Search

Background and Objective: In asthma, symptom control is a primary goal that is not consistently met with available treatment options. The first commercially available fixed-dose combination in a single inhaler of a long-acting beta-agonist (indacaterol, IND), an inhaled corticosteroid (mometasone furoate, MF) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (glycopyrronium, GLY) has shown promising clinical results in phase III trials. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the cost-utility of IND/GLY/MF fixed-dose combination relative to a combination of salmeterol/fluticasone and tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone or IND/MF in adult patients with asthma, from the Italian Health Service (NHS) perspective., Methods: A two-state and 4-week cycle Markov model was used to estimate lifetime clinical outcomes and costs. Patients entered the model in stable disease and could experience a non-fatal exacerbation event. The exacerbation rate is dependent upon the therapy a patient is receiving, as per the IND/GLY/MF clinical trials. The impact of each type of exacerbation is accounted by applying a utility decrement, obtained from the literature, and a treatment cost. Utility values were obtained from the EQ-5D questionnaires in the IND/GLY/MF clinical trials. Lifetime costs considered in the analysis were drugs and exacerbation management. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out, with the aim of evaluating the impact of uncertainty on input parameters., Results: IND/GLY/MF is associated with a higher quality of life [+ 0.25 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than salmeterol/fluticasone plus tiotropium, with an incremental cost of -€3213.90. The incremental cost-utility ratio indicates dominance. At a threshold of €5000 per QALY, IND/GLY/MF has nearly a 100% probability of being cost effective. IND/GLY/MF is associated with a higher quality of life (+ 0.21 QALY) than salmeterol/fluticasone, with an incremental cost of €2547.76. Incremental cost-utility ratio results in €11,897 per QALY. At a threshold of €20,000 per QALY, IND/GLY/MF has nearly a 100% probability of being cost effective. IND/GLY/MF is associated with a higher quality of life (+ 0.34 QALY) than IND/MF, with an incremental cost of €4745.91. Incremental cost-utility ratio results in €14,088 per QALY. At a threshold of €20,000 per QALY, IND/GLY/MF has nearly a 100% probability of being cost effective., Conclusion: The results indicate that IND/GLY/MF is cost effective against the considered comparators in a cohort representative of adult patients with asthma in Italy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: GINA guideline recommends stepping down treatment of asthma patients where control is achieved. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the costs and health outcomes associated with step down of controlled patients on high dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S 1000/100 μg daily) to either medium dose FP/S (500/100 μg) dry powder or extrafine beclometasone/formoterol (BDP/F 400/24 μg) pMDI in three European countries., Methods: A patient-level simulation Markov model was constructed to enable the simulation of three comparative arms (FP/S 1000/100, FP/S 500/100, BDP/F 400/24). Transition probabilities and healthcare resources consumption were derived from a multinational clinical trial comparing BDP/F 400/24 μg vs. FP/S 500/100 μg as step down therapy in asthma. Direct costs and health state utilities were sourced from public source and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a health system perspective, based on six months horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted., Results: The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) associated with high dose dry powder FP/S 1000/100 μg vs. extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg was above 70,000 GBP and 200,000 €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). An ICER of 29,000 GBP/QALY and above 30,000 €/QALY was associated with medium dose dry powder FP/S 500/100 μg vs. BDP/F 400/24 μg., Conclusions: It was found that maintaining controlled patients on high dose FP/S is not cost-effective. Extrafine BDP/F 400/24 μg daily can be considered to be a cost-effective option in the countries analyzed to maintain control of asthmatic patients stepped down from high dose FP/S 1000/100 μg daily dry powder or suspension formulations., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Omalizumab is a biological treatment for difficult-to-treat allergic asthma. Its mechanism of action relies on impeding the binding of immunoglobulin E (IgE) to specific cellular receptors, thus blocking the inflammatory cascade. At present, no long-term data are available on its cost/effectiveness. The aim of this study is to assess long-term clinical outcomes and to measure the cost/utility of long-term omalizumab use in difficult-to-treat allergic asthmatics., Methods: The clinical, economic, and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes of 36-month add-on omalizumab therapy were compared to equivalent outcomes for the year before the therapy's introduction in a cohort (n = 16) of adults with severe uncontrolled atopic asthma on chronic high-dose antiasthma treatments. The variables considered were lung function, IgE levels, health status, Asthma Control Test (ACT) score, QoL (St. George Questionnaire), general practitioner (GP) and specialist visits, number and duration of hospitalizations, emergency room admission, and pharmacological treatment (both dose and duration). Derived calculated indicators were changes in health-related QoL, total healthcare costs, and incremental cost/utility. Data from the two periods were tested for statistically significant differences according to Student's t test and p < .05 was accepted., Results: Add-on omalizumab significantly and progressively improved asthma control and patient health-related QoL. Symptomatic drug and hospital care costs for these patients dropped significantly. A €450 increase in overall monthly costs was observed; however, when health benefits were considered, this cost increase translated into an incremental cost/utility ratio of €23,880 per quality-adjusted life year gained, which is quite a favorable and convenient figure in terms of the willingness to pay for health benefits in industrialized countries., Conclusions: The 36-month add-on omalizumab therapy persistently improved all clinical outcomes in difficult-to-treat asthmatic patients. Costs were also optimized and related to the extent of long-term health benefits achieved.