RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mepolizumab, the first widely available anti-interleukin 5 biologic, targets eosinophilic inflammation and has been shown in clinical trials to reduce exacerbations, oral corticosteroid dependence, and healthcare utilization in patients with severe asthma. The impact of mepolizumab in a real-world, publicly funded healthcare setting is unknown. The objective of this study was to describe the demographics and clinical characteristics of real-world patients receiving mepolizumab, and to compare asthma-related outcomes and associated asthma-related costs before and during mepolizumab use. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study in Ontario, Canada, included patients initiating mepolizumab between February 2016 and March 2019. Patients were identified using the mepolizumab patient support program and linked to the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences database of publicly accessed healthcare. Patient outcomes were obtained for 12 months pre- and post-mepolizumab initiation and compared. RESULTS: A total of 275 patients were enrolled in the overall patient support program cohort (mean [standard deviation] age 57.6 [13.5] years, mean [standard deviation] of the median per-patient eosinophil count 540.4 [491.9] cells/µL). Mepolizumab was associated with reductions in asthma exacerbations (46.1%, P < 0.001) and in the number of asthma-related visits to general practitioners (40.2%, P < 0.001), specialists (27.2%, P < 0.001), and emergency departments (52.1%, P < 0.001). Associated costs were significantly lower post- versus pre-mepolizumab for asthma-related general practitioner and specialist visits, and for all-cause emergency department visits and hospital admissions. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world population of Canadian patients with severe asthma with an eosinophilic phenotype, the use of mepolizumab within a patient support program reduced asthma exacerbations and decreased asthma-related healthcare resource utilization and associated costs.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Somatostatin analogs (SSAs; lanreotide autogel and octreotide long-acting release) are used to treat neuroendocrine tumors; however, factors that influence SSA use are unclear. METHODS: This real-world, observational study collected data from private/public pharmacy claims for patients using SSAs in Canada. Data relating to dosing regimens, injection burden, treatment persistence, and costs were retrospectively analyzed for treatment-naive patients. RESULTS: Overall, 1545 patients were included in the analysis of dosing regimens, 908 for injection burden, 453 for treatment persistence, and 903 for treatment-associated costs. Compared with lanreotide, treatment with octreotide long-acting release was more likely associated with treatment above the maximum recommended dose (odds ratio, 16.2; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-136.2; P < 0.0001), higher weighted average long-acting SSA injection burden (13.4 vs 12.5, P < 0.0001), and a higher number of rescue medication claims per patient (0.22 vs 0.03, P < 0.0001). Treatment with lanreotide autogel was associated with greater treatment persistence (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.80; P = 0.001) and lower mean annual costs of treatment than octreotide long-acting release (Canadian dollars $27,829.35 vs $31,255.49; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insight into SSA use in clinical settings and may inform treatment selection.
