Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with... Purpose of ReviewChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent disease that results in significant healthcare-related costs as well as costs to society with lost productivity and time. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of patients who suffer with this disease will not find relief from current standard of care medications and surgery. With ongoing efforts to understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP has come the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, or “biologics,” targeting specific elements of the inflammatory pathway in CRSwNP. Despite efficacy, these come at significant cost and, to date, no studies on the cost-efficacy of these biologics in CRSwNP have been published.Recent FindingsMultiple studies have now demonstrated efficacy for biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP as a primary indication. However, the gains in quality of life and objective measures, while consistent, are small and, arguably, the clinical significance is still unclear. In addition, the high cost of these medications may be hard to justify when evaluated in cost-efficacy studies against standard of care therapy in CRSwNP. Furthermore, while the current literature is most robust in showing the benefit of the biologics in asthma, it does not fully support cost-efficacy for biologics.SummaryThis review evaluates the current literature regarding efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of CRSwNP and considers this efficacy in light of the cost implications to individuals and society. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Current Allergy and Asthma Reports Springer Journals

A Critical Look at the Efficacy and Costs of Biologic Therapy for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyposis

Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/a-critical-look-at-the-efficacy-and-costs-of-biologic-therapy-for-2fCAmhFQpv

References (37)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
ISSN
1529-7322
eISSN
1534-6315
DOI
10.1007/s11882-020-00910-y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose of ReviewChronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a highly prevalent disease that results in significant healthcare-related costs as well as costs to society with lost productivity and time. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of patients who suffer with this disease will not find relief from current standard of care medications and surgery. With ongoing efforts to understand the pathophysiology of CRSwNP has come the introduction of monoclonal antibodies, or “biologics,” targeting specific elements of the inflammatory pathway in CRSwNP. Despite efficacy, these come at significant cost and, to date, no studies on the cost-efficacy of these biologics in CRSwNP have been published.Recent FindingsMultiple studies have now demonstrated efficacy for biologics in the treatment of CRSwNP as a primary indication. However, the gains in quality of life and objective measures, while consistent, are small and, arguably, the clinical significance is still unclear. In addition, the high cost of these medications may be hard to justify when evaluated in cost-efficacy studies against standard of care therapy in CRSwNP. Furthermore, while the current literature is most robust in showing the benefit of the biologics in asthma, it does not fully support cost-efficacy for biologics.SummaryThis review evaluates the current literature regarding efficacy of monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of CRSwNP and considers this efficacy in light of the cost implications to individuals and society.

Journal

Current Allergy and Asthma Reports – Springer Journals

Published: Apr 22, 2020

There are no references for this article.