Tohda Yuji, Matsumoto Hisako, Miyata Masanori, Taguchi Yurie, Ueyama Maki, Joulain Florence, Arakawa Ichiro
Kindai University Hospital, Osakasayama, Osaka, Japan.
Department of Respiratory Medicine & Allergology, Kindai University Faculty of Medicine, Osakasayama, Osaka, Japan.
J Asthma. 2022 Nov;59(11):2162-2173. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2021.1996596. Epub 2021 Dec 8.
Asthma is a common, chronic inflammatory airway disorder, with up to 1,177,000 people receiving asthma treatment in Japan. Dupilumab is a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody for the treatment of atopic diseases, including persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, compared with other biologics, as add-on treatment to background therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled, persistent asthma in Japan.
A life-time Markov cohort model was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis from the Japanese healthcare payer perspective with an annual discount rate of 2%. Dupilumab was compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab, and against omalizumab (as a hypothetical scenario). Inputs were informed by dupilumab clinical trials (VENTURE [NCT02528214] and QUEST [NCT02414854] trials), the literature, official Japanese sources and expert opinions.
The base case results suggest that treatment with dupilumab leads to fewer severe exacerbations and increased life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) than benralizumab and mepolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY gained, dupilumab was the dominant strategy (lower cost, increased QALYs) versus benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥1,010,921 (US$9,190, US$1 = ¥110). Versus omalizumab, dupilumab was not cost-effective (ICER of ¥10,802,368 [US$98,203]).
In Japan, dupilumab, as an add-on to background therapy, is economically dominant compared with benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab.
哮喘是一种常见的慢性炎症性气道疾病,在日本有多达117.7万人接受哮喘治疗。度普利尤单抗是首个用于治疗包括持续性哮喘在内的特应性疾病的单克隆抗体。本研究的目的是评估在日本≥12岁未得到控制的持续性哮喘患者中,度普利尤单抗作为背景治疗的附加治疗与其他生物制剂相比的成本效益。
采用终身马尔可夫队列模型,从日本医疗保健支付方的角度进行成本效益分析,年贴现率为2%。将度普利尤单抗与贝那利珠单抗和美泊利珠单抗进行比较,并与奥马珠单抗(作为一种假设情况)进行对比。输入数据来自度普利尤单抗临床试验(VENTURE [NCT02528214]和QUEST [NCT02414854]试验)、文献、日本官方资料和专家意见。
基础病例结果表明,与贝那利珠单抗和美泊利珠单抗相比,度普利尤单抗治疗导致的严重加重次数更少,生命年(LYs)和质量调整生命年(QALYs)增加。在每获得一个QALY的支付意愿(WTP)阈值为500万日元时,度普利尤单抗是相对于贝那利珠单抗的主导策略(成本更低,QALYs增加),相对于美泊利珠单抗具有成本效益,增量成本效益比(ICER)为1,010,921日元(9190美元,1美元 = 110日元)。与奥马珠单抗相比,度普利尤单抗不具有成本效益(ICER为10,802,368日元[98,203美元])。
在日本,度普利尤单抗作为背景治疗的附加治疗,与贝那利珠单抗相比在经济上占主导地位,与美泊利珠单抗相比具有成本效益。