OBJECTIVES

: estimate the budget impact of incorporating mepolizumab as an add-on alternative versus the best available therapy (BAT) for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA). BAT includes a combined therapy of inhaled corticosteroid and long acting beta agonist, plus short acting beta agonist and oral corticosteroid SOS.

METHODS : We compared the expected costs of SEA patients received either mepolizumab versus BAT from the Chilean public healthcare payer perspective, in accordance with ISPOR principle good practices. We estimated the budget impact at annual basis up to 5 years, assuming 100% reimbursement. Direct cost related to drug treatment, adverse events and asthma exacerbation were considered in the analysis. Also, a subgroup population analysis was conducted to evaluate the budget impact of mepolizumab across different risk population of SEA patients.

RESULTS : The budget needed to provide coverage to mepolizumab for the first and second year were $ 99.011.770 and $ 100.158.288 USD respectively. This is equivalent to 0,7% and 0,71% of the National Health Budget. From the subgroup analysis: in patients with eosinophils count of 300 cell/mcL and more, and an exacerbation history of at least 4 exacerbations in the past year, the budget impact for the first year was $ 17.796.182 USD (0,13% of the health budget).

CONCLUSIONS

: For the first year it was estimated a budget impact related to mepolizumab coverage of $ 99.011.770 USD (0,7% of the health budget). From the subgroup analysis it concludes that the impact on health budget depends on the subgroup of severe eosinophilic asthma population evaluated.