BACKGROUND: Omalizumab (trade name Xolair) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Given the high acquisition cost of omalizumab, its role and cost-effectiveness in disease management require definition. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the clinical and economic circumstances under which omalizumab might or might not be a cost-effective option by using a mathematic model. METHODS: We merged published data on clinical and economic outcomes (including acute event incidence, frequency/severity of hospitalizations, and health-related quality of life) to project 10-year costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of treatment with omalizumab in addition to inhaled corticosteroids. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by using input data ranges from a variety of sources (published clinical trials and observational databases). RESULTS: For patients with baseline acute event rates, omalizumab conferred an additional 1.7 quality-adjusted months at an incremental cost of $131,000 over a 10-year planning horizon, implying a cost-effectiveness ratio of $821,000 per QALY gained. For patients with 5 times the baseline acute event rate, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $491,000 per QALY gained. The projected cost-effectiveness ratio could fall within a range of other programs that are widely considered to be cost-effective if the cost of omalizumab decreases to less than $200. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab is not cost-effective for most patients with severe asthma. The projected cost-effectiveness ratios could fall within a favorable range if the cost of omalizumab decreases significantly. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on the high cost of omalizumab, it is especially important that clinicians explore alternative medications for asthma before initiating omalizumab.
BACKGROUND:Omalizumab (trade name Xolair) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Given the high acquisition cost of omalizumab, its role and cost-effectiveness in disease management require definition. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify the clinical and economic circumstances under which omalizumab might or might not be a cost-effective option by using a mathematic model. METHODS: We merged published data on clinical and economic outcomes (including acute event incidence, frequency/severity of hospitalizations, and health-related quality of life) to project 10-year costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of treatment with omalizumab in addition to inhaled corticosteroids. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by using input data ranges from a variety of sources (published clinical trials and observational databases). RESULTS: For patients with baseline acute event rates, omalizumab conferred an additional 1.7 quality-adjusted months at an incremental cost of $131,000 over a 10-year planning horizon, implying a cost-effectiveness ratio of $821,000 per QALY gained. For patients with 5 times the baseline acute event rate, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $491,000 per QALY gained. The projected cost-effectiveness ratio could fall within a range of other programs that are widely considered to be cost-effective if the cost of omalizumab decreases to less than $200. CONCLUSION:Omalizumab is not cost-effective for most patients with severe asthma. The projected cost-effectiveness ratios could fall within a favorable range if the cost of omalizumab decreases significantly. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Based on the high cost of omalizumab, it is especially important that clinicians explore alternative medications for asthma before initiating omalizumab.
Authors: S S Saini; D W MacGlashan; S A Sterbinsky; A Togias; D C Adelman; L M Lichtenstein; B S Bochner Journal: J Immunol Date: 1999-05-01 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Anne L Fuhlbrigge; Seung Jin Bae; Scott T Weiss; Karen M Kuntz; A David Paltiel Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: J Bousquet; P Cabrera; N Berkman; R Buhl; S Holgate; S Wenzel; H Fox; S Hedgecock; M Blogg; G Della Cioppa Journal: Allergy Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: Ann Chen Wu; Martin Gregory; Steven Kymes; Dennis Lambert; Joshua Edler; Dustin Stwalley; Anne L Fuhlbrigge Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-09-27 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: R Brett McQueen; Danielle N Sheehan; Melanie D Whittington; Job F M van Boven; Jonathan D Campbell Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: William W Busse; Wayne J Morgan; Peter J Gergen; Herman E Mitchell; James E Gern; Andrew H Liu; Rebecca S Gruchalla; Meyer Kattan; Stephen J Teach; Jacqueline A Pongracic; James F Chmiel; Suzanne F Steinbach; Agustin Calatroni; Alkis Togias; Katherine M Thompson; Stanley J Szefler; Christine A Sorkness Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J A Mathews; J Ford; S Norton; D Kang; A Dellinger; D R Gibb; A Q Ford; H Massay; C L Kepley; P Scherle; A D Keegan; D H Conrad Journal: Allergy Date: 2011-05-10 Impact factor: 13.146