Cost‐utility of omalizumab for the treatment of uncontrolled moderate‐to‐severe persistent pediatric allergic asthma in a middle‐income country

Objectives Although several randomized clinical trials performed in children 6 years and older with Omalizumab as add‐on therapy have reported improvements in diverse clinical outcomes, the evidence regarding its cost effectiveness is not sufficient, especially in less‐affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost‐utility analysis of adding omalizumab to standard treatment for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in Colombia, a middle‐income country (MIC). Methods A Markov‐type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 5‐year period. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from various sources, including systematic reviews with meta‐analysis. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia. The main outcome was the variable ‘‘quality‐adjusted life‐years’’ (QALYs). Results For the base‐case analysis, the cost‐utility analysis showed that compared with the standard treatment strategy, the omalizumab strategy involved higher costs (US$72,142.3 vs. $20,243.4 average cost per patient) and greater gain in QALYs (0.8718 vs. 0.8222 QALYs on average per patient). The incremental cost‐utility ratio (ICUR) of omalizumab compared with standard treatment was US$82,748.1 per QALY Conclusions This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with standard treatment, omalizumab is not a cost‐effective strategy for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.