GENERIC HRQOL ADVANTAGE AMONG BIOLOGIC TREATED PATIENTS WITH SEVERE ASTHMA IN GREECE: EVIDENCE FROM ROUTINE SPECIALIST CARE
Author(s)
Ioannis J. Yfantopoulos, II, DPhil1, Jannis Constantinidis, Ph.D.2, Michael Makris, Ph.D.3, Constantinos, Glynos, Ph.D.4, Vasiliki Stamatopoulou, Ph.D.4, Maria Pastra, Master of Science4, Loukidis Stelios, Ph.D.5.
1Professor of Health Economics, University of Athens, Ekali, Greece, 2Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 3Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 4GSK Pharmaceuticals Greece, Athens, Greece, 5National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
1Professor of Health Economics, University of Athens, Ekali, Greece, 2Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, 3Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece, 4GSK Pharmaceuticals Greece, Athens, Greece, 5National and Kapodistrian University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.
OBJECTIVES: Severe asthma is associated with substantial impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study assessed whether adults with severe asthma receiving biologic therapies experience better generic HRQoL than patients managed without biologics, using the EQ-5D-5L instrument.
METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicentre, cross-sectional observational survey of 442 adults with specialist-confirmed severe asthma treated for ≥2 years in Greece between November 2025 and March 2026. Generic HRQoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L utility index, EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the five dimensions of EQ-5D-5L. Outcomes were compared between biologic-treated and non-biologic-treated patients using Mann-Whitney tests. Multivariable linear regression with robust standard errors examined the independent association between biologic use and EQ-5D-5L index after adjusting for several sociodemographic and clinical factors.
RESULTS: Biologic-treated patients reported significantly higher EQ-5D-5L utility scores than non-biologic-treated patients (mean: 0.774 vs 0.670; p<0.001 median: 0.814 vs 0.691; p<0.001). EQ-VAS scores were also higher among biologic-treated patients (mean 81.29 vs 78.79; median 85.0 vs 80.0; p=0.034). Statistically significant differences were also observed across all five EQ-5D dimensions. The proportion of patients reporting problems was lower among biologic-treated in comparison to non-biologic patients for: i) pain/discomfort (39.3% vs 61.1%; p<0.001), ii) mobility (41.4% vs 60.6%; p<0.001), iii) usual activities (43.0% vs 57.6%; p<0.002), iv) self-care (19.3% vs 31.8%; p=0.002), and v) anxiety/depression (64.8% vs 76.3%; p<0.009). After multivariable adjustment modelling, biologic use remained associated with higher EQ-5D-5L index (β=0.047; p=0.021).
CONCLUSIONS: Adults with severe asthma receiving biologic therapies demonstrate significantly better generic HRQoL compared with those managed without biologics. Improvements were observed in overall utility, patient-reported health status, and all EQ-5D dimensions, highlighting the value of biologic therapies in reducing the multidimensional burden of severe asthma.
METHODS: Data were obtained from a multicentre, cross-sectional observational survey of 442 adults with specialist-confirmed severe asthma treated for ≥2 years in Greece between November 2025 and March 2026. Generic HRQoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L utility index, EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and the five dimensions of EQ-5D-5L. Outcomes were compared between biologic-treated and non-biologic-treated patients using Mann-Whitney tests. Multivariable linear regression with robust standard errors examined the independent association between biologic use and EQ-5D-5L index after adjusting for several sociodemographic and clinical factors.
RESULTS: Biologic-treated patients reported significantly higher EQ-5D-5L utility scores than non-biologic-treated patients (mean: 0.774 vs 0.670; p<0.001 median: 0.814 vs 0.691; p<0.001). EQ-VAS scores were also higher among biologic-treated patients (mean 81.29 vs 78.79; median 85.0 vs 80.0; p=0.034). Statistically significant differences were also observed across all five EQ-5D dimensions. The proportion of patients reporting problems was lower among biologic-treated in comparison to non-biologic patients for: i) pain/discomfort (39.3% vs 61.1%; p<0.001), ii) mobility (41.4% vs 60.6%; p<0.001), iii) usual activities (43.0% vs 57.6%; p<0.002), iv) self-care (19.3% vs 31.8%; p=0.002), and v) anxiety/depression (64.8% vs 76.3%; p<0.009). After multivariable adjustment modelling, biologic use remained associated with higher EQ-5D-5L index (β=0.047; p=0.021).
CONCLUSIONS: Adults with severe asthma receiving biologic therapies demonstrate significantly better generic HRQoL compared with those managed without biologics. Improvements were observed in overall utility, patient-reported health status, and all EQ-5D dimensions, highlighting the value of biologic therapies in reducing the multidimensional burden of severe asthma.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
PCR88
Topic
Clinical Outcomes, Methodological & Statistical Research, Patient-Centered Research
Topic Subcategory
Adherence, Persistence, & Compliance, Health State Utilities, Patient-reported Outcomes & Quality of Life Outcomes
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory)