Cost-Effectiveness of Biological Asthma Treatments: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Economic Evaluations

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.