OBJECTIVES : To determine short-term financial consequences of the use of mepolizumab in severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) versus omalizumab and reslizumab where the comparison is reliable.

METHODS : Assessment of clinical outcomes was based on published meta-analyses. Cost-minimization and budget impact analyses were performed from healthcare perspective and one year time horizon. Targeted populations included adult severe eosinophilic asthma patients with elevated IgE level, and weight ranged 66,6 - 100 kg. We collated only annual drug costs. Dosages were derived from the labels. We used prices data from different sources (incl. tender-auction, retail and registered prices). Exchange rate: €1 = 73,26 rubles (as of 10/06/2019; available at www.cbr.ru). Deterministic one-way sensitivity analysis was performed.

RESULTS : Based on meta-analyses (Cockle 2016, Henriksen 2018) we assumed the same efficacy and safety. Annual treatment cost of mepolizumab, reslizumab, and omalizumab were €11425, €13461, and €22043, respectively. Therefore, budget savings when using mepolizumab amounted to €2036 versus reslizumab, and €10618 versus omalizumab per patient per year. Results can be sensitive to price fluctuations. Once the price landscape will change the results should be recalculated.

CONCLUSIONS : Mepolizumab can be cost-saving alternative versus reslizumab and omalizumab in the specified population of eligible patients with severe eosinophilic asthma.