RESUMO
During last few years, the approaches to the management of patients with severe asthma have been revised. Monoclonal antibodies (MABs), inhibitors of interleukin-5 (reslizumab, mepolizumab, benralizumab) have been recently introduced for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The mentioned drugs were approved in Russia and included into the list of Vitally Essential Drugs. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and economic consequences of the use of biological agents that antagonize IL-5 in the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma in adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two methods of clinical and economic research were used: assessment of the cost-effectiveness ratio and analysis of the budget impact. The effectiveness of the drugs was assessed using indirect comparison; special attention was paid to comparability of the patient groups in the studies chosen for such an assessment. Two approaches were used for calculation of the cost of therapy for severe asthma: using DRGs (applicable to most regions of Russia), and without the use of DRGs, which is relevant only for few Russian regions. RESULTS: Basing on the data obtained from a budget impact study without the use of DRG, it was shown that reslizumab was dominating for patients with body mass of up to 70 kg, while for the patients with body mass of 70 to 110 kg, mepolizumab was dominating, while utilization of reslizumab appeared to be somewhat more expensive. In the group of patients with body mass over 110 kg, mepolizumab also was dominating. The calculation of the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) showed that reslizumab appeared to be dominating over two other MABs, The results of the study using the DRG demonstrated that the cost of an annual course of benralizumab in most cases in Russia would exceed the amount that can be compensated by Territorial Funds for Mandatory Medical Insurance to a healthcare institution for therapy of bronchial asthma in one adult patient with genetically engineered drugs. Therefore, further comparisons were made for reslizumab and mepolizumab only. Analysis of the impact on the budget demonstrated that treatment with reslizumab and mepolizumab would represent a similar burden for the budget. When applying cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab was more cost-effective than mepolizumab (regardless of patient body mass). CONCLUSION: Thus, the results of the clinical and economic study suggested that, basing on the cost-effectiveness analysis, reslizumab appeared to be the dominant IL-5 antagonist (regardless of body mass if DRG approach was used and in patients with body mass up to 110 kg, if such an approach was not used). Basing on budget impact analysis, calculations without use of DRG approach showed superiority of reslizumab over mepolizumab and benralizumab for the patients with body mass up to 70 kg and the DRG-based approach showed equal burden for the budget for reslizumab and mepolizumab for the patients with any body mass.
