Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria

Abstract

Omalizumab is cost-effective compared with SoC. The outcomes of this study were used to establish omalizumab as third-line therapy in the Dutch treatment guidelines for CSU.

Two decades with omalizumab: what we still have to learn

“…The results of that study were used to establish omalizumab as third-line therapy in guidelines for CSU treatment in The Netherlands. 81 A similar outcome was confirmed in a study conducted in the UK which showed that “with a deterministic ICER of £3,183 in the base case, omalizumab was associated with increased costs and benefits relative to SOC”. Further, in that study, the productivity index was one of the main indicators but, even considering early discontinuation in non-responders, the impact on results was not significant.…”

Improvements in quality of life and work productivity make omalizumab cost-effective for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria

“…Although already demonstrated in Kanters et al . and other studies, real‐life data could further increase the cost‐effectiveness of omalizumab in CSU. With a very good safety profile, the response rate to omalizumab in real‐life studies seems slightly superior (> 80%) to the clinical trials GLACIAL and ASTERIA that were used for incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio calculations .…”

“…This issue of the BJD includes an interesting study showing that omalizumab as an add‐on to standard of care (up to fourfold the licensed dose of H 1 ‐antihistamines) is a cost‐effective treatment for chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) in the Netherlands . This has previously been shown in the U.K., and in other countries, even considering local particularities of health systems and local recommendations for using omalizumab for CSU .…”

“…Including these factors within a more societal perspective of pharmacoeconomics is instrumental in reducing, to an acceptable value, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio of omalizumab per quality‐adjusted life year. These societal benefits of omalizumab therapy could, therefore, outweigh its higher cost and the need for in‐hospital administration when compared with standard of care, even taking into consideration the frequent relapse rate with omalizumab discontinuation and need for long‐term treatment.…”

Reply to “Comment on: ‘Children with chronic urticaria can be effectively controlled with updosing second-generation antihistamines’”

“…However, studies have established a clear advantage in the cost-effectiveness for omalizumab compared with cyclosporine in the management of CU. 7 Further, the safety profile of cyclosporine in children vs omalizumab is not negligible. Cyclosporine use is associated with increased risk for decreased renal function and hypertension in a dose-dependent manner.…”