Prs50 Benralizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Nice Single Technology Appraisal

Tikhonova, Irina A.; Long, Linda; Ocean, Neel; Barnish, Max; Robinson, Sophie; Nikram, Elham; Bello, S.; Dodman, Sophie; Hoyle, Martin

doi:10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1754

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After screening 1884 hits and reviewing 36 full‐text articles, five economic evaluations were included (Figure ). Two studies evaluated benralizumab, one dupilumab, one mepolizumab and two reslizumab (Table ). Most of the excluded studies evaluated allergic patients (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Agache

Beltrán

Akdiş

et al. 2020

Allergy

281

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five biologicals have been approved for severe eosinophilic asthma, a well‐recognized phenotype. Systematic reviews (SR) evaluated the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab (alphabetical order) compared to standard of care for severe eosinophilic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthma‐related outcomes were evaluated for each of the biologicals. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. 19 RCTs (three RCTs for benralizumab, three RCTs for dupilumab, three RCTs for mepolizumab, five RCTs for omalizumab and five RCTs for reslizumab), including subjects 12 to 75 years old (except for omalizumab including also subjects 6‐11 years old), ranging from 12 to 56 weeks were evaluated. All biologicals reduce exacerbation rates with high certainty of evidence: benralizumab incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.72), dupilumab (IRR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.59), mepolizumab IRR 0.49 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.66), omalizumab (IRR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.77) and reslizumab (IRR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.58). Benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce the daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) with high certainty of evidence. All evaluated biologicals probably improve asthma control, QoL and FEV1, without reaching the minimal important difference (moderate certainty). Benralizumab, mepolizumab and reslizumab slightly increase drug‐related adverse events (AE) and drug‐related serious AE (low to very low certainty of evidence). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life year value is above the willingness to pay threshold for all biologicals (moderate certainty). Potential savings are driven by decrease in hospitalizations, emergency and primary care visits. There is high certainty that all approved biologicals reduce the rate of severe asthma exacerbations and for benralizumab, dupilumab and mepolizumab for reducing OCS. There is moderate certainty for improving asthma control, QoL, FEV1. More data on long‐term safety are needed together with more efficacy data in the paediatric population.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Agache

Beltrán

Akdiş

et al. 2020

Allergy

281

209

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After screening 1884 hits and reviewing 36 full text articles, 22 economic evaluations were included (Figure 2, Table ). Two studies evaluated benralizumab, one dupilumab and twenty studies omalizumab (Table ). Most of the studies excluded did not evaluate patients with allergic asthma (3/14), did not report health outcomes (3/14) or were conference abstracts (3/14) (Table ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For benralizumab, there was an important variation of ICER from 39 135 £ (low certainty of the evidence) to 412 000 $/QALY (moderate certainty of the evidence). The key driver for this difference is unclear since there is missing information in the report . However, in both studies the ICER/ QALY was higher than the 30 000 € threshold for the willingness to pay (Tables and ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Agache

Rocha

Beltrán

et al. 2020

Allergy

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Allergic asthma is a frequent asthma phenotype. Both IgE and type 2 cytokines are increased, with some degree of overlap with other phenotypes. Systematic reviews assessed the efficacy and safety of benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab (alphabetical order) vs standard of care for patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma. PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to identify RCTs and health economic evaluations, published in English. Critical and important asthmarelated outcomes were evaluated. The risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence were assessed using GRADE. All three biologicals reduced with high certainty the annualized asthma exacerbation rate: benralizumab incidence rate ratios (IRR) 0.63 (95% CI 0.50 − 0.81); dupilumab IRR 0.58 (95%CI 0.47 − 0.73); and omalizumab IRR 0.56 (95%CI 0.42 − 0.73). Benralizumab and dupilumab improved asthma control with high certainty and omalizumab with moderate certainty; however, none reached the minimal important difference (MID). Both benralizumab and omalizumab improved QoL with high certainty, but only omalizumab reached the MID. Omalizumab enabled ICS dose reduction with high certainty. Benralizumab and omalizumab showed an increase in drug-related adverse events (AEs) with low to moderate certainty. All three biologicals had moderate certainty for an ICER/QALY value above the willingness to pay threshold. There was high certainty that in children 6-12 years old omalizumab decreased the annualized exacerbation rate [IRR 0.57 (95%CI 0.45-0.72)], improved QoL [relative risk 1.43 (95%CI 1.12 −1.83)], reduced ICS [mean difference (MD) −0.45 (95% CI −0.58 to −0.32)] and rescue medication use [ MD −0.41 (95%CI −0.66 to −0.15)]. K E Y W O R D S benralizumab, dupilumab, exacerbations, omalizumabsevere allergic asthma | 1045 AGACHE Et Al.

show abstract

Effectiveness of Hands-Off Therapy in the Management of Primary Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of hands-off therapies have been widely reported and are used in the management of headache. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess evidence supporting these therapies on selected headache outcomes. A systematic literature search for randomized clinical trials reporting on the effects of hands-off therapies for headache was performed in two electronic databases; PubMed and Web of Science (PROSPERO: CRD42018093559). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager v5.4. Thirty-five studies, including 3,403 patients with migraine, tension-type or chronic headaches were included in the review. Methodological quality of the studies ranged from poor to good. Result-synthesis revealed moderate evidence for aerobic exercises, relaxation training and pain education for reducing pain intensity and disability. Other hands-off interventions were either weak or limited in evidence. Meta-analysis of 22 studies indicated that the effect of hands-off therapies significantly differed from one another for pain intensity, disability and quality of life (p < 0.05). Relaxation training, aerobic and active/stretching exercises had significant effect on pain intensity and disability (p < 0.05). To conclude, few hands-off therapies were effective on selected headache outcomes. Evidence to support other hands-off therapies is limited by paucity of studies.

show abstract

Prs50 Benralizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: Nice Single Technology Appraisal

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab, mepolizumab, omalizumab and reslizumab) for severe eosinophilic asthma. A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Efficacy and safety of treatment with biologicals (benralizumab, dupilumab and omalizumab) for severe allergic asthma: A systematic review for the EAACI Guidelines ‐ recommendations on the use of biologicals in severe asthma

Effectiveness of Hands-Off Therapy in the Management of Primary Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About