Department of Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md; Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md; Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Md.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021 Nov;9(11):3969-3976. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2021.01.039. Epub 2021 Feb 6.
Despite bearing a disproportionate burden of poorly controlled asthma, publicly insured individuals are less likely to receive biologics.
To assess biologic use by payer among individuals with asthma.
We used IQVIA's National Disease and Therapeutic Index, a nationally representative, all-payer audit of ambulatory care in the United States, to describe the patterns of use by payer.
Asthma treatment visits in which a biologic product was reported increased from approximately 0.1% of asthma-related visits in 2003 to 1% in 2015 and doubled to 2% by 2019. Omalizumab use initially increased from 2003 to 2006 and plateaued till 2015 when its use declined modestly, coinciding with the release of additional biologic products. In 2019, omalizumab accounted for 37% of biologic treatment visits, mepolizumab 21%, benralizumab 27%, dupilumab 15%, and reslizumab <1%. Biologic treatment visits were higher for privately insured individuals (28.3 per 1000 visits) compared with publicly insured individuals (16.3 per 1000 visits). This difference persisted after accounting for age, sex, and race using nationally representative estimates. White patients accounted for a disproportionate amount of biologic treatment visits among the publicly insured (80%) despite accounting for only 60% of publicly insured asthma treatment visits. No biologic treatment visits were observed for individuals who were uninsured. Half of dupilumab visits were for publicly insured patients, compared with 22% of mepolizumab/benralizumab and 27% of omalizumab visits.
Biologics were uncommonly used among patients with asthma, and the basis for disproportionately lower use of biologics among the publicly insured, where the burden of uncontrolled asthma is greatest, merits further investigation.
尽管公众保险覆盖人群承受着不成比例的哮喘控制不佳的负担,但他们接受生物制剂治疗的可能性却较低。
评估哮喘患者的支付方使用生物制剂的情况。
我们使用 IQVIA 的国家疾病和治疗索引,这是一项全国代表性的、涵盖美国门诊护理的所有支付方的审计,以描述按支付方划分的使用模式。
报告使用生物制品的哮喘治疗就诊量从 2003 年约占哮喘相关就诊量的 0.1%增加到 2015 年的 1%,到 2019 年增加了一倍,达到 2%。奥马珠单抗的使用最初从 2003 年到 2006 年增加,然后在 2015 年达到平台期,此后其使用量略有下降,这与更多生物制品的推出相吻合。2019 年,奥马珠单抗占生物治疗就诊量的 37%,美泊利珠单抗占 21%,贝那利珠单抗占 27%,度普利尤单抗占 15%,瑞利珠单抗占<1%。与公共保险覆盖者(每千人就诊量 16.3)相比,私人保险覆盖者(每千人就诊量 28.3)的生物治疗就诊量更高。在使用全国代表性估计值来考虑年龄、性别和种族后,这种差异仍然存在。尽管公共保险覆盖的哮喘治疗就诊量中白人患者仅占 60%,但他们在公共保险覆盖的生物治疗就诊量中却占了不成比例的数量(80%)。没有观察到未参保患者的生物治疗就诊量。有一半的度普利尤单抗就诊是为公共保险覆盖的患者,而美泊利珠单抗/贝那利珠单抗和奥马珠单抗的就诊比例分别为 22%和 27%。
生物制剂在哮喘患者中使用较少,而在公共保险覆盖人群中,生物制剂的使用比例不成比例地较低,尽管他们的哮喘控制不佳的负担最大,这值得进一步调查。