Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe, uncontrolled oral corticosteroid–dependent asthma in Sweden

Andersson, Maria; Janson, Christer; Kristensen, Thomas Bjerring; Szende, Ágota; Golam, Sarowar

doi:10.1080/13696998.2020.1760285

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, there has only been one study published analysing benralizumab cost-effectiveness based on pivotal studies [48], in which a total increase per patient and year was also found and was also the result of the increase in costs from the use of benralizumab. This has also been evidenced with other biological treatments for asthma as shown in several systematic reviews [49,50] demonstrating that time horizon and drug price are among the key drivers of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.…”

Section: Pharmacoeconomics Analysismentioning

confidence: 72%

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Availability of clinically effective and cost-effective treatments for severe asthma would be beneficial to patients and national healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and healthcare expenditure after incorporating benralizumab into the standard treatment of refractory eosinophilic asthma. Methods This was a cross-sectional multicentre study of consecutive patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma who received treatment with benralizumab during at least 12 months. Patient follow-up was performed in specialised severe asthma units. The main effectiveness parameters measured were: the avoidance of one asthma exacerbation, a 3-point increase in the asthma control test (ACT) score, and the difference in utility scores (health-related quality of life) between a 1-year baseline treatment and 1-year benralizumab treatment. The health economic evaluation included direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results After 1 year of treatment with benralizumab, patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma showed an improvement in all the effectiveness parameters analysed: improvement of asthma control and lung function, and decrease in the number of exacerbations, oral corticosteroid (both as corticosteroid courses and maintenance therapy), and inhaled corticosteroid use. The total annual cost per patient for the baseline and benralizumab treatment periods were €11,544 and €14,043, respectively, reflecting an increase in costs due to the price of the biological agent but a decrease in costs for the remaining parameters. The ICER was €602 per avoided exacerbation and €983.86 for every 3-point increase in the ACT score. Conclusions All the pharmacoeconomic parameters analysed show that treatment with benralizumab is a cost-effective option as an add-on therapy in patients with refractory eosinophilic asthma.

show abstract

Section: Pharmacoeconomics Analysismentioning

confidence: 72%

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a recent Swedish analysis, benralizumab demonstrated cost-effectiveness compared to usual care plus OCS with USD 4,404 per QALY gained, based on increases of 1.33 QALY and USD 5,868 per patient. The results of this study showed that benralizumab had a high probability of being cost-effective compared to usual care plus OCS for a subgroup of patients with severe eosinophilic asthma who received regular OCS treatment [ 66 ]. According to a Canadian pharmacoeconomic review report, comparing biologics for the treatment of severe asthma was difficult due to differences in indication and lack of head-to-head studies.…”

Section: Pharmacological Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by significant morbidities and mortality, with a large impact on socio-economic resources and a considerable burden on health-care systems. In the standard care of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are a reliable and often cost-effective choice, especially if based on the single inhaler therapy (SIT) strategy; however, in a subset of patients it is not possible to reach an adequate asthma control. In these cases, it is possible to resort to other pharmacologic options, including corticosteroids (OCS) or biologics. Unfortunately, OCS are associated with important side effects, whilst monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) allow excellent results, even if far more expensive. Up to now, the economic impact of asthma has not been compared with equivalent indicators in several studies. In fact, a significant heterogeneity of the cost analysis is evident in literature, for which the assessment of the real cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies is remarkably complex. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of asthma strategies, especially of biologics, attention must be paid on phenotyping and identification of predictors of response. Several studies were included, involving comparative analysis of drug treatments for asthma, comparative analysis of the costs and consequences of therapies, measurement and evaluation of direct drug costs, and the reduction of health service use. The initial research identified 389 articles, classified by titles and abstracts. A total of 311 articles were excluded as irrelevant and 78 articles were selected. Pharmacoeconomic studies on asthma therapies often report conflicting data also due to heterogeneous indicators and different populations examined. A careful evaluation of the existing literature is extremely important, because the scenario is remarkably complex, with an attempt to homogenize and interpret available data. Based on these studies, the improvement of prescriptive appropriateness and the reduction of the use of healthcare resources thanks to controller medications and to innovative therapies such as biologics partially reduce the economic burden of these treatments. A multidisciplinary stakeholder approach can also be extremely helpful in deciding between the available options and thus optimizing healthcare resources.

show abstract

“…Other than clinical and biomarkers, some additional factors shown below that can guide mAb selection in asthma should also be considered ( 10 ). These factors are given in Table 2 ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biologics for the treatment of severe asthma: Current status report 2023 Severe asthma is associated with increased use of healthcare services, significant deterioration in the quality of life, and high disease and economic burden on patients and societies. Additional treatments are required for severe forms of asthma. Biological agents are recommended for the treatment of severe asthma. In this current status report, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety data of approved biologics; omalizumab, mepolizumab, reslizumab, benralizumab, dupilumab, and tezepelumab, in the treatment of severe asthma and appropriate patient profiles for these biologics. Pubmed and Cochrane databases based on randomized controlled trials, posthoc analyses, meta-analyses, and real-life studies examining the efficacy and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma were searched, and the results of these studies on important asthma outcomes were reviewed. Existing studies have shown that all the approved biologic agents targeting cells, receptors, and mediators involved in type 2 inflammation in the bronchial wall in severe asthma significantly reduce asthma exacerbations, reduce the need for oral corticosteroids, and improve asthma control, quality of life, and pulmonary functions. Characterizing the asthma endotype and phenotype in patients with severe asthma and determining which treatment would be more appropriate for a particular patient is an essential step in personalized treatment.

show abstract

Cost effectiveness of benralizumab for severe, uncontrolled oral corticosteroid–dependent asthma in Sweden

Cited by 9 publications

References 36 publications

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

Real-life cost-effectiveness of benralizumab in patients with severe asthma

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

Biological therapy management from the initial selection of biologics to switching between biologics in severe asthma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About