Cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab in Canada for severe asthma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab as add-on maintenance therapy compared with standard of care (SoC) for the treatment of patients with severe asthma in Canada. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cost utility analysis was conducted using a Markov cohort model with five health states ("controlled asthma", "uncontrolled asthma", "previously controlled asthma with exacerbation", "previously uncontrolled asthma with exacerbation", and "death"). Tezepelumab plus SoC was compared to SoC (high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus long-acting beta agonist) using efficacy estimates derived from the NAVIGATOR (NCT03347279) and SOURCE (NCT03406078) trials. The model included the costs of therapy, administration, resource use for disease management, and adverse events. Utility estimates were calculated using a mixed-effects regression analysis of the NAVIGATOR and SOURCE trials. A Canadian public payer perspective was used with a 50-year time horizon, a 1.5% annual discount rate, and the base case analysis was conducted probabilistically. A key scenario analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab compared with currently reimbursed biologics informed by an indirect treatment comparison. RESULTS: The base case analysis suggested that tezepelumab plus SoC was associated with a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of 1.077 compared with SoC alone at an incremental cost of $207,101 (2022 Canadian dollars), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $192,357/QALY. The key scenario analysis demonstrated that tezepelumab was dominant against all currently reimbursed biologics, with higher incremental QALYs (ranging from 0.062 to 0.407) and lower incremental costs (ranging from -$6,878 to -$1,974). Additionally, when compared against currently reimbursed biologics in Canada, tezepelumab had the highest probability of being cost-effective across all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab provided additional life years and QALYs at additional cost compared with SoC in Canada. In addition, tezepelumab dominated (i.e. more effective, less costly) the other currently reimbursed biologics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".