R Brett McQueen1, Danielle N Sheehan2, Melanie D Whittington2, Job F M van Boven3, Jonathan D Campbell2. 1. Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Mail Stop C238, 12850 E. Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. Robert.mcqueen@ucdenver.edu. 2. Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Mail Stop C238, 12850 E. Montview Blvd., Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 3. Department of General Practice and Elderly Care, Groningen Research Institute for Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality. RESULTS: Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.
BACKGROUND: Recently developed asthma biological therapies have been shown to provide relief for severe asthma patients not controlled by inhaled treatment. Given the relatively high costs of biological therapies, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) may be required as a prerequisite for coverage and reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review published literature on the economic impact of biological asthma therapies and to identify key drivers that impact cost-effectiveness in order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar. We included studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of asthma biologics and were published in English between 2000 and 2018. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to evaluate quality. RESULTS: Twenty asthma biological CEAs were identified. Nineteen studies analyzed the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab, and one study analyzed mepolizumab. Ten studies concluded that omalizumab was cost-effective in base-case scenarios, four studies concluded omalizumab was not cost-effective, and the remaining studies concluded omalizumab or mepolizumab was cost-effective only when targeted to specific severe subgroups or given considerable price discounts. Key drivers of cost-effectiveness included day-to-day health-related quality of life (HRQoL), asthma-related mortality, acquisition price of the biological therapy, and time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies recommended carefully targeting biological therapy to specific populations such as responders or discounting acquisition price in order to further improve value. The quality of the studies was generally satisfactory, but improved evidence is needed linking HRQoL to utilities as well as understanding interventions' impact on asthma-related mortality. Key recommendations from this review may allow for greater comparability across future cost-effectiveness studies.
Authors: David B Price; Miguel Román-Rodríguez; R Brett McQueen; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Victoria Carter; Kevin Gruffydd-Jones; John Haughney; Svein Henrichsen; Catherine Hutton; Antonio Infantino; Federico Lavorini; Lisa M Law; Karin Lisspers; Alberto Papi; Dermot Ryan; Björn Ställberg; Thys van der Molen; Henry Chrystyn Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: María Del Carmen Vennera; Antonio Valero; Estefany Uría; Carles Forné; César Picado Journal: Clin Drug Investig Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 2.859
Authors: Patrick W Sullivan; Vahram H Ghushchyan; Jonathan D Campbell; Gary Globe; Bruce Bender; David J Magid Journal: J Asthma Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 2.515
Authors: Joan Sweeney; Chris C Patterson; Andrew Menzies-Gow; Rob M Niven; Adel H Mansur; Christine Bucknall; Rekha Chaudhuri; David Price; Chris E Brightling; Liam G Heaney Journal: Thorax Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Eric L Walter; Alicia Dawdani; Alison Decker; Megan E Hamm; Aimee N Pickering; Joseph T Hanlon; Carolyn T Thorpe; Mark S Roberts; Michael J Fine; Walid F Gellad; Thomas R Radomski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-03-12 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Giorgio Walter Canonica; Giorgio Lorenzo Colombo; Giacomo Matteo Bruno; Sergio Di Matteo; Chiara Martinotti; Francesco Blasi; Caterina Bucca; Nunzio Crimi; Pierluigi Paggiaro; Girolamo Pelaia; Giovanni Passalaqua; Gianenrico Senna; Enrico Heffler Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2019-01-26 Impact factor: 4.084