ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2025
Cost-utility analysis of omalizumab for the treatment of chronic spontaneous urticaria in China.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmet Needs in Treatment Escalation for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria: Findings From the CURE Registry.Allergy · 2026Article
- Comparison of two omalizumab dose-reduction strategies in patients with chronic spontaneous urticaria during the control phase: standard dose maintenance therapy versus extended interval dose reduction.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) is a common inflammatory immune skin disease. It has a serious impact on the patients' quality of life and imposes a serious financial burden on patients. The standard therapy for CSU (using antihistamines), while less costly, has limited efficacy and no longer adequately meets the clinical needs of CSU patients. Omalizumab is the world's first and currently the only biologic approved for the treatment of CSU. Several studies have confirmed the efficacy and safety of omalizumab for CSU. However, the economics of omalizumab treatment relative to standard therapies remains unknown in China.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to analyze the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab versus standard treatments for CSU after omalizumab's inclusion in the National Drug Insurance List from the patient's perspective.
methodsWe developed a Markov model based on the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7). The modeling period was 4 weeks. The time horizon was 10 years. The willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP) of 1-3 times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was selected. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated from the base-case analysis, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.
resultsThe ICER of omalizumab treatment relative to standard treatment was ¥160,411/QALY, which was between 1 and 3 times GDP per capita. Sensitivity analyses illustrated that the direct cost of omalizumab had a significant effect on the ICER and demonstrated the stability of the results.
conclusionsOmalizumab treatment is a cost-effective regimen compared with standard therapy under certain circumstances. This demonstrates the important role that health insurance policies play in reducing the burden on CSU patients. However, the limitations of applying foreign clinical data in this paper and the uncertainty of cost-effectiveness at a low WTP threshold are two aspects that cannot be ignored, and subsequent related studies are needed. This study will help patients to make decisions about treatment options, and will be a reference to relevant healthcare organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.