ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2026
Cost-Effectiveness of Tezepelumab Versus Omalizumab in Patients with Severe Uncontrolled Allergic Asthma in Spain.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSevere uncontrolled asthma (SUA) represents a complex and heterogeneous form of asthma that persists despite treatment. Allergic immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated SUA can be treated with tezepelumab or omalizumab.
objectiveThe aim was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tezepelumab compared to omalizumab in the treatment of patients with allergic SUA, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).
methodsA Markov model was developed with a time horizon of 60 years, 28-day cycles, and five health states: controlled asthma; uncontrolled asthma; controlled asthma with exacerbation; uncontrolled asthma with exacerbation; and death. The efficacy parameters of the model were based on the NAVIGATOR and SOURCE clinical trials for tezepelumab and standard therapy, and on a network meta-analysis for omalizumab. Utilities and disutilities were extracted from NAVIGATOR and SOURCE and from the literature. The model considered direct costs (€, 2025): pharmacological, administration, exacerbations, disease management, and adverse events arising from oral corticosteroid use, obtained from Spanish data sources. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained were estimated for tezepelumab compared to the 106 omalizumab dosing profiles defined by weight and IgE. The results were contextualized to the Spanish setting using weight and IgE data obtained from the Primary Care Clinical Database and the literature. Deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed.
resultsTezepelumab was cost-effective compared with omalizumab (450 mg/4 weeks; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €17,213.44/QALY), considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, and was dominant (more effective and less costly) at higher doses. This represents 69.81% of the dosing profiles and 53.47% of the population with allergic SUA in Spain. The DSA confirmed that tezepelumab was cost-effective compared to omalizumab (450 mg) despite the variations in the parameters used. Tezepelumab was cost-effective or dominant in 80.00% of the PSA simulations.
conclusionIn this analysis, tezepelumab was a cost-effective option compared with omalizumab (≥ 450 mg/4 weeks) for the treatment of patients with allergic SUA aged 12 years and older from the perspective of the Spanish NHS.
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.