[Economic burden assessment for the management of asthma patients at Mexico's National Institute for Respiratory Diseases]. / Evaluación de la carga económica para el tratamiento de pacientes con asma en el Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias de México.

OBJETIVO: Determinar la carga económica anual del asma, desde una perspectiva institucional y con base en la clasificación recomendada por GINA, en una cohorte retrospectiva de adultos atendidos en el Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (INER) de México. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, longitudinal y retrospectivo, llevado a cabo a partir de la información recabada de 247 pacientes femeninas con asma. Se estimaron los costos directos anuales: visitas, pruebas de laboratorio, tratamiento farmacológico y de las crisis o exacerbaciones, para determinar la carga anual de la enfermedad desde una perspectiva institucional, y según la clasificación de la Iniciativa Global para el Asma. RESULTADOS: El costo promedio anual fue de $43,813,92, que aumentó en relación con la necesidad de aumento de dosis de corticoides inhalados y beta-agonistas de acción prolongada. El costo promedio de la consulta médica fue de $2004.57, $982.82 por gestión de crisis y $2645.95 por pruebas de laboratorio. El tratamiento farmacológico representó la principal carga económica, con un costo promedio anual de $38,180.58. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados resaltan una carga económica del asma estimada en un costo anual por paciente de $43,813.92 MXN (DE=93,348.85), en el contexto del tercer nivel de atención en el sistema de salud público mexicano. La gravedad del asma, los tratamientos y los biológicos fueron los principales factores que aumentaron los costos directos de la atención.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the annual economic burden of the disease from an institutional perspective and based on GINA's recommended classification in a retrospective cohort of adults treated at Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias (INER) of Mexico City. METHODS: A retrospective, longitudinal observational study comprised by data from 247 female asthma patients, annual direct costs were estimated including: visits, laboratory tests, pharmacological treatment and management of crisis or exacerbations, to determine the annual burden of the disease from an institutional perspective and according to Global Initiative for Asthma classification. RESULTS: The average annual cost was $43,813.92, which increased in relation to the need of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta agonists dosage increase. The average doctor's appointment cost was $2,004.57, $982.82 for crisis management and $2,645.95 for laboratory testing. Pharmacological treatment represented the main economic burden with an annual average cost of $38,180.58. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight an economic burden of asthma estimated at an annual cost per patient of $43,813.92 MXN (SD=93,348.85) in the context of the third level of care in the Mexican public health system. The asthma severity and treatments such as biologics were the main factors that increased direct costs of care.

Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: A real-world, single-center, observational study from Mexico.

INTRODUCTION: Urbanization has increased the prevalence of asthma in lower- and middle-income countries. Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), a subtype of asthma, can be refractory to standard therapy. Biologics such as benralizumab target interleukin-5 and have demonstrated effectiveness in managing SEA. There exists no real-world evidence on the effectiveness of benralizumab in Mexico. Therefore, this study presents data on the role of benralizumab in managing SEA in Mexican patients. OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of benralizumab on the quality of life (QoL), asthma control, lung function, symptoms of asthma, and benralizumab's safety profile were assessed. METHODS: The study sample comprised 10 patients with SEA treated with a subcutaneous (SC) administration of benralizumab 30 mg once in 4 weeks for the first three doses followed by a dose every 8 weeks for 2 years. Laboratory tests, resting spirometry, and skin prick tests were conducted. Levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were evaluated, when possible, with the intent to phenotype asthma, as T2 high or non-T2, before starting benralizumab therapy. The Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Asthma Control Test (ACT) were administered to evaluate the effectiveness of benralizumab on asthma control and QoL. RESULTS: All patients showed significant symptom control, QoL, and lung function over 2 years. Mild adverse effects, such as headache and arthralgia, were observed. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab appears to be a promising agent in controlling SEA. This study has focused on measuring tangible outcomes, such as a reduction in symptoms, a reduction in exacerbation, and an improvement in QoL. Thus, benralizumab may constitute an important addition to the arsenal of medications against SEA.

Benralizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma: A real-world, single-center, observational study from Mexico

Introduction: Urbanization has increased the prevalence of asthma in lower- and middle-income countries. Severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA), a subtype of asthma, can be refractory to standard therapy. Biologics such as benralizumab target interleukin-5 and have demonstrated effectiveness in managing SEA. There exists no real-world evidence on the effectiveness of benralizumab in Mexico. Therefore, this study presents data on the role of benralizumab in managing SEA in Mexican patients. Objective: The effectiveness of benralizumab on the quality of life (QoL), asthma control, lung function, symptoms of asthma, and benralizumab’s safety profile were assessed. Methods: The study sample comprised 10 patients with SEA treated with a subcutaneous (SC) administration of benralizumab 30 mg once in 4 weeks for the first three doses followed by a dose every 8 weeks for 2 years. Laboratory tests, resting spirometry, and skin prick tests were conducted. Levels of fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) were evaluated, when possible, with the intent to phenotype asthma, as T2 high or non-T2, before starting benralizumab therapy. The Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), and Asthma Control Test (ACT) were administered to evaluate the effectiveness of benralizumab on asthma control and QoL. Results: All patients showed significant symptom control, QoL, and lung function over 2 years. Mild adverse effects, such as headache and arthralgia, were observed. Conclusion: Benralizumab appears to be a promising agent in controlling SEA. This study has focused on measuring tangible outcomes, such as a reduction in symptoms, a reduction in exacerbation, and an improvement in QoL. Thus, benralizumab may constitute an important addition to the arsenal of medications against SEA (AU)