Cost‐effectiveness analysis comparing dupilumab and aspirin desensitization therapy for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease. Issue 12 (26th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yong, Michael; Wu, Yu Qi; Howlett, Joel; Ballreich, Jeromie; Walgama, Evan; Thamboo, Andrew
• Is Part Of: International forum of allergy & rhinology. Volume 11:Issue 12(2021)
• Page Start: 1626
• Page End: 1636
• Publication Date: 2021-07-26
• Subjects: aspirin desensitization -- aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease -- biologic -- chronic rhinosinusitis -- chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis -- cost‐effectiveness analysis -- cost‐utility analysis -- dupilumab; 617.51005
• DOI: 10.1002/alr.22865
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2042-6976

Abstract

Abstract : Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) in the setting of aspirin‐exacerbated respiratory disease (AERD) is a disease that is difficult to treat and prone to recurrence. Dupilumab is a promising treatment for these patients, but its cost‐effectiveness has not yet been compared with aspirin (acetylsalicyclic acid, or ASA) desensitization, a known and effective treatment. We aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of ASA desensitization with dupilumab therapy for the treatment of CRSwNP in AERD. Methods: Analyses of cost‐effectiveness, as measured in quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), and cost‐utility, as measured in number of required revision endoscopic sinus surgeries (ESSs), were conducted. Results: ASA desensitization after ESS was cost‐effective and dominated appropriate medical management. Adding salvage dupilumab was also cost‐effective (incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio [ICER] $135, 517.33), and upfront dupilumab therapy was not cost‐effective in any scenario (ICER $273, 181.32). The cost‐utility analysis demonstrated that, over a 10‐year period per patient, appropriate medical management after ESS cost $54, 125.31 and resulted in 2.25 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization after ESS cost $53, 775.15 and resulted in 2.02 revision ESSs, ASA desensitization with salvage dupilumab cost $121, 176.25 and resulted in 1.68 revision ESSs, and upfront dupilumab cost $185, 950.34 and resulted in 1.51 revision ESSs. Conclusion: Dupilumab for the treatment of severe CRSwNP was found to be cost‐effective as salvage therapy under the willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $150, 000. Further analysis highlighted that the cost‐effectiveness of dupilumab was most sensitive to drug price and expected gains in quality of life. This suggests that additional investigation into improving patient population selection and tailoring treatment algorithms may improve the cost‐effectiveness of dupilumab in specific scenarios.