The Burden of Chronic Urticaria from Brazilian Patients' Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic urticaria (CU), a proxy for chronic spontaneous urticaria, has been associated with a negative impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and costs, but there is limited evidence on the burden of CU in Brazil. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of CU and assess the burden of CU on HRQoL and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) among adults in Brazil. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study, pooled data from the 2011, 2012, and 2015 National Health and Wellness Survey in Brazil (n = 36,000). Respondents (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with and treated for CU provided data on demographics, health history, HRQoL (mental and physical health status) on Short-Form SF-36v2, presence of psychological complaints, work impairment, activity impairment, and HRU. Generalized linear models, controlling for covariates, examined differences between those treated for CU and matched controls on the outcome variables. RESULTS: The prevalence of diagnosed CU was 0.41% (n = 249) and treated CU was 0.21% (n = 127). After adjustments, CU (currently treated for CU) was associated with worse mental functioning, physical functioning, and health utilities compared with controls (all p < 0.01). CU had over twice the odds of anxiety and sleep difficulties, over 1.5 times the work and activity impairment, twice the number of total physician visits, eight times the number of allergist visits, and twice the number of emergency room visits as controls (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Many CU patients using prescription treatment experienced anxiety and sleep disturbances, poorer HRQoL, significant work and activity impairment, and high HRU, compared with matched general population controls. Findings suggest an unmet need for more effective treatment and management of CU in Brazil. FUNDING: Novartis Pharma AG and Genentech.

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting.

OBJECTIVE: Omalizumab add-on to standard-of-care therapy has proven to be efficacious in severe asthma patients for whom exacerbations cannot be controlled otherwise. Moreover, evidence from different healthcare settings suggests reduced healthcare resource utilization with omalizumab. Based on these findings, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy in patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in a Brazilian healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published Markov model was adapted using Brazil-specific unit costs to compare the costs and outcomes of the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy vs standard-of-care therapy alone. Model inputs were largely based on the eXpeRience study. Costs and health outcomes were calculated for lifetime-years and were annually discounted at 5%. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: An additional cost of R$280,400 for 5.20 additional quality-adjusted life-years was estimated with the addition of omalizumab to standard-of-care therapy, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$53,890. One-way sensitivity analysis indicated that discount rates, standard-of-care therapy exacerbation rates, and exacerbation-related mortality rates had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. LIMITATIONS: Assumptions of lifetime treatment adherence and rate of future exacerbations, independent of previous events, might affect the findings. The lack of Brazilian patients in the eXpeRience study may affect the findings, although sample size and baseline characteristics suggest that the modeled population closely resembles Brazilian severe allergic asthma patients. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that omalizumab as an add-on therapy is more cost-effective than standard-of-care therapy alone for Brazilian patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma, based on the World Health Organization's cost-effectiveness threshold of up to 3-times the gross domestic product.

Cost of severe asthma in Brazil-systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Severe asthma is characterized by frequent exacerbations, symptoms limiting daily activities and nocturnal symptoms. It requires the continuous use of medications, at high doses, and, sometimes, continuous use of oral corticosteroids, representing a significant burden to health system and society. This systematic review sought to address economic data related to severe asthma in Brazil. METHOD: In June 2014, electronic searches were conducted to identify relevant publications. Quality criteria were developed and applied to each selected study. In order to compare results across the selected studies, costs were refined to an annual basis, grouped according to the study perspective, inflated and converted to 2014 USD. RESULTS: Cost analyses from the Brazilian public health system perspective were derived from two studies and showed an average annual hospital cost per patient of 135 USD and 733 USD, respectively. From the family perspective, average annual direct costs per patient varied from 764 USD to 929 USD. CONCLUSION: Hospitalizations and medications seem to be the most important resources funded by the Brazilian public health system and by patients and their families. Although further studies are necessary, as information on cost of this disease is scarce in Brazil, these findings suggest that there is a potential room for improving severe asthma care among Brazilian patients.

Differences in utility scores obtained through Brazilian and UK value sets: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease associated with several impacts; especially regarding patients' health-related quality of life (HRQL). EuroQol 5 Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) provides self-reported analysis of HRQL and utility scores. Although the British algorithm to convert EQ-5D responses into utility is the most used in the literature, national settings is more appropriate for health policy decision makers. A Brazilian algorithm is available, but not used in MS patients yet. Primarily, this study aimed to address potential differences in utility scores obtained through Brazilian and British value sets. Secondary objective was to determine the role of disability, fatigue and patients socio-demographic and clinical characteristics relevant to MS on the utility scores reported by Brazilian patients. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with MS patients treated in 8 Brazilian sites. Patients were interviewed about socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, self-reported disability level, HRQL and impact of fatigue on daily living. Disability level, HRQL and impact of fatigue were assessed using the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) and the Brazilian versions of EQ-5D-3 L and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS-BR), respectively. Patients were classified in subgroups according to EDSS (mild: 0-3; moderate: 4-6.5; severe: >7) and the self-perceived impact of fatigue (absent: ≤ 38 points; low: 39-58; high: ≥ 59). EQ-5D-3 L data was converted into a utility index using an algorithm developed by a Brazilian research group (QALY Brazil) and also the UK algorithm. Differences between utility scores were analysed through Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: Two hundred and ten patients were included in the study. Utility index mean scores of 0.59 (SD = 0.22) and 0.56 (SD = 0.32) for the Brazilian and UK algorithms were observed, respectively, without statistically significant difference for the distribution of data (p = 0.586). However, when utility scores were lower than 0.5, Brazilian algorithm provided higher estimates than UK with a better agreement between the scores found closer to 1. The same trend was observed when data was stratified for EDSS and impact of fatigue, with statistically significant difference between scores in categories of mild/severe disabilities and absent/high impact of fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that Brazilian value set provided higher utility scores than the UK, particularly for measures below 0.5.