Number Needed to Treat and Cost-per-Event Avoided for Dupilumab Versus Other Asthma Biologics for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Asthma
Author(s)
Joulain F1, Fourrier L2, Fanelli F2, Wang Z3, Cheng WH4
1Sanofi, Gentilly, France, 2Sanofi S.p.A., Milan, Italy, 3Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sleepy Hollow, NY, USA, 4Sanofi, Cambridge, MA, USA
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: Lack of head-to-head trials between biologics hinders payers from offering accessible treatments, thereby limiting patients' access to cost-effective therapies. The present analysis compared the number needed to treat (NNT) and cost-per-event avoided (CPEA) for dupilumab versus omalizumab, benralizumab, and mepolizumab in preventing asthma exacerbation in Italy for a 1-year period.
METHODS: An economic tool was adapted from Italian perspective to analyse the NNT to avoid one severe exacerbation and corresponding CPEA/year. Efficacy data were derived from real-world evidence (RWE; US-ADVANTAGE). In the base case, NNT was compared between dupilumab versus mepolizumab and benralizumab (among patients with ≥2 severe exacerbations) and versus omalizumab (among patients with ≥1 severe exacerbation). The CPEA/year was computed by multiplying treatment costs (biologic and administration costs) by the NNT to obtain corresponding 1-year incremental cost to avoid one severe exacerbation. Costs were sourced from Italian drug prices listed in the official gazette. Results were further analysed within a matched cohort of biologics, derived from a published indirect treatment comparison (ITC), to eliminate potential bias associated with the inclusion of a single study. Sensitivity analyses (SA) with varying discounting scenarios (20%, 30% and 40%) were applied.
RESULTS: Dupilumab demonstrated a lower NNT to avoid one severe exacerbation than omalizumab (0.6 vs. 1.1), benralizumab (0.5 vs. 0.8), and mepolizumab (0.5 vs. 0.9), respectively, as derived from RWE. The CPEA/year was lower for dupilumab vs. other biologics, with a 1-year incremental cost of €6,2K for omalizumab, €4,8K for benralizumab and €6,0K for mepolizumab, relative to dupilumab. The ITC study, involving clinical trial data, revealed consistent results for NNT and CPEA/year (€10,7K: omalizumab, €9,6K: benralizumab, €2,5K: mepolizumab). Additionally, SA confirmed a lower incremental CPEA/year with dupilumab in all discounting scenarios.
CONCLUSIONS: In our model, dupilumab demonstrated lower NNT and CPEA/year versus other asthma biologics for avoiding severe exacerbations in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma.
Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
EE508
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis, Trial-Based Economic Evaluation
Disease
Biologics & Biosimilars, Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory)