Качественная клиническая практика (Jan 2020)
Modeling of the impact of biological drugs in the economic burden of severe asthma
Abstract
Bronchial asthma (BA) is worldwide lungs’ illness, at least 1,5 mln people are on a dispensary in Russia. Non-control severe BA (SBA) can lead to increasing of direct Health Care System expenditures due to very oft en exacerbations (drugs costs, hospitalizations and out-patient cure etc.) as well as to increasing of non-direct costs because temporary and permanent disability can be a result of a disease progression. Treatment of SBA has difficulties, system steroids with their well-known side effects use often as remedy of choice. Biologicals with high efficacy potential and minimal side effects are used in a clinical practice during few last years.Aim: evaluation of a comparative influence of two biologicals — dupilumab and omalizumab — on a calculated SBA burden in the Russian Federation.Materials and methods: Modelling of SBA population size which has needed in biologicals has been prepared based on official statistics and Register of SBA. Direct costs (drugs costs, treatment costs in out-patient departments and in hospitals, visits to doctors etc.) and non-direct costs (payment for temporary and permanent disability, GDP losses) have been modelling and calculated.Results: Estimated BA patient population size in Russia is 6.94 mln, and non-control SBA amount is 69,7 thousand (31.7 thousand patients in economic active age). The current treatment SBA option (w/o biologicals) has expenditures at least 1 447,2 RUR annually (direct and non-direct in total). Biologicals should decrease total expenditures due to high efficacy — for dupilumab total expenditures could be 495,42 mln RUR/year, for omalizumab — 559,81 mln RUR/year for all patients who are needed in these drugs. Omalizumab has higher weighted average estimated cost in compare with dupilumab (1.19 mln RUR/patient/year and 1.01 mln RUR/patient/year accordingly) and expenditures for omalizumab were higher due to less amount of prevention of exacerbations.Conclusion: Expenditures for SBA w/o biologicals are higher in compare with biologicals treatment options. Treatment with dupilumab for all patients with non-control SBA could decrease a direct cost on 5,8 %. Dupilumab and omalizumab usage is economically proved in non-control SBA for total cost saving (direct and non-direct).
Keywords