2026-04-17T06:28:30Zhttps://recercat.cat/oai/request

oai:recercat.cat:11351/76542025-10-24T10:40:12Zcom_2072_378070com_2072_378040col_2072_378092

00925njm 22002777a 4500 dc Mariscal, Esther author García, Andrea author Yangg, Shibing author van de Wetering, Gijs author Izquierdo Alonso, José Luis author Gonzalez-Barcala, Francisco-Javier author Muñoz, Xavier author 2022-06-09T08:21:22Z 2022-06-09T08:21:22Z 2021 Asma eosinofílica greu; Comparació indirecta del tractament; Mepolizumab Severe eosinophilic asthma; Indirect treatment comparison; Mepolizumab Asma eosinofílica severa; Comparación de tratamiento indirecto; Mepolizumab Aim To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. Methods A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. Results On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis. Conclusions MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting. This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline [Study code: HO-19-19968]. http://hdl.handle.net/11351/7654 Cost-eficàcia Hormones esteroides - Ús terapèutic Eosinofília CHEMICALS AND DRUGS::Hormones, Hormone Substitutes, and Hormone Antagonists::Hormones::Adrenal Cortex Hormones Other subheadings::Other subheadings::/therapeutic use HEALTH CARE::Health Care Economics and Organizations::Economics::Costs and Cost Analysis::Cost-Benefit Analysis DISEASES::Hemic and Lymphatic Diseases::Hematologic Diseases::Leukocyte Disorders::Eosinophilia COMPUESTOS QUÍMICOS Y DROGAS::hormonas, sustitutos de hormonas y antagonistas de hormonas::hormonas::hormonas de la corteza suprarrenal Otros calificadores::Otros calificadores::/uso terapéutico ATENCIÓN DE SALUD::economía y organizaciones para la atención de la salud::economía::costes y análisis de costes::análisis coste-beneficio ENFERMEDADES::enfermedades hematológicas y linfáticas::enfermedades hematológicas::trastornos leucocitarios::eosinofilia Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti–IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain