Background: Omalizumab is an anti-IgE therapy newly approved by the Food and Drug Administration for allergen agnostic treatment of single or multiple food allergies in patients aged 1 year or older.
Objective: Evaluate the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab as a food allergy treatment.
Methods: We evaluated health and economic outcomes in Markov cohorts of simulated food allergic infants randomized to receive omalizumab using a 15-year horizon. Monte Carlo simulation was used (n = 40,000 subjects) to evaluate cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective, incorporating both a family-level and individual-level analysis. We included family-level analysis to incorporate a broad perspective for health utility change, given treatment effects likely benefit all parties at home (eg, caregivers, siblings), not just the patient, representing the sum of changes in all such persons. Supplemental analyses explored lower omalizumab cost and home initiation. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
Results: In the family-level cohort analysis, omalizumab exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds ($185,183/quality-adjusted life-years [QALY]). In a comparison of the omalizumab strategy (OMA) with the non-omalizumab strategy, the cost of OMA exceeded the non-omalizumab strategy ($315,020 vs $136,609) with greater incremental effectiveness (12.668 vs 11.699 QALY). In the individual-level analysis, the cost-effectiveness of OMA was $573,698/QALY. In base-case assessments, OMA was cost-effective (willingness to pay, $100,000/QALY) at a health state utility (HSU) improvement of 0.265. The value-based cost of OMA ranged from $14,166 to $23,791 when it was considered at the individual and family-unit levels. Requiring OMA administration in the clinic was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $260,239).
Conclusions: In the base case and at current pricing, omalizumab is not cost-effective, but it could be at a lower retail price or when use creates large health utility shifts in the family and patient.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaip.2024.06.023 | DOI Listing |
Curr Allergy Asthma Rep
November 2024
Amsterdam UMC, Department of Otorhinolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, D2-233, Postbus 22660, Amsterdam Zuidoost , 1100 DD, The Netherlands.
Purpose Of Review: Olfactory dysfunction significantly impacts quality of life that affects a majority of the patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). The aim of this review is to explore the impact of various treatment regimens on olfactory dysfunction in patients diagnosed with CRSwNP.
Recent Findings: Accurate assessment of olfactory dysfunction remains challenging and should incorporate both psychophysical tests and patient-reported outcomes.
An Bras Dermatol
January 2025
Department of Immunology and Allergy, University of Health Sciences, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
JAMA Dermatol
November 2024
Pharmacoepidemiology and Statistics Research Center (PESRC), Faculty of Pharmacy, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand.
Cureus
July 2024
Otolaryngology, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, JPN.
Traditional treatments for cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis include second-generation antihistamines, nasal corticosteroids, and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Omalizumab (Xolair®), an anti-immunoglobulin E (IgE) monoclonal antibody, is an additional option for severe cases unresponsive to existing therapies. Numerous studies have demonstrated the therapeutic effectiveness of omalizumab for cedar seasonal allergic rhinitis; however, most reported results after only up to four weeks of follow-up.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFImmunol Allergy Clin North Am
August 2024
Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12700 East 19th Avenue 10C03, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!