Omalizumab is an add-on therapy for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. In Europe, patients must fulfil a number of additional criteria to become eligible for omalizumab therapy, creating a challenge for epidemiology studies to quantify the potential patient pool. Thus, and in the absence of robust data, the number of omalizumab-eligible patients has remained unclear. To assess eligible patient numbers, a chart-audit design approach was employed to measure epidemiology variables based on patient-level data. 770 patient charts were reviewed in designated towns in Germany and Italy, in collaboration with >200 primary care physicians (PCPs) and respiratory specialists (RS). This study sample represents >50% and >70% of local RS in these designated towns of Germany and Italy, respectively. Of patient charts evaluated, 4 patients were currently receiving omalizumab. A further 31 patients (12 PCP; 19 RS) were evaluated as omalizumab-eligible (i.e. fulfilled all product label criteria) but were not receiving the drug. Extrapolating to a national level, this yields >6500 eligible patients in Germany, and >3200 in Italy. Furthermore, this study sample revealed a significant number of PCPs treating uncontrolled severe asthma patients without referral to RS; these patients are not consistently evaluated for FEV1, aero-allergen sensitivity, a qualitative understanding of severe exacerbations, and day and night-time symptoms. This study suggests that significant numbers of omalizumab-naïve severe allergic asthma patients in Germany/Italy are eligible for omalizumab therapy. Despite proven benefits in uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, adjunctive omalizumab therapy is underutilized.

Background:The purpose of this study was to explore whether newer galenic formulations with lower treatment burdens are associated with better patient compliance and persistence compared with older more burdensome modalities.Methods:Data from the IMS Disease Analyzer database were analyzed retrospectively for two pairs of analogs (alendronate sodium once daily vs once weekly and immediate-release vs extended-release methylphenidate) and one pair of drugs with similar indications but important differences in convenience and dosing instructions (desferrioxamine vs deferasirox). Compliance was calculated as the sum of prescription durations for all prescriptions for each patient over 1 year. Persistence was calculated as the time between first and last prescriptions over 2 years (1 year for deferasirox and desferrioxamine). Data from Germany and the UK were available and used for analysis.Results:Incremental improvements in compliance were +30% in the UK and +26% in Germany for alendronate once weekly vs once daily, +14% in the UK and +19% in Germany for extended-release vs immediate-release methylphenidate, and +15% in Germany for desferrioxamine vs deferasirox. Incremental improvements in persistence were +9 months in the UK and +8 months in Germany for alendronate once weekly vs once daily, +4 months in the UK and +3 months in Germany for extended-release vs immediate-release methylphenidate, and +2 months in Germany for deferasirox vs desferrioxamine.Conclusion:The new formulations that we evaluated were associated with better compliance and persistence compared with older formulations. Despite the fact that some sources of bias could not be excluded, it is likely that these improvements can be attributed to the lower treatment burdens of the galenic formulations of the drugs considered. Further investigation is required to confirm these findings and to determine whether new galenic formulations can improve health outcomes in routine clinical practice.

No abstract