Program

In-person AND virtual! – We are pioneering a new conference format that will connect in-person and virtual audiences to create a unique experience. Matching the innovation that comes through our members’ work, ISPOR is pushing the boundaries of innovation to design an event that works in today’s quickly changing environment. 

In-person registration included the full virtual experience, and virtual-only attendees will be able to tune into live in-person sessions and/or watch captured in-person sessions on-demand in addition to having a variety of virtual-only sessions to attend.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Benralizumab in Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Panama

Speaker(s)

Ordoñez J1, Ordóñez A2, Hidalgo Godínez J3, Buitrago R3
1True Consulting, Medellín, ANT, Colombia, 2True Consulting, Medellín, Colombia, 3AstraZeneca CAC, San José, Costa Rica

Objectives: Severe asthma is a high-cost chronic disease with different inflammatory phenotypes, the eosinophilic phenotype being the most common. Benralizumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets this phenotype. This study evaluated the cost-utility ratio of Benralizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in Panama.

Method: A Markov-model was developed considering five disease stages: no exacerbation, exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids (OCS), exacerbations requiring emergency department (ED) visit, exacerbations requiring hospitalization and death. A cohort of 100 patients was modelled from the social-perspective comparing Standard of Care (SoC) with Benralizumab and Omalizumab, respectively, in terms of avoided exacerbations requiring OCS, ED visits and/or hospitalizations with a time-horizon of 5 years. Costs and healthcare values were discounted by 3.5%, efficacy was based on the pivotal studies of the treatment strategies. The base-case were 50-year-old-patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma. Direct and Indirect healthcare costs were considered. The Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) threshold used was 3 times the gross domestic product per capita in Panama (USD 36,807).

Results: Benralizumab avoided 1,240 exacerbations requiring OCS, 750 ED visits, 1,023 hospitalizations, 24,799 disability days and 25 deaths vs SoC. Omalizumab avoided 1,060 exacerbations requiring OCS, 736 ED visits, 938 hospitalizations, 23,010 disability days and 23 deaths vs SoC. Total discounted costs were: SoC, $14,643,066; benralizumab, $17,908,097 and omalizumab, $27,603,807. Benralizumab was a cost-effective strategy against SoC with an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of $8,154 per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY) gained, and cost-saving vs Omalizumab, resulting in less costs and better clinical outcomes. Based on the WTP of $36,807, Benralizumab has a 98% probability of being the best treatment option for severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients in Panama.

Conclusions: Benralizumab is a cost-effective treatment strategy for severe eosinophilic asthmatic patients in Panama based on Panama’s WTP threshold and it is a dominant strategy compared to Omalizumab.

Code

EE448

Topic

Clinical Outcomes, Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy, Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Trial-Based Economic Evaluation

Disease

Respiratory-Related Disorders