3%). Of those prescribed their first preventer, one-third were prescribed a higher-level medication, of whom half had no reliever prescription or exacerbation in the year prior. Of patients first prescribed ICSs + 1 add-on, 70.4% remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Of those prescribed medium/high-dose ICSs as their first preventer, 13.0% already had documented diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, or osteopenia/osteoporosis. A cohort of 125,341 patients were drawn to assess the impact of stepping down medication: mean age 50.4 years, 39.4% males, 39,881 stepped down. Exposed patients were stepped down by dropping their LABAs or another add-on or by halving their ICS dose (halving their mean-daily dose or their inhaler dose). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, exacerbations and an increase in reliever prescriptions. Multivariable regression was used to assess outcomes and determine the prognostic factors for initiating stepdown. There was no increased exacerbation risk for each possible medication stepdown (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.86, 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001; ICS mean daily = 0.80, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.001; LABA = 1.01, 0.92-1.11, p = 0.87, other add-on = 1.00, 0.91-1.09, p = 0.79) and no increase in reliever prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.99, 0.98-1.00, p = 0.59; ICS mean daily = 0.78, 0.76-0.79, p < 0.001; LABA = 0.83, 0.82-0.85, p < 0.001; other add-on = 0.86, 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001). Prognostic factors to initiate stepdown included medication burden, but not medication side effects. National Health Service (NHS) indicative prices were used for cost estimates. Stepping down medication, either LABAs or ICSs, could save annually around £17,000,000 or £8,600,000, respectively. Study limitations include the possibility that prescribed medication may not have been dispensed or adhered to and the reason for stepdown was not documented. CONCLUSION: In this UK study, we observed that asthma patients were increasingly prescribed higher levels of treatment, often without clear clinical indication for such high doses. Stepping down medication did not adversely affect outcomes and was associated with substantial cost savings.

The cost-saving switch from inhaled corticosteroid-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation: a two-country projection of epidemiological and economic burden in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2018 recommendations support maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators in most symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While restricting the overuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may influence healthcare utilization required to treat inadvertent respiratory (exacerbations and pneumonia) and diabetes-related events, it may also change the total medication cost. This analysis was performed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of switching from ICS-containing treatment combinations to dual bronchodilation, in line with the recommendations. METHODS: The model quantified the budget impact of treatment and healthcare resource utilization when COPD patients were anticipated to switch from ICS-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation. Three switch scenarios were calculated with increasing proportions of patients on dual long-acting bronchodilators, to the detriment of ICS-containing double and triple combinations. Clinical and cost input data were based on results from clinical trials and Greek and Portuguese healthcare cost databases. RESULTS: Healthcare resource use to manage exacerbations, pneumonia and diabetes-related events were projected to increase between 2019 and 2023 in parallel with the growing COPD patient population and associated costs were estimated at 52-57% of the total disease cost in the Greek and Portuguese base case scenarios. Total cost savings between 21 and 112 million EUR were projected when the proportion of patients on double and triple ICS-containing treatments was gradually reduced to 50% in scenario A, 20% in scenario B and 7% in scenario C. Sensitivity analyses showed that none of the model assumptions had a major impact on the projected savings. CONCLUSION: The alignment of COPD treatment with current recommendations may bring clinical benefits to patients, without substantial cost increases and even cost savings for payers. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Inhaled Corticosteroid-Containing Regimens Reduce Hospitalizations and Healthcare Costs among Elderly Asthmatics: Real-World Validation Using the National Health Insurance Claims Database.

The high rates of mortality and hospitalization among elderly asthmatics, as well as their increasing healthcare costs have become an important public health issue. It would be worthwhile to assess whether inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) can resolve these problems. To explore ICS prescription rates for elderly asthmatics and the factors influencing them and to investigate their association with hospitalization and healthcare costs, we analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Claims Database for the same time frame (December 1 to February 28) across three different periods (2011-2012; 2014-2015; and 2017-2018), from which we identified 6,619, 5,619, and 6,880 elderly individuals, respectively. The prescription rates of ICS increased (52.8%, 65.5% and 68.8%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively) and inversely the hospital admission rates declined (3.7%, 3.2% and 2.5%, in the first, second and third survey period, respectively). The total healthcare costs per month were significantly lower for patients who received ICS-containing regimens than for those who did not. A multivariate analysis revealed that increasing age, rural residence, receiving a prescription from a clinic, hospital admission, and prescription of asthma medications other than ICS were associated with non-prescription of ICS, whereas cross-boundary treatment increased the ICS-prescription rate. Our study suggests that increases in the prescription rate of ICS are associated with reduced hospital admission rates and lower medical costs in the real-world. ICS prescription rates in rural areas and at clinics, which remain low, need to be increased.

The impact of budesonide inhalation suspension for asthma hospitalization: In terms of length of stay, recovery time from symptoms, and hospitalization costs.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is a major cause of medical expenditure for asthma. Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) may assist in reducing asthma-related symptoms in severe asthma exacerbation. However, its effectiveness for hospitalized patients remains poorly known. The objective of this study is to determine associations of BIS with asthma hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 98 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to severe asthma exacerbation (24 treated with BIS in combination with procaterol) from April 2014 to January 2019. Length of stay, recovery time from symptoms (wheezes), and hospitalization costs were compared between the 2 groups according to clinical factors including the use of BIS and sings of respiratory infections (i.e. C-reactive protein, the presence of phlegm, and the use of antibiotics). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors contributing to hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: The use of BIS was associated with shorter length of stay, faster recovery time from symptoms, and more reduced hospitalization costs (6.0 vs 8.5 days, 2.5 vs 5.0 days, and 258,260 vs 343,350 JPY). Signs of respiratory infection were also associated with hospitalization outcomes. On a multivariate regression analysis, the use of BIS was a determinant of shortened length of stay and reduced symptoms and medical costs for asthma hospitalization along with signs of respiratory infection. CONCLUSIONS: BIS may contribute to shorten length of hospital stay and to reduce symptoms and medical expenditure irrespective of the presence or absence of respiratory infection.

Economic evaluation of the OSAC randomised controlled trial: oral corticosteroids for non-asthmatic adults with acute lower respiratory tract infection in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo. DESIGN: Cost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work. SETTING: Fifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England. PARTICIPANTS: 398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days. INTERVENTIONS: 2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up. RESULTS: 198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean 'profit' to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.

Severe asthma is related to high societal costs and decreased health related quality of life.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to estimate the societal costs and the key cost drivers for patients with severe asthma in Sweden. In addition, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and morbidity of patients with severe asthma is described. METHODS: The study population comprised adults with severe asthma recruited from a large asthma cohort within the Obstructive Lung Disease in Northern Sweden (OLIN) studies. During 2017, patients were interviewed quarterly over telephone regarding their resource utilization and productivity losses. RESULTS: Estimated mean annual asthma-related costs per patient with severe asthma amounted to €6,500, of which approximately €2400 and €4100 were direct and indirect costs, respectively. The main cost drivers for direct costs were hospitalizations followed by drugs: approximately €1000 and €800, respectively. Patients on treatment with regular oral corticosteroids (OCS) had greater direct costs compared with those without regular OCS treatment. Co-morbid conditions were common and the costs were substantial also for co-morbid conditions, with a total cost of approximately €4200. The OCS group had significantly lower HRQOL compared to the non-OCS group. CONCLUSIONS: The societal costs due to severe asthma were substantial. Costs for co-morbid conditions contributed substantially to both direct and indirect costs. The direct costs were significantly higher in the maintenance OCS-group compared to the non-maintenance OCS-group. These results indicate a need for improved management and treatment regimens for patients with severe asthma.

Real-world medication use and economic outcomes in incident systemic lupus erythematosus patients in the United States.

Aims: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is a multifaceted autoimmune disease involving multiple organs systems and places a significant economic burden on SLE patients. There is a literature gap regarding the standard of care and economic burden in SLE patients, their families, and society. This study assessed medication use patterns among SLE patients and generated the annual and total economic burden associated with the illness.Materials and methods: Adult patients with ≥2 medical claims on different dates for SLE diagnoses were identified from 01 January 2013 to 31 December 2015 using two large administrative claims databases representative of the commercially insured US population. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics during 1-year pre-SLE diagnosis were assessed. Outcomes including the proportion of patients who used SLE medications and annual costs were assessed 1-year post-SLE diagnosis. Total costs related to SLE were extrapolated to the US population to estimate the economic burden based on SLE prevalence.Results: A total of 30,086 SLE patients were identified. The most common baseline comorbidities were hypertension and infections. Corticosteroids and hydroxychloroquine were the most common SLE medications. Biologics utilization was minimal. SLE patients had, on average, 26.0 physician visits, 23.7 prescription claims, 1.7 inpatient admissions, and 2.0 hospital days per patient 1-year post-SLE diagnosis. Annual all-cause median costs among all SLE patients were $8712 per patient per year. Total costs ranged between $1.4-1.6 and $2.8-3.2 billion per year, depending on prevalence estimates.Conclusions: Our findings indicate a nominal use of biologics (∼2%) among SLE patients; despite belimumab being one of the few approved treatments for SLE in the USA. These data reveal an unmet need for availability of advanced SLE therapy, and future studies are warranted concerning the underlying causes. SLE is also associated with a substantial economic burden of ≤3.2 billion per year. These findings may assist in future planning and resource allocation.

Patient Preferences for Disease-modifying Antirheumatic Drug Treatment in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize patients' preferences for disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify English-language studies of adult patients with RA that measured patients' preferences for DMARD or health states and treatment outcomes relevant to DMARD decisions. Study quality was assessed using a published quality assessment tool. Data on the importance of treatment attributes and associations with patient characteristics were summarized across studies. RESULTS: From 7951 abstracts, we included 36 studies from a variety of countries. Most studies were in patients with established RA and were rated as medium- (n = 19) or high-quality (n = 12). The methods to elicit preferences varied, with the most common being discrete choice experiment (DCE; n = 13). Despite the heterogeneity of attributes in DCE studies, treatment benefits (disease improvement) were usually more important than both non-serious (6 of 8 studies) and serious adverse events (5 of 8), and route of administration (7 of 9). Among the non-DCE studies, some found that patients placed high importance on treatment benefits, while others (in patients with established RA) found that patients were quite risk averse. Subcutaneous therapy was often but not always preferred over intravenous therapy. Patient preferences were variable and commonly associated with the sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSION: Overall, the results showed that many patients place a high value on treatment benefits over other treatment attributes, including serious or minor side effects, cost, or route of administration. The variability in patient preferences highlights the need to individualize treatment choices in RA.

Drug costs of Medicaid-covered therapies for pemphigus vulgaris treatment.

Pemphigus vulgaris is the most common form of pemphigus affecting an estimated 30,000-40,000 people in the United States. Costs of systemic and immunoglobulin therapies for pemphigus vulgaris have remained persistently high. Herein, we address the current costs and changes in costs of immunosuppressive treatments, anti-inflammatory treatments, and immunoglobulin treatments covered by Medicaid for pemphigus vulgaris from 2013-2020.

Dual versus triple therapy in patients hospitalized for COPD in France: a claims data study.

Purposes: Following a hospitalization for COPD, dual and triple therapies were compared in terms of persistence and relations with outcomes (exacerbations, health care resource use and costs). Methods: This was a historical observational database study. All patients aged ≥45 hospitalized for COPD between 2007 and 2015 were identified in a 1/97th random sample of French claims data. Patients receiving dual therapy within 60 days after hospitalization were compared to patients receiving triple therapy, after propensity score matching on disease severity. Results: Of the 3,089 patients hospitalized for COPD, 1,538 (49.8%) received either dual or triple therapy in the 2 months following inclusion, and 1,500 (48.6%) had at least 30 days of follow-up available; 846 (27.4%) received dual therapy, and 654 (21.2%) received triple therapy. After matching, the number of exacerbations was 2.4 per year in the dual vs 2.3 in the triple group (p=0.45). Among newly treated patients (n=206), persistence at 12 months was similar in the dual and triple groups (48% vs 41%, respectively, p=0.37). As compared to patients on dual therapy, more patients on triple therapy received oral corticosteroids (49.1 vs 40.4%, p=0.003) or were hospitalized for any reason (67% vs 55.8%, p=0.0001) or for COPD (35.3 vs 25.1%, p=0.0002) during follow-up. Cost of care was higher for patients on triple than for those on dual therapy (€11,877.1 vs €9,825.1, p=0.01). Conclusion: Following hospitalizations for COPD, patients on dual and triple therapy experienced recurrent exacerbations, limited adherence to therapies and high cost of care. Patients on triple therapy appeared more severe than those on dual therapy, as reflected by exacerbations and health care resource use.