Dataset Information

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment.

ABSTRACT: The implications of boosting Omalizumab treatment (OT) in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) remain unclear. The study aimed to explore and compare the 12-month effectiveness between continuous, at least 10-month OT (continuation group) and four-month boost of Omalizumab (boost group) in adult patients with SAA. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were collected for further analysis. Of all participants (n = 124), a significant reduction in annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.8 ± 1.5, follow-up = 0.5 ± 1.0, p = 0.047 *) and improvement in small airway ventilation as evaluated by forced expiratory flow at 25-75% (baseline = 55.1 ± 11.1%, follow-up = 59.4 ± 8.4%, p < 0.001 *) were found in the continuation group (n = 110). By contrast, the boost group (n = 14) had significantly increased annual exacerbations (baseline = 0.7 ± 1.4, follow-up = 2.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.031 *) and impaired small airway function (baseline = 55.3 ± 12.9, follow-up = 52.1 ± 12.5, p = 0.026 *). Furthermore, the continuation group rather than the boost group had significant decreases in the frequency of oral corticosteroid (OCS) use as controllers (baseline = 32.7%, follow-up = 20.0%, p = 0.047 *; baseline = 50.0%, follow-up = 21.4%, p = 0.237, respectively) and OCS maintenance dose (mg/month) (baseline = 85.9 ± 180.8, follow-up = 45.8 ± 106.6, p = 0.020 *; baseline = 171.4 ± 221.5, follow-up = 50.0 ± 104.3, p = 0.064, respectively), and increases in asthma control test scores (baseline = 16.0 ± 3.0, follow-up = 19.8 ± 4.4, p < 0.001 *; baseline = 14.6 ± 3.8, follow-up = 19.7 ± 4.7, p = 0.050, respectively). Continuous OT would be beneficial for adult patients with SAA, while boost of Omalizumab would worsen their long-term outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Huang WC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7916868 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment.

Huang Wei-Chang WC Fu Pin-Kuei PK Chan Ming-Cheng MC Chin Chun-Shih CS Huang Wen-Nan WN Lai Kuo-Lung KL Wang Jiun-Long JL Hung Wei-Ting WT Wu Yi-Da YD Hsieh Chia-Wei CW Wu Ming-Feng MF Chen Yi-Hsing YH Hsu Jeng-Yuan JY

Journal of clinical medicine 20210211 4

The implications of boosting Omalizumab treatment (OT) in patients with severe allergic asthma (SAA) remain unclear. The study aimed to explore and compare the 12-month effectiveness between continuous, at least 10-month OT (continuation group) and four-month boost of Omalizumab (boost group) in adult patients with SAA. In this retrospective cohort study, clinical data were collected for further analysis. Of all participants (<i>n</i> = 124), a significant reduction in annual exacerbations (base ...[more]

PMID: 33670157

Similar Datasets

Project description:Omalizumab is licensed as add-on therapy for patients with severe allergic asthma. Response is in most studies scored by the physician's global evaluation of treatment effectiveness (GETE). A good clinical and validated parameter for treatment response is currently missing. Also, there are no established criteria for identifying patients who will respond to omalizumab based on pre-treatment characteristics. The Dutch National Omalizumab in Asthma Registry was developed in 2011 to better evaluate inclusion criteria and measure treatment response after 4 months.This is a "real world" prospectively designed, observational data registry in which the outcomes of patients who received omalizumab between 2012 and 2015 were evaluated. Data were collected from all centers in the Netherlands comprising demographic features, criteria for starting treatment, GETE, FEV1, oral corticosteroid use and ACQ.65.5% of the 403 patients had a good or excellent response to omalizumab after 16 weeks according to the treating physician GETE. 64.5% fulfilled all the criteria for prescribing omalizumab at baseline. The mean ACQ improved from 2.96 at baseline to 1.83 at 16 weeks (p < 0.001). 75.3% of the responders showed more than 0.5 points improvement in the ACQ. The mean FEV1 increased from 71.58 to 79.06 (p < 0.001). There was no relationship between patients with a FEV1 <80 and ≥80% at baseline and response (p = 0.981). Most of the responders had a considerable improvement of FEV1 either/or ACQ or OCS use (88.3%). While 86.7% of the responders had an improvement of either ACQ or FEV1. 75.4% of the responders had an improvement of ACQ, while 50.4% had an improvement of FEV1. Finally 11.7% of the patients with no improvement of FEV1, ACQ or OCS use were considered to have a good response.This registry of 403 inadequately controlled severe allergic asthma patients in the Netherlands showed a good or excellent response of 65.5% to omalizumab after 16 weeks, in accordance with previous studies. The assumption that careful registration would lead to higher response rates could not be supported by the data from this registry. Improvement of ACQ appears to be a useful additional assessment tool to measure response in omalizumab treated patients.

Project description:BackgroundBronchial thermoplasty (BT) is a recently developed treatment for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. A few studies have suggested the clinical efficacy of this intervention. However, no study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BT compared to other alternative treatments for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma, which currently include omalizumab and standard therapy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab for moderate-to-severe allergic asthma in the USA.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model with weekly cycles was developed to reflect the course of asthma progression over a 5-year time horizon. The study population was adults with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma whose asthma remained uncontrolled despite using high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS, with or without long-acting beta-agonists [LABA]). A perspective of the health-care system was adopted with asthma-related costs as well as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and exacerbations as the outcomes.ResultsFor standard therapy, BT, and omalizumab, the discounted 5-year costs and QALYs were $15,400 and 3.08, $28,100 and 3.24, and $117,000 and 3.26, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BT versus standard therapy and omalizumab versus BT was $78,700/QALY and $3.86 million/QALY, respectively. At the willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY, the probability of BT being cost-effective was 9%, and 67%, respectively. The corresponding expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was $155 and $1,530 per individual at these thresholds. In sensitivity analyses, increasing the costs of BT from $14,900 to $30,000 increased its ICER relative to standard therapy to $178,000/QALY, and decreased the ICER of omalizumab relative to BT to $3.06 million/QALY. Reducing the costs of omalizumab by 25% decreased its ICER relative to BT by 29%.ConclusionsBased on the available evidence, our study suggests that there is more than 60% chance that BT becomes cost-effective relative to omalizumab and standard therapy at the WTP of $100,000/QALY in patients with moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. However, there is a substantial uncertainty in the underlying evidence, indicating the need for future research towards reducing such uncertainty.

Dataset Information

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment.

Publications

The Long-Term Effectiveness of Omalizumab in Adult Patients with Severe Allergic Asthma: Continuous Treatment Versus Boosting Treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets