English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: Based on the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to determine economic and clinical consequences of using mepolizumab instead of omalizumab in adults with severe eosinophilic asthma, when omalizumab is administered once every 2 weeks or mepolizumab is administered once every 4 weeks.Methods: Effectiveness and safety analysis was conducted based on the published network meta-analysis, because head-to-head clinical trials of omalizumab versus mepolizumab were not identified during targeted scientific literature search. Direct medical costs were calculated using information from the register of manufacturers` maximum selling prices for vital and essential drugs (VED), instructions for medical use, the unit cost of healthcare services.Results: Effectiveness and safety of the compared drugs were determined based on the results of the network meta-analysis. Frequency of clinically significant asthma exacerbations (risk ratio = 0,19; 95% CI: 0,02–2,32) and withdrawals due to adverse events (risk ratio = 0,05; 95% CI: 0,002–0,95). Therefore, despite the tendency to mepolisumab benefits, it was concluded that there are no statistically significant differences in the effectiveness and safety of the compared drugs due to the insufficient statistical power of the result. Direct medical costs were 870130 rubles and 1852063 rubles for mepolizumab and omalizumab respectively. Saving of direct medical costs for mepolizumab treatment was 959170 rubles per patient per year or 52%.Conclusion: treatment with mepolizumab versus omalizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, when omalizumab is administered once every 2 weeks or mepolizumab is administered once every 4 weeks, leads to saving of direct medical costs for drug treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Treatment for Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Adults: Mepolizumab and Omalizumab