The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 120, Issue 5 , Pages 1146-1152, November 2007

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab in adults with severe asthma: Results from the Asthma Policy Model

  • Ann C. Wu, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Ann C. Wu, MD, Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention, 133 Brookline Ave, 6th Floor, Boston, MA 02215-5301.
  • ,
  • A. David Paltiel, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn
  • ,
  • Karen M. Kuntz, ScD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass
  • ,
  • Scott T. Weiss, MD, MS

      Affiliations

    • Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass
  • ,
  • Anne L. Fuhlbrigge, MD

      Affiliations

    • Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass

Received 26 February 2007; received in revised form 26 July 2007; accepted 27 July 2007. published online 01 October 2007.

Background

Omalizumab (trade name Xolair) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of moderate-to-severe allergic asthma. Given the high acquisition cost of omalizumab, its role and cost-effectiveness in disease management require definition.

Objective

We sought to identify the clinical and economic circumstances under which omalizumab might or might not be a cost-effective option by using a mathematic model.

Methods

We merged published data on clinical and economic outcomes (including acute event incidence, frequency/severity of hospitalizations, and health-related quality of life) to project 10-year costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost-effectiveness of treatment with omalizumab in addition to inhaled corticosteroids. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by using input data ranges from a variety of sources (published clinical trials and observational databases).

Results

For patients with baseline acute event rates, omalizumab conferred an additional 1.7 quality-adjusted months at an incremental cost of $131,000 over a 10-year planning horizon, implying a cost-effectiveness ratio of $821,000 per QALY gained. For patients with 5 times the baseline acute event rate, the cost-effectiveness ratio was $491,000 per QALY gained. The projected cost-effectiveness ratio could fall within a range of other programs that are widely considered to be cost-effective if the cost of omalizumab decreases to less than $200.

Conclusion

Omalizumab is not cost-effective for most patients with severe asthma. The projected cost-effectiveness ratios could fall within a favorable range if the cost of omalizumab decreases significantly.

Clinical implications

Based on the high cost of omalizumab, it is especially important that clinicians explore alternative medications for asthma before initiating omalizumab.

Key words: Omalizumab, cost-effectiveness, asthma, anti-IgE

Abbreviations used: AQLQ, Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, ED, Emergency department, HRQOL, Health-related quality of life, ICS, Inhaled corticosteroid, QALY, Quality-adjusted life year, QAM, Quality-adjusted month

 

 Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01 HL68201-01A1).

 Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: S. T. Weiss has consulting arrangements with Glaxo-Wellcome, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, Schering-Plough, Variagenics, Genome Therapeutics, and Merck Frost and has received grant support from AstraZeneca and Pfizer. A. L. Fuhlbrigge has consulting arrangements with Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, has received grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim and Merck, is on the speakers' bureau for Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, and is a member of the Data Safety Monitoring Board for an industry-sponsored clinical trial by Sepracor. The other authors have declared that they have no conflict of interest.

PII: S0091-6749(07)01456-X

doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.07.055

The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 120, Issue 5 , Pages 1146-1152, November 2007