Modelling the 5-year cost effectiveness of tiotropium, salmeterol and ipratropium for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Spain

Respiratory questionnaire-based analysis of awareness of COPD in a large multicenter rural population-based study in India

Background

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a more prevalent chronic lung disease with a significant health burden, and the majority of these cases receive inadequate treatment.

Methods

Prospective, observational, interview (questionnaire) based complete workup COPD study, screened 12,000 cases with chronic respiratory symptoms with cough, sputum production, and shortness of breath. A total of 6000 COPD cases were enrolled after the spirometry test. COPD cases were assessed as disease knowledge and methods of treatment offered by applying questionnaires to patients and treating physicians.

Results

In the present study, 3% of study cases were aware of their COPD illness, 54% were not having knowledge about the disease, and 43% cases were not accepting the COPD diagnosis (p < 0.0001). A total of 58% of cases received inhalation treatment as levosalbutamol monotherapy in 31% cases, levosalbutamol plus beclometasone in 18% cases, and formoterol plus budesonide or salmeterol plus fluticasone only in 9% of COPD cases (p < 0.0001). Total 42% cases received oral treatment as theophylline in 16% cases, salbutamol in 7% cases, oral steroids in 19% cases (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

"Doctor-patient-drug trio" discordance clubbed as "difficult doctor, difficult patient, and difficult treatment" is a very crucial issue observed during diagnosis and management of COPD in peripheral settings in India.

Economic Evaluation of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate for the Treatment of Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China Using a Semi-Markov Model

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic respiratory disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) is a newly approved pharmacotherapy for COPD in China that has been shown to improve lung function and reduce the risk of exacerbations, but the cost-effectiveness of BGF remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BGF in patients with moderate to very severe COPD from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was developed to compare the costs and benefit of treatment with BGF versus a composite comparator of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapies. Clinical inputs for BGF and the composite comparator were based on the KRONOS study (NCT02497001) and a network meta-analysis. Cost inputs were derived from published literature and Chinese government documents, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Health-related quality-of-life inputs were also obtained based on the KRONOS study. Lifetime costs, number of exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Costs were measured in 2020 Chinese Yuan (CN¥) and converted into US dollars (US$). Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime horizon, BGF treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (4.01 and 0.87, respectively) versus the composite comparator (8.42 and 2.04, respectively), with a base-case ICER of CN¥13,685.94 (US$1983.47) per QALY gained. Scenario analyses considering different population and utilities resulted in ICERs ranging from dominant to CN¥13,673.91 (US$1981.73). Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated robust base-case results since all analyses yielded ICERs below the conservative cost-effectiveness threshold of one times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product (CN¥72,447.00 [US$10,499.57], 2020).

CONCLUSION

Triple therapy with BGF was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option compared with LAMA/LABA therapies for patients with moderate to very severe COPD in China.

Cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic disease associated with recurring exacerbations, which influence morbidity and mortality for the patient, while placing significant resource burdens on healthcare systems. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in a domiciliary setting can help prevent admissions, but the economic evidence to support NIV use is limited.

METHODS

A Markov model-based cost-utility analysis from the UK National Health Service perspective compared the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care for two end-stage COPD populations; a stable COPD population commencing treatment with no recent hospital admission; and a posthospital population starting treatment following admission to hospital for an exacerbation. Hospitalisation rates in patients receiving domiciliary NIV compared with usual care were derived from randomised controlled studies in a recent systematic review. Other model parameters were updated with recent evidence.

RESULTS

At the threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) domiciliary NIV is 99.9% likely cost-effective in a posthospital population, but unlikely (4%) to be cost-effective in stable populations. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was £11 318/QALY gained in the posthospital population and £27 380/QALY gained in the stable population. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to longer-term readmission and mortality risks, and duration of benefit from NIV. Indeed, for stable Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) for stage 4 patients, or with higher mortality and exacerbation risks, ICERs were close to the £20 000/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSION

Domiciliary NIV is likely cost-effective for posthospitalised patients, with uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV in stable patients with COPD on which further research should focus.

Estimation of the Clinical and Economic Impact of an Improvement in Adherence Based on the Use of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD

Background

Adherence to treatment is key to achieve desired outcomes. In COPD, adherence is generally suboptimal and is impaired by treatment complexity.

Objective

To estimate the clinical and economic impact of an improvement in treatment adherence due to an increased use of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) in patients with COPD.

Patients and Methods

A 7-state Markov model with monthly cycles was developed. Patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, for whom triple therapy is indicated, were included. Outcomes and costs were estimated and compared for two scenarios: current distribution of adherent patients treated with multiple inhaler triple therapies (MITT) vs a potential scenario where patients shifted to once-daily SITT. In the potential scenario, adherence improvement due to once-daily SITT attributes was estimated. Costing was based on the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective (€2019). A 3-year time horizon was defined considering a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes.

Results

A target population of 185,111 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD currently treated with MITT was estimated. A 20% increase in the use of once-daily SITT in the potential scenario raised adherence up to 52%. This resulted in 6835 exacerbations and 532 deaths avoided, with 775 LYs and 594 QALYs gained. Total savings reached €7,082,105. Exacerbation reduction accounted for 61.8% (€4,378,201) of savings.

Conclusion

Increasing the use of once-daily SITT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD treated with triple therapy would be associated with an improvement in adherence, a reduction of exacerbations and deaths, and cost savings for the Spanish NHS.

Model-based evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of systematic case-finding for COPD in primary care

Introduction

‘One-off’ systematic case-finding for COPD using a respiratory screening questionnaire is more effective and cost-effective than routine care at identifying new cases. However, it is not known whether early diagnosis and treatment is beneficial in the longer term. We estimated the long-term cost-effectiveness of a regular case-finding programme in primary care.

Methods

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of a 3-yearly systematic case-finding programme targeted to ever smokers aged ≥50 years with the current routine diagnostic process in UK primary care. Patient-level data on case-finding pathways was obtained from a large randomised controlled trial. Information on the natural history of COPD and treatment effects was obtained from a linked COPD cohort, UK primary care database and published literature. The discounted lifetime cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated from a health service perspective.

Results

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of systematic case-finding versus current care was £16 596 per additional QALY gained, with a 78% probability of cost-effectiveness at a £20 000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The base case result was robust to multiple one-way sensitivity analyses. The main drivers were response rate to the initial screening questionnaire and attendance rate for the confirmatory spirometry test.

Discussion

Regular systematic case-finding for COPD using a screening questionnaire in primary care is likely to be cost-effective in the long-term despite uncertainties in treatment effectiveness. Further knowledge of the natural history of case-found patients and the effectiveness of their management will improve confidence to implement such an approach.

Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US

Background

Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV₁ ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV₁ <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV₁ <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV₁ <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV₁ for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results.

Results

Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV₁ across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV₁. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686).

Conclusion

This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

The health impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas: a mixed-methods approach

Background

Cold homes and fuel poverty contribute to health inequalities in ways that could be addressed through energy efficiency interventions.

Objectives

To determine the health and psychosocial impacts of energy performance investments in low-income areas, particularly hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, prevalence of respiratory symptoms and mental health status, hydrothermal conditions and household energy use, psychosocial outcomes, cost consequences to the health system and the cost utility of these investments.

Design

A mixed-methods study comprising data linkage (25,908 individuals living in 4968 intervention homes), a field study with a controlled pre-/post-test design (intervention,n = 418; control,n = 418), a controlled multilevel interrupted time series analysis of internal hydrothermal conditions (intervention,n = 48; control,n = 40) and a health economic assessment.

Setting

Low-income areas across Wales.

Participants

Residents who received energy efficiency measures through the intervention programme and matched control groups.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions, self-reported respiratory symptoms, mental health status, indoor air temperature and indoor relative humidity. Secondary outcomes – emergency hospital admissions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-related cardiorespiratory conditions, excess winter admissions, health-related quality of life, subjective well-being, self-reported fuel poverty, financial stress and difficulties, food security, social interaction, thermal satisfaction and self-reported housing conditions.

Methods

Anonymously linked individual health records for emergency hospital admissions were analysed using mixed multilevel linear models. A quasi-experimental controlled field study used a multilevel repeated measures approach. Controlled multilevel interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate changes in internal hydrothermal conditions following the intervention. The economic evaluation comprised cost–consequence and cost–utility analyses.

Data sources

The Patient Episode Database for Wales 2005–14, intervention records from 28 local authorities and housing associations, and scheme managers who delivered the programme.

Results

The study found no evidence of changes in physical health. However, there were improvements in subjective well-being and a number of psychosocial outcomes. The household monitoring study found that the intervention raised indoor temperature and helped reduce energy use. No evidence was found of substantial increases in indoor humidity levels. The health economic assessment found no explicit cost reductions to the health service as a result of non-significant changes in emergency admissions for cardiorespiratory conditions.

Limitations

This was a non-randomised intervention study with household monitoring and field studies that relied on self-response. Data linkage focused on emergency admissions only.

Conclusion

Although there was no evidence that energy performance investments provide physical health benefits or reduce health service usage, there was evidence that they improve social and economic conditions that are conducive to better health and improved subjective well-being. The intervention has been successful in reducing energy use and improving the living conditions of households in low-income areas. The lack of association of emergency hospital admissions with energy performance investments means that we were unable to evidence cost saving to health-service providers.

Future work

Our research suggests the importance of incorporating evaluations with follow-up into intervention research from the start.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

Cost Effectiveness of Support for People Starting a New Medication for a Long-Term Condition Through Community Pharmacies: An Economic Evaluation of the New Medicine Service (NMS) Compared with Normal Practice

BACKGROUND

The English community pharmacy New Medicine Service (NMS) significantly increases patient adherence to medicines, compared with normal practice. We examined the cost effectiveness of NMS compared with normal practice by combining adherence improvement and intervention costs with the effect of increased adherence on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

METHODS

We developed Markov models for diseases targeted by the NMS (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma and antiplatelet regimens) to assess the impact of patients' non-adherence. Clinical event probability, treatment pathway, resource use and costs were extracted from literature and costing tariffs. Incremental costs and outcomes associated with each disease were incorporated additively into a composite probabilistic model and combined with adherence rates and intervention costs from the trial. Costs per extra quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were calculated from the perspective of NHS England, using a lifetime horizon.

RESULTS

NMS generated a mean of 0.05 (95% CI 0.00-0.13) more QALYs per patient, at a mean reduced cost of -£144 (95% CI -769 to 73). The NMS dominates normal practice with a probability of 0.78 [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) -£3166 per QALY]. NMS has a 96.7% probability of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that targeting each disease with NMS has a probability over 0.90 of cost effectiveness compared with normal practice at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that the NMS increased patient medicine adherence compared with normal practice, which translated into increased health gain at reduced overall cost.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Trial reference number NCT01635361 ( http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01635361 ). Current Controlled trials: Trial reference number ISRCTN 23560818 ( http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN23560818/ ; DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN23560818 ). UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) study 12494 ( http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=12494 ).

FUNDING

Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model

BACKGROUND

Bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are central to the pharmacological management of COPD. Dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5/25 μg) is a novel LAMA/LABA combination approved for maintenance treatment for patients with COPD.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg, open dual LAMA + LABA treatment, or no long-acting bronchodilator treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with UMEC/VI treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD (GSK study number: HO-13-13411). Clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, and mortality obtained from the published literature were used as the model inputs. Costs are presented in US dollars based on 2015 prices. The model outputs are total costs, drug costs, other medical costs, number of COPD exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI treatment for moderate to very severe COPD was associated with lower lifetime medical costs ($82,344) compared with TIO ($88,822), open dual LAMA + LABA treatment ($114,442), and no long-acting bronchodilator ($86,751). Fewer exacerbations were predicted to occur with UMEC/VI treatment compared with no long-acting bronchodilator treatment. UMEC/VI provided an 0.11 and 0.25 increase in QALYs compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and as such, dominated these cost-effectiveness analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

CONCLUSION

The results from this model suggest that UMEC/VI treatment would be dominant compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and less costly than open dual LAMA + LABA treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

External Validation of Health Economic Decision Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Report of the Third COPD Modeling Meeting

OBJECTIVES

To validate outcomes of presently available chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models against results of two large COPD trials-the 3-year TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial and the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial.

METHODS

Participating COPD modeling groups simulated the outcomes for the placebo-treated groups of the TORCH and UPLIFT trials using baseline characteristics of the trial populations as input. Groups then simulated treatment effectiveness by using relative reductions in annual decline in lung function and exacerbation frequency observed in the most intensively treated group compared with placebo as input for the models. Main outcomes were (change in) total/severe exacerbations and mortality. Furthermore, the absolute differences in total exacerbations and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to approximate the cost per exacerbation avoided and the cost per QALY gained.

RESULT

Of the six participating models, three models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the TORCH trial (1.13/patient-year) (models: 1.22-1.48). Four models reported higher rates than observed in the UPLIFT trial (0.85/patient-year) (models: 1.13-1.52). Two models reported higher mortality rates than in the TORCH trial (15.2%) (models: 20.0% and 30.6%) and the UPLIFT trial (16.3%) (models: 24.8% and 36.0%), whereas one model reported lower rates (9.8% and 12.1%, respectively). Simulation of treatment effectiveness showed that the absolute reduction in total exacerbations, the gain in QALYs, and the cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ from the trials, except for one model.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most of the participating COPD cost-effectiveness models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the trials, estimates of the absolute treatment effect and cost-effectiveness ratios do not seem different from the trials in most models.

A Systematic Review of Health Economics Simulation Models of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Many decision-analytic models with varying structures have been developed to inform resource allocation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVES

To review COPD models for their adherence to the best practice modeling recommendations and their assumptions regarding important aspects of the natural history of COPD.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles reporting on the development or application of a decision-analytic model in COPD was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated on the basis of their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards. They were also evaluated for the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-nine models of COPD were included. Decision trees and Markov models were the most popular techniques (43 studies). Quality of reporting and adherence to the guidelines were generally high, especially in more recent publications. Disease progression was modeled through clinical staging in most studies. Although most studies (n = 43) had incorporated some aspects of COPD heterogeneity, only 8 reported the results across subgroups. Only 2 evaluations explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Treatment effect had been mostly modeled (20) as both reduction in exacerbation rate and improvement in lung function.

CONCLUSIONS

Many COPD models have been developed, generally with similar structural elements. COPD is highly heterogeneous, and comorbid conditions play an important role in its burden. These important aspects, however, have not been adequately addressed in most of the published models.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination tiotropium-olodaterol for patients with COPD in the Netherlands

Purpose

The fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination (FDC) of tiotropium and olodaterol showed increased effectiveness regarding lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with the use of its mono-components. Yet, while effectiveness and safety have been shown, the health economic implication of this treatment is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost–utility and budget impact of tiotropium–olodaterol FDC in patients with moderate to very severe COPD in the Netherlands.

Patients and methods

A cost–utility study was performed, using an individual-level Markov model. To populate the model, individual patient-level data (age, height, sex, COPD duration, baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second) were obtained from the tiotropium–olodaterol TOnado trial. In the model, forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-level data were extrapolated to utility and survival, and treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol FDC was compared with tiotropium. Cost–utility analysis was performed from the Dutch health care payer’s perspective using a 15-year time horizon in the base-case analysis. The standard Dutch discount rates were applied (costs: 4.0%; effects: 1.5%). Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Budget impact was annually assessed over a 5-year time horizon, taking into account different levels of medication adherence.

Results

As a result of cost increases, combined with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains, results showed that tiotropium–olodaterol FDC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7,004/QALY. Without discounting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €5,981/QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Budget impact was estimated at €4.3 million over 5 years assuming 100% medication adherence. Scenarios with 40%, 60%, and 80% adherence resulted in lower 5-year incremental cost increases of €1.7, €2.6, and €3.4 million, respectively.

Conclusion

Tiotropium–olodaterol FDC can be considered a cost-effective treatment under current Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Cost versus utility of aclidinium bromide 400 µg plus formoterol fumarate dihydrate 12 µg compared to aclidinium bromide 400 µg alone in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD

Purpose

Aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist in a fixed-dose combination used in the management of patients with COPD. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg against the long-acting muscarinic antagonist aclidinium bromide 400 µg.

Materials and methods

A five-health-state Markov transition model with monthly cycles was developed using MS Excel to simulate patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and their initial lung-function improvement following treatment with aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg or aclidinium 400 µg. Health states were based on severity levels defined by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2010 criteria. The analysis was a head-to-head comparison without step-up therapy, from the NHS Scotland perspective, over a 5-year time horizon. Clinical data on initial lung-function improvement were provided by a pooled analysis of the ACLIFORM and AUGMENT trials. Management, event costs, and utilities were health state-specific. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. The outcome of the analysis was expressed as cost (UK£) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The analysis included one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on model outputs.

Results

Aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg provided marginally higher costs (£41) and more QALYs (0.014), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,976/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to key parameter variations, and the main drivers were: mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁), risk of exacerbation, FEV₁ improvement from aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg, and lung-function decline. The probability of aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg being cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY) versus aclidinium 400 µg was 79%.

Conclusion

In Scotland, aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg can be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared to aclidinium 400 µg alone in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Development of an enhanced health-economic model and cost-effectiveness analysis of tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat® fixed-dose combination for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Italy

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) of tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC with tiotropium alone for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Italian health care setting using a newly developed patient-level Markov model that reflects the current understanding of the disease.

METHODS

While previously published models have largely been based around a cohort approach using a Markov structure and GOLD stage stratification, an individual-level Markov approach was selected for the new model. Using patient-level data from the twin TOnado trials assessing Tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC versus tiotropium, outcomes were modelled based on the trough forced expiratory volume (tFEV1) of over 1000 patients in each treatment arm, tracked individually at trial visits through the 52-week trial period, and after the trial period it was assumed to decline at a constant rate based on disease stage. Exacerbation risk was estimated based on a random-effects logistic regression analysis of exacerbations in UPLIFT. Mortality by age and disease stage was estimated from an analysis of TIOSPIR trial data. Cost of bronchodilators and other medications, routine management, and costs of treatment for moderate and severe exacerbations for the Italian setting were included. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted over a 15-year time horizon from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

RESULTS

Aggregating total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each treatment cohort over 15 years and comparing tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC with tiotropium alone, resulted in mean incremental costs per patient of €1167 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €7518 per additional QALY with tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC. The lung function outcomes observed for tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC in TOnado drove the results in terms of slightly higher mean life-years (12.24 versus 12.07) exacerbation-free months (11.36 versus 11.32) per patient and slightly fewer moderate and severe exacerbations per patient-year (0.411 versus 0.415; 0.21 versus 0.24) versus tiotropium. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC to be the more cost-effective treatment in 95.2% and 98.4% of 500 simulations at thresholds of €20,000 and €30,000 per QALY respectively.

CONCLUSION

Tiotropium + olodaterol Respimat(®) FDC is a cost-effective bronchodilator in the maintenance treatment of COPD for the Italian health care system.

The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary non-invasive ventilation in patients with end-stage chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic progressive lung disease characterised by non-reversible airflow obstruction. Exacerbations are a key cause of morbidity and mortality and place a considerable burden on health-care systems. While there is evidence that patients benefit from non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in hospital during an acute exacerbation, evidence supporting home use for more stable COPD patients is limited. In the U.K., domiciliary NIV is considered on health economic grounds in patients after three hospital admissions for acute hypercapnic respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV by systematic review and economic evaluation.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to September 2014.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying relevant clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies assessing NIV compared with usual care or comparing different types of NIV. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane guidelines and relevant economic checklists. Results for primary effectiveness outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, exacerbations and quality of life) were presented, where possible, in forest plots. A speculative Markov decision model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV with usual care from a UK perspective for post-hospital and more stable populations separately.

RESULTS

Thirty-one controlled effectiveness studies were identified, which report a variety of outcomes. For stable patients, a modest volume of evidence found no benefit from domiciliary NIV for survival and some non-significant beneficial trends for hospitalisations and quality of life. For post-hospital patients, no benefit from NIV could be shown in terms of survival (from randomised controlled trials) and findings for hospital admissions were inconsistent and based on limited evidence. No conclusions could be drawn regarding potential benefit from different types of NIV. No cost-effectiveness studies of domiciliary NIV were identified. Economic modelling suggested that NIV may be cost-effective in a stable population at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio £28,162), but this is associated with uncertainty. In the case of the post-hospital population, results for three separate base cases ranged from usual care dominating to NIV being cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £10,000 per QALY gained. All estimates were sensitive to effectiveness estimates, length of benefit from NIV (currently unknown) and some costs. Modelling suggested that reductions in the rate of hospital admissions per patient per year of 24% and 15% in the stable and post-hospital populations, respectively, are required for NIV to be cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

Evidence on key clinical outcomes remains limited, particularly quality-of-life and long-term (> 2 years) effects. Economic modelling should be viewed as speculative because of uncertainty around effect estimates, baseline risks, length of benefit of NIV and limited quality-of-life/utility data.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of domiciliary NIV remains uncertain and the findings in this report are sensitive to emergent data. Further evidence is required to identify patients most likely to benefit from domiciliary NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting NIV and equipment settings.

FUTURE WORK RECOMMENDATIONS

The results from this report will need to be re-examined in the light of any new trial results, particularly in terms of reducing the uncertainty in the economic model. Any new randomised controlled trials should consider including a sham non-invasive ventilation arm and/or a higher- and lower-pressure arm. Individual participant data analyses may help to determine whether or not there are any patient characteristics or equipment settings that are predictive of a benefit of NIV and to establish optimum time points for starting (and potentially discounting) NIV.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012003286.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Do Model-Based Studies in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Measure Correct Values of Utility? A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive chronic disease that has considerable impact on utility-based health-related quality of life. Utility is a key input of many decision analytic models used for economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review COPD-related utilities and to compare these with alternative values used in decision models.

METHODS

The literature review comprised studies that generated utilities for COPD-related stages based on EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire surveys of patients and of decision models of COPD progression that have been used for economic evaluations. The utility values used in modeling studies and those from the meta-analysis of actual patient-level studies were compared and differences quantified.

RESULTS

Twenty decision modeling studies that used utility value as an input parameter were found. Within the same span of publication period, 13 studies involving patient-level utility data were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The estimated mean utility values ranged from 0.806 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.747-0.866) for stage I to 0.616 (95% CI 0.556-0.676) for stage IV. The utility scores for comparable stages in modeling studies were different (significant difference 0.045 [95% CI 0.041-0.052] for stage III). Modeling studies consistently used higher utility values than the average reported patient-level data.

CONCLUSIONS

COPD decision analytic models are based on a limited range of utility values that are systematically different from average values estimated using a meta-analysis. A more systematic approach in the application of utility measures in economic evaluation is required to appropriately reflect current literature.

Supported self-management for patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): an evidence synthesis and economic analysis

BACKGROUND

Self-management (SM) support for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is variable in its coverage, content, method and timing of delivery. There is insufficient evidence for which SM interventions are the most effective and cost-effective.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake (1) a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of SM interventions commencing within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation for COPD (review 1); (2) a systematic review of the qualitative evidence about patient satisfaction, acceptance and barriers to SM interventions (review 2); (3) a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of SM support interventions within 6 weeks of hospital discharge for an exacerbation of COPD (review 3); (4) a cost-effectiveness analysis and economic model of post-exacerbation SM support compared with usual care (UC) (economic model); and (5) a wider systematic review of the evidence of the effectiveness of SM support, including interventions (such as pulmonary rehabilitation) in which there are significant components of SM, to identify which components are the most important in reducing exacerbations, hospital admissions/readmissions and improving quality of life (review 4).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from inception to May 2012: MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Science Citation Index [Institute of Scientific Information (ISI)]. Subject-specific databases were also searched: PEDro physiotherapy evidence database, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials. Ongoing studies were sourced through the metaRegister of Current Controlled Trials, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Specialist abstract and conference proceedings were sourced through ISI's Conference Proceedings Citation Index and British Library's Electronic Table of Contents (Zetoc). Hand-searching through European Respiratory Society, the American Thoracic Society and British Thoracic Society conference proceedings from 2010 to 2012 was also undertaken, and selected websites were also examined. Title, abstracts and full texts of potentially relevant studies were scanned by two independent reviewers. Primary studies were included if ≈90% of the population had COPD, the majority were of at least moderate severity and reported on any intervention that included a SM component or package. Accepted study designs and outcomes differed between the reviews. Risk of bias for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine studies where appropriate. A Markov model, taking a 30-year time horizon, compared a SM intervention immediately following a hospital admission for an acute exacerbation with UC. Incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years were calculated, with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

From 13,355 abstracts, 10 RCTs were included for review 1, one study each for reviews 2 and 3, and 174 RCTs for review 4. Available studies were heterogeneous and many were of poor quality. Meta-analysis identified no evidence of benefit of post-discharge SM support on admissions [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 1.17], mortality (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.54) and most other health outcomes. A modest improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was identified but this was possibly biased due to high loss to follow-up. The economic model was speculative due to uncertainty in impact on readmissions. Compared with UC, post-discharge SM support (delivered within 6 weeks of discharge) was more costly and resulted in better outcomes (£683 cost difference and 0.0831 QALY gain). Studies assessing the effect of individual components were few but only exercise significantly improved HRQoL (3-month St George's Respiratory Questionnaire 4.87, 95% CI 3.96 to 5.79). Multicomponent interventions produced an improved HRQoL compared with UC (mean difference 6.50, 95% CI 3.62 to 9.39, at 3 months). Results were consistent with a potential reduction in admissions. Interventions with more enhanced care from health-care professionals improved HRQoL and reduced admissions at 1-year follow-up. Interventions that included supervised or unsupervised structured exercise resulted in significant and clinically important improvements in HRQoL up to 6 months.

LIMITATIONS

This review was based on a comprehensive search strategy that should have identified most of the relevant studies. The main limitations result from the heterogeneity of studies available and widespread problems with their design and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence of benefit of providing SM support to patients shortly after discharge from hospital, although effects observed were consistent with possible improvement in HRQoL and reduction in hospital admissions. It was not easy to tease out the most effective components of SM support packages, although interventions containing exercise seemed the most effective. Future work should include qualitative studies to explore barriers and facilitators to SM post exacerbation and novel approaches to affect behaviour change, tailored to the individual and their circumstances. Any new trials should be properly designed and conducted, with special attention to reducing loss to follow-up. Individual participant data meta-analysis may help to identify the most effective components of SM interventions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001588.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients

PURPOSE

Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Systematic review of models used in economic analyses in moderate-to-severe asthma and COPD

BACKGROUND

Respiratory diseases exert a substantial burden on society, with newer drugs increasingly adding to the burden. Economic models are often used, but seldom reviewed.

PURPOSE

To summarize economic models used in economic analyses of drugs treating moderate-to-severe/very severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This study searched Medline and Embase from inception to the end of February 2015 for cost-effectiveness/utility analyses that examined at least one drug against placebo, another drug, or other standard therapy in asthma or COPD. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data with differences adjudicated via consensus discussion. Data extracted included model used and its qualities, validation methods, treatments compared, disease severity, analytic perspective, time horizon, data collection (pro- or retrospective), input rates and sources, costs and sources, planned sensitivity analyses, criteria for cost-effectiveness, reported outcomes, and sponsor.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 53 articles; 14 (25%) on asthma and 39 (75%) COPD. Markov models were commonly used for both asthma and COPD-related economic evaluations. Relatively few studies validated their model. For asthma-related studies, 10 examined inhaled corticosteroids and nine studied omalizumab. Placebo or standard therapy was the comparison in 11 studies and active drugs in the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies include validation of their models. Furthermore, controversy concerning some results was uncovered in this study, which needs to be avoided in the future.

Health State Utility Value in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD); The Challenge of Heterogeneity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has a considerable impact on quality of life and well-being of patients. Health state utility value (HSUV) is a recognized measure for health economic appraisals and is extensively used as an indicator for decision-making studies. This study is a systematic review of literature aimed to estimate mean utility value in COPD using meta-analysis and explore degree of heterogeneity in the utility values across a variety of clinical and study characteristic. The literature review covers studies that used EQ-5D to estimate utility value for patient level research in COPD. Studies that reported utility values elicited by EQ-5D in COPD patients were selected for random-effect meta-analysis addressing inter-study heterogeneity and subgroup analyses. Thirty-two studies were included in the general utility meta-analysis. The estimated general utility value was 0.673 (95% CI 0.653 to 0.693). Meta-analyses of COPD stages utility values showed influence of airway obstruction on utility value. The utility values ranged from 0.820 (95% CI 0.767 to 0.872) for stage I to 0.624 (95% CI 0.571 to 0.677) for stage IV. There was substantial heterogeneity in utility values: I(2) = 97.7%. A more accurate measurement of utility values in COPD is needed to refine valid and generalizable scores of HSUV. Given the limited success of the factors studied to reduce heterogeneity, an approach needs to be developed how best to use mean utility values for COPD in health economic evaluation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of once-daily Seebri Breezhaler(®) (glycopyrronium bromide) 50 µg with Spiriva(®) (tiotropium bromide) 18 µg in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Swedish setting.

METHODS

A previously published COPD Markov model accounting for disease progression and treatment discontinuation was used. Disease progression included the annual decline in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and occurrence of any exacerbations. Efficacy in the model consisted of FEV1 improvement between baseline and 12 weeks and the annual risk ratio of having an exacerbation compared to placebo. These clinical efficacy inputs were derived from a 1-year head-to-head trial comparing glycopyrronium 50 µg to tiotropium 18 µg. Utility values and cost estimates were obtained from the literature. The base-case analysis was performed for a 3-year time horizon. Cost and effects were discounted with 3% in accordance to Swedish guidelines. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Glycopyrronium was found to be less costly and more effective than tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD patients with cost savings of 5197 Swedish kronor (€570, US$725) per patient over a 3-year time horizon. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that over 99% of the iterations produced dominant results for glycopyrronium.

CONCLUSION

Glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg once daily can be considered a cost effective alternative to tiotropium bromide 18 µg once daily in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus usual care and glycopyrronium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Sweden

Background

Tiotropium (TIO) is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long-acting anticholinergic), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence suggests that tiotropium is superior to usual non-LAMA care (UC) but may also have benefits compared to other LAMAs in preventing and limiting the effects of severe exacerbations. The primary objective of this study was to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding tiotropium to usual care versus usual care alone. A secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to glycopyrronium (GLY), another LAMA. The study was conducted with a Swedish setting in mind.

Methods

A Markov cohort model, incorporating the effects of exacerbations, was populated with efficacy data from the UPLIFT and SPARK trials and epidemiological data relevant for a Swedish patient population. Treatment efficacy of tiotropium was modelled as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations and as a slow-down of overall disease progression. The model followed patients over their remaining life-time.

Results

The base case analysis showed that patients treated with tiotropium gained 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to usual care alone at an incremental cost of SEK 15,041, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of SEK 224,850. Compared to glycopyrronium the QALY gained was estimated to 0.23 QALYs in favour of tiotropium at an incremental cost of SEK 2423, yielding a cost per QALY gained of SEK 10,456. The results were mainly driven by differences in the risk of severe exacerbations.

Conclusion

At the current implicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY threshold in Sweden, the results from this study indicate that tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when added to usual non-LAMA care in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in Sweden. In addition, tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when compared to glycopyrronium monotherapy.

Patient-reported outcomes and considerations in the management of COPD: focus on aclidinium

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a complex heterogeneous disease, in which several factors combine to give the final clinical expression. Both early and more recent studies have shown that forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1), despite being an extremely important parameter to predict the progression of the disease, is a poor surrogate marker for symptoms perception. Accordingly, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have gained popularity as a measure of the impact of treatment from the patients' perspective, since they represent the individuals' perception of their health status, beyond any physiological limitations. Several such PROs, therefore, are currently included in multidimensional COPD evaluation. This multidimensional approach helps identify different patient types and individualize, up to a certain point, pharmacological treatment. In this multidimensional approach it is important to highlight the importance of long-acting bronchodilators in COPD treatment strategies. Long-acting bronchodilators are cost-effective and have been shown to achieve the greatest functional and clinical improvements in COPD. As a result, long-acting bronchodilators are now the main pharmacological treatment for COPD at all stages of the disease. Until recently, tiotropium was the leading bronchodilator for the treatment of COPD. The clinical development of this medication, unprecedented in inhaled therapy, involved tens of thousands of patients and yielded consistent outcomes in terms of lung function, symptoms, quality of life, exacerbations, and prognosis. However, new long-acting bronchodilators have recently been developed or are currently under development. In this review, we evaluate the effects of aclidinium bromide, a novel long-acting bronchodilator, on PROs in COPD. Aclidinium is a novel long-acting muscarinic antagonist with a good safety profile for the treatment of COPD, and has proven efficacy in both objective functional measurements and PROs. Comparison studies with tiotropium have shown it to have similar lung function improvement and a similar impact on PROs, including quality of life or symptom perception.

Utilities for asthma and COPD according to category of severity: a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are incurable diseases that impact quality-of-life.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize original research articles that measured or utilized preference-based utilities or disutilities according to disease severity.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched from inception until the end of November 2014. Two reviewers independently searched the literature with differences settled through discussion. Data extracted included utility scores as determined in original research categorized according to disease severity as well as disutilities associated with exacerbations or comorbidities. Data were tabulated and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 862 articles were identified, 790 were rejected, and 69 analyzed. There were 44 dealing with COPD and 25 with asthma. Average utilities determined by research were 0.828 ± 0.062, 0.765 ± 0.090, 0.711 ± 0.120, and 0.607 ± 0.120 for mild, moderate, severe, and very severe COPD, respectively. Utilities used in economic analyses were 0.866 ± 0.038, 0.770 ± 0.024, 0.739 ± 0.045, and 0.596 ± 0.075, respectively. Disutilities (annual) ranged from 0.002-0.378; major and minor exacerbations had respective disutilities of 0.287 and 0.108. For asthma patients, utilities were for 0.86 ± 0.32, 0.83 ± 0.065, and 0.74 ± 0.029, for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilities have been summarized according to severity category of asthma and COPD. These values should be useful for researchers undertaking economic analyses of these diseases.

Cost-effectiveness models for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: cross-model comparison of hypothetical treatment scenarios

OBJECTIVES

To compare different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models with respect to structure and input parameters and to cross-validate the models by running the same hypothetical treatment scenarios.

METHODS

COPD modeling groups simulated four hypothetical interventions with their model and compared the results with a reference scenario of no intervention. The four interventions modeled assumed 1) 20% reduction in decline in lung function, 2) 25% reduction in exacerbation frequency, 3) 10% reduction in all-cause mortality, and 4) all these effects combined. The interventions were simulated for a 5-year and lifetime horizon with standardization, if possible, for sex, age, COPD severity, smoking status, exacerbation frequencies, mortality due to other causes, utilities, costs, and discount rates. Furthermore, uncertainty around the outcomes of intervention four was compared.

RESULTS

Seven out of nine contacted COPD modeling groups agreed to participate. The 5-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for the most comprehensive intervention, intervention four, was €17,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for two models, €25,000 to €28,000/QALY for three models, and €47,000/QALY for the remaining two models. Differences in the ICERs could mainly be explained by differences in input values for disease progression, exacerbation-related mortality, and all-cause mortality, with high input values resulting in low ICERs and vice versa. Lifetime results were mainly affected by the input values for mortality. The probability of intervention four to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay value of €50,000/QALY was 90% to 100% for five models and about 70% and 50% for the other two models, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Mortality was the most important factor determining the differences in cost-effectiveness outcomes between models.

Economic evaluation of aclidinium bromide in the management of moderate to severe COPD: an analysis over 5 years

PURPOSE

Aclidinium bromide is a long-acting muscarinic antagonistic used in maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A model-based health economic study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of aclidinium 400 μg bid as an alternative to tiotropium 18 μg od for this indication in the US.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS IN THIS MODEL REFLECT THOSE IN THE ACLIDINIUM CLINICAL STUDIES: age >40 years, stable moderate-to-severe COPD, current or ex-smokers (>10 pack-years), post-salbutamol forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≥30% and <80% of predicted normal value, and FEV1/forced vital capacity <70%. The model consists of five main health states indicating severity of COPD and the level of utility, resource use, and costs. Treatment efficacy over 5 years was modeled using FEV1% predicted; a network meta-analysis comparing aclidinium and tiotropium was used to estimate disease progression during the first 24 weeks, and results from the UPLIFT trial were used for time points after 24 weeks. Quality of life was assessed using utility scores in US patients from the UPLIFT trial. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, QALYs were 3.50 for aclidinium versus 3.49 for tiotropium; life years accumulated were 4.52 for both. In this economic model, aclidinium versus tiotropium showed marginally fewer exacerbations (3.364 versus 3.390, respectively) and mean total health care costs (US$126,274 versus US$128,591, respectively). In all scenario analyses performed (discount factors of 0% and 6% for benefits and costs; time horizon of 1 year; mapping St George's Respiratory Questionnaire to European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions; excluding pharmacy costs, COPD-related cost only; cost of exacerbations; including ACCORD II trial in the network meta-analysis), aclidinium was associated with lower costs and marginally greater QALYs versus tiotropium.

CONCLUSION

Aclidinium is potentially cost-effective compared with tiotropium for maintenance treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD.

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research?

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a respiratory disease that causes progressive symptoms of breathlessness, cough and mucus build-up. It is the fourth or fifth most common cause of death worldwide and is associated with significant healthcare costs.Inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs) are widely prescribed to manage the symptoms of COPD when short-acting agents alone are no longer sufficient. Twice-daily treatment with an inhaled LABA is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving exercise tolerance and quality of life, slowing decline and even improving lung function and preventing and treating exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of twice-daily long-acting beta2-agonists compared with placebo for patients with COPD on the basis of clinically important endpoints, primarily quality of life and COPD exacerbations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trials register, ClinicalTrials.gov and manufacturers' websites in June 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Parallel, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting populations of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Studies were required to be at least 12 weeks in duration and designed to assess the safety and efficacy of a long-acting beta2-agonist against placebo.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data and characteristics were extracted independently by two review authors, and each study was assessed for potential sources of bias. Data for all outcomes were pooled and subgrouped by LABA agent (formoterol 12 μg, formoterol 24 μg and salmeterol 50 μg) and then were separately analysed by LABA agent and subgrouped by trial duration. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for the proportion of participants taking inhaled corticosteroids and for studies with high or uneven rates of attrition.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-six RCTs met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 14,939 people with COPD to receive twice-daily LABA or placebo. Study duration ranged from three months to three years; the median duration was six months. Participants were more often male with moderate to severe symptoms at randomisation; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was between 33% and 55% predicted normal in the studies, and mean St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score (SGRQ) ranged from 44 to 55 when reported.Moderate-quality evidence showed that LABA treatment improved quality of life on the SGRQ (mean difference (MD) -2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.09 to -1.54; I(2) = 50%; 17 trials including 11,397 people) and reduced the number of exacerbations requiring hospitalisation (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; I(2) = 10%; seven trials including 3804 people). In absolute terms, 18 fewer people per 1000 were hospitalised as the result of an exacerbation while receiving LABA therapy over a weighted mean of 7 months (95% CI 3 to 31 fewer). Scores were also improved on the Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), and more people receiving LABA treatment showed clinically important improvement of at least four points on the SGRQ.The number of people who had exacerbations requiring a course of oral steroids or antibiotics was also lower among those taking LABA (52 fewer per 1000 treated over 8 months; 95% CI 24 to 78 fewer, moderate quality evidence).Mortality was low, and combined findings of all studies showed that LABA therapy did not significantly affect mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.08; I(2) = 21%; 23 trials including 14,079 people, moderate quality evidence). LABA therapy did not affect the rate of serious adverse events (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; I(2) = 34%, moderate quality evidence), although there was significant unexplained heterogeneity, especially between the two formoterol doses.LABA therapy improved predose FEV1 by 73 mL more than placebo (95% CI 48 to 98; I(2) = 71%, low quality evidence), and people were more likely to withdraw from placebo than from LABA therapy (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; I(2) = 0%). Higher rates of withdrawal in the placebo arm may reduce our confidence in some results, but the disparity is more likely to reduce the magnitude of difference between LABA and placebo than inflate the true effect; removing studies at highest risk of bias on the basis of high and unbalanced attrition did not change conclusions for the primary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from 26 studies showed that inhaled long-acting beta2-agonists are effective over the medium and long term for patients with moderate to severe COPD. Their use is associated with improved quality of life and reduced exacerbations, including those requiring hospitalisation. Overall, findings showed that inhaled LABAs did not significantly reduce mortality or serious adverse events.

Incorporating considerations of cost-effectiveness, affordability, and resource implications in guideline development: article 6 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

INTRODUCTION

Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use rigorous processes to ensure that health care recommendations are based on the best available research evidence. This is the sixth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers for respiratory and other diseases on how to achieve this goal. In this article, we focused on integrating cost and resource information in guideline development and formulating recommendations focusing on four key questions.

METHODS

We addressed the following specific questions. (1) When is it important to incorporate costs, and/or resource implications, and/or cost-effectiveness, and/or affordability considerations in guidelines? (2) Which costs and which resource use should be considered in guidelines? (3)What sources of evidence should be used to estimate costs, resource use, and cost-effectiveness? (4) How can cost-effectiveness, resource implications, and affordability be taken into account explicitly? Our work was based on a prior review on this topic and our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Many authorities suggest that there is a need to include explicit consideration of costs, resource use, and affordability during guideline development. Where drug use is at issue, "explicit consideration" may need to involve only noting whether the price (easily determined and usually the main component of "acquisition cost") of a drug is high or low. Complex interventions such as rehabilitation services are to a greater degree setting- and system-dependent. Resources used, and the costs of those resources, will vary among systems, and formal identification by a guideline group of the resource requirements of a complex intervention is essential. A clinical guideline usually contains multiple recommendations, and in some cases there are hundreds. Defining costs and resource use for all of them-especially for multiple settings-is unlikely to be feasible. At present, disaggregated resource utilization accompanied by some cost information seems to be the most promising approach. The method for assigning values to costs, including external or indirect cost (such as time off work), can have a significant impact on the outcome of any economic evaluation. The perspective that the guideline assumes should be made explicit. Standards for evidence for clinical data are usually good-quality trials reporting a relevant endpoint that should be summarized in a systematic review. Like others, we are therefore proposing that the ideal sources of evidence for cost and resource utilization data for guideline development are systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials that report resource utilization, with direct comparisons between the interventions of interest.

A UK-based cost-utility analysis of indacaterol, a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD, using real world evidence on resource use

INTRODUCTION

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease that is not curable. However, there are effective treatments available. In the UK, long-acting bronchodilators are first-line treatments for COPD patients requiring maintenance therapy, and there are several options available. The aim of this study is to establish, from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, the cost-effectiveness profile of indacaterol, the first once-daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), compared with tiotropium and salmeterol, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of COPD therapies, this study has the advantage of using real world evidence on the resource use associated with COPD management across the spectrum of the disease.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with four health states following the GOLD classification for severity of airflow limitation. The model time horizon was 3 years, and the cycle length was 3 months. From each state, patients could experience a severe or non-severe exacerbation, move to a different COPD state, remain in the current state or die. Transition probabilities were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials. The majority of the resource use data was taken from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD), which contains data from over 20,000 COPD patients in England and Scotland. Cost data were taken from UK-based sources and published literature and presented for the cost year 2011. Health-related quality of life was the main outcome of interest and utility data for the COPD states were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials and disutility due to exacerbations were taken from the literature. Both one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

Indacaterol dominated in the comparison with salmeterol producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £110 per patient over a 3-year time horizon. In the comparison with tiotropium over the same time horizon, indacaterol remained the dominant strategy, producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £248 per patient. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicates that the proportion of patients in each of the COPD stages and the mortality rate associated with Very Severe COPD are the variables with the largest impact on the results. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that over 72 % and 89 % of the iterations when compared with salmeterol and tiotropium, respectively, produced dominant results for indacaterol.

CONCLUSION

The analyses demonstrate that indacaterol dominates both tiotropium and salmeterol in the base case and is likely to remain cost-effective under a range of assumptions.

Improving clinical reality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease economic modelling : development and validation of a micro-simulation approach

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive and irreversible disease responsible for the deaths of 3 million people worldwide in 2005, and predicted to be the third leading cause of death worldwide by 2030. Many COPD models developed to date have followed a Markov structure, in which patients or populations can move between defined health states over successive time periods or cycles. In COPD, health states are typically based on disease severity defined solely by lung function, as described by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guidelines. These current modelling methods may restrict the ability to reflect the disease progression/clinical pathway or clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

Given these limitations in previous COPD models, the authors aimed to develop a more flexible model that could improve on the description of the clinical disease pathway. The overall objective of this model was to inform the development of policies, guidelines or cost-effectiveness analyses. A second objective was to validate the model in relation to existing epidemiology studies of COPD.

METHODS

A patient simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel™. The predictability of the model was tested by populating it with data from natural history of disease studies as well as with clinical trial data. Each patient moves through the model with demographic characteristics randomly generated from a set distribution. These characteristics determine the risk of clinical events occurring in the model.

RESULTS

The validation with these studies found the model to have generally good predictive ability, yielding in this way a good degree of external validity.

CONCLUSIONS

The micro-simulation model is a flexible approach for modelling COPD that allows consideration of complex COPD treatment pathways. The model was found to be generally robust in terms of predicting clinical outcomes of published studies when tested against other studies. It has significant potential as a tool for supporting future COPD treatment positioning decisions as well as to inform the development of policies, guidelines or cost-effectiveness analyses.

Converting condition-specific measures into preference-based outcomes for use in economic evaluation

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) play an important role in reimbursement decisions when one of the criteria is the cost-effectiveness of the health technology. While for many generic QALYs (e.g., based on the EQ-5D) are viewed as the gold standard, there has been a considerable increase in interest in using condition-specific data to generate QALYs. There are two main methods: mapping from the condition-specific data to a generic health-related quality of life measure; and direct valuation of condition-specific health states. Whether one believes condition-specific data are useful even if generic QALY data are available, or simply that condition-specific data are helpful in the absence of generic measures of health-related quality of life, it is timely to review recent research activity directed at making greater use of condition-specific data to inform assessments of cost-effectiveness.

New clinical insights into chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their implications for pharmacoeconomic analyses

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide, but before the development of several new pharmacological treatments little could be done for COPD patients. Recognition that these new treatments could significantly improve the prognosis for COPD patients has radically changed clinical management guidelines from a palliative philosophy to an aggressive approach intended to reduce chronic symptoms, improve quality of life and prolong survival. These new treatments have also sparked interest in COPD cost-effectiveness research. Most COPD cost-effectiveness studies have been based on clinical trial populations, limited to direct medical costs, and used standard analysis methods such as Markov modelling, and they have usually found that newer therapies have favourable cost effectiveness. However, new insights into the clinical progression of COPD bring into question some of the assumptions underlying older analyses. In this review, we examine clinical factors unique to COPD and recent changes in clinical perspectives that have important implications for pharmacoeconomic analyses. The main parameters explored include (i) the high indirect medical costs for COPD and their relevance in assessing the societal benefits of new therapy; (ii) the importance of acute deteriorations in COPD, known as exacerbations, and approaches to modelling the cost benefit of exacerbation reduction; (iii) quality/utility instruments for COPD; (iv) the prevalence of co-morbid conditions and confounding between COPD and co-morbid disease utilization; (v) the limitations of Markov modelling; and (vi) the problem of outliers.

Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the relative clinical effects of tiotropium bromide alone versus LABA alone, upon measures of quality of life, exacerbations, lung function and serious adverse events, in people with stable COPD.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with tiotropium compared to LABA in people with COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and economic evaluations from searching NHS EED and HEED (date of last search February 2012). We found additional trials from web-based clinical trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and full economic evaluations if they compared effects of tiotropium alone with LABAs alone in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, then extracted data on study quality and outcomes. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed data using the Cochrane Review Manager(RevMan 5.1) software.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven clinical studies totalling 12,223 participants with COPD were included in the review. The studies used similar designs and were generally of good methodological quality. Inclusion criteria for RCTs were similar across the included studies, although studies varied in terms of smoking history and COPD severity of participants. They compared tiotropium (which was delivered by HandiHaler in all studies) with salmeterol (four studies, 8936 participants), formoterol (one study, 431 participants) and indacaterol (two studies, 2856 participants). All participants were instructed to discontinue anticholinergic or long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilators during treatment, but could receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at a stable dose. Study duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. We extracted data for 11,223 participants. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline. Overall, the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.In the analysis of the primary outcomes in this review, a high level of heterogeneity amongst studies meant that we did not pool data for St George's Respiratory Questionnaire quality of life score. Subgroup analyses based on the type of LABA found statistically significant differences among effects on quality of life depending on whether tiotropium was compared with salmeterol, formoterol or indacaterol. Tiotropium reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations compared with LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.93). For this outcome, there was no difference seen among the different types of LABA. There was no statistical difference in mortality observed between the treatment groups.For secondary outcomes, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the number of COPD exacerbations leading to hospitalisation compared with LABA treatment (OR 0.87; 95% 0.77 to 0.99), but not in the overall rate of all-cause hospitalisations. There was no statistically significant difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) or symptom score between tiotropium and LABA-treated participants. There was a lower rate of non-fatal serious adverse events recorded with tiotropium compared with LABA (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). The tiotropium group was also associated with a lower rate of study withdrawals (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).We identified six full economic evaluations assessing the cost and cost-effectiveness of tiotropium and salmeterol. The studies were based on an economic model or empirical analysis of clinical data from RCTs. They all looked at maintenance costs and the costs for COPD exacerbations, including respiratory medications and hospitalisations. The setting for the evaluations was primary and secondary care in the UK, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and USA. All the studies estimated tiotropium to be superior to salmeterol based on better clinical outcomes (exacerbations or quality of life) and/or lower total costs. However, the authors of all evaluations reported there was substantial uncertainty around the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.

A lifetime Markov model for the economic evaluation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is currently the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. It has serious health effects and causes substantial costs for society.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present paper was to develop a state-of-the-art decision-analytic model of COPD whereby the cost effectiveness of interventions in Germany can be estimated. To demonstrate the applicability of the model, a smoking cessation programme was evaluated against usual care.

METHODS

A seven-stage Markov model (disease stages I to IV according to the GOLD [Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease] classification, states after lung-volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation, death) was developed to conduct a cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective over a time horizon of 10, 40 and 60 years. Patients entered the cohort model at the age of 45 with mild COPD. Exacerbations were classified into three levels: mild, moderate and severe. Estimation of stage-specific probabilities (for smokers and quitters), utilities and costs was based on German data where possible. Data on effectiveness of the intervention was retrieved from the literature. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and effects. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The smoking cessation programme was the dominant strategy compared with usual care, and the intervention resulted in an increase in health effects of 0.54 QALYs and a cost reduction of &U20AC;1115 per patient (year 2007 prices) after 60 years. In the probabilistic analysis, the intervention dominated in about 95% of the simulations. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty primarily originated from data on disease progression and treatment cost in the early stages of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The model developed allows the long-term cost effectiveness of interventions to be estimated, and has been adapted to Germany. The model suggests that the smoking cessation programme evaluated was more effective than usual care as well as being cost-saving. Most patients had mild or moderate COPD, stages for which parameter uncertainty was found to be high. This raises the need to improve data on the early stages of COPD.

Tiotropium bromide inhalation powder: a review of its use in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The anticholinergic agent tiotropium bromide (Spiriva®) is a long-acting bronchodilator that is indicated for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of tiotropium bromide inhalation powder, administered using the HandiHaler® device, in patients with COPD, as well as reviewing its pharmacological properties and the results of pharmacoeconomic analyses. Shorter-term placebo-controlled trials in patients with COPD demonstrated significantly higher trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) responses with tiotropium bromide than with placebo, confirming it has a duration of action of ≥24 hours and is suitable for once-daily administration. Lung function improved to a greater extent with tiotropium bromide than with ipratropium bromide or, in most instances, salmeterol. Indacaterol was shown to be noninferior to tiotropium bromide in terms of the trough FEV(1) response. The large, 4-year UPLIFT® trial did not show a significant reduction in the annual rate of decline in FEV(1) with tiotropium bromide versus placebo in patients with COPD, although subgroup analyses demonstrated a significantly lower rate of decline with tiotropium bromide than with placebo in some patient groups (e.g. patients with moderate COPD, patients aged ≥50 years, patients not receiving maintenance therapy at baseline). Tiotropium bromide prevented exacerbations in patients with COPD, with a significantly lower exacerbation rate and a significantly longer time to first exacerbation seen with tiotropium bromide than with placebo or salmeterol. Exacerbation rates did not significantly differ between patients receiving tiotropium bromide and those receiving salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. Tiotropium bromide also had beneficial effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and other endpoints, such as dyspnoea and rescue medication use. Combination therapy with tiotropium bromide plus formoterol with or without budesonide improved lung function to a significantly greater extent than tiotropium bromide alone in patients with COPD. In addition, exacerbation rates were lower and HR-QOL was improved with tiotropium bromide plus budesonide/formoterol versus tiotropium bromide alone. Although the addition of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate to tiotropium bromide did not reduce the COPD exacerbation rate, it did improve lung function and HR-QOL. Tiotropium bromide inhalation powder is generally well tolerated in patients with COPD, with anticholinergic adverse events (e.g. dry mouth, constipation, gastrointestinal obstruction, dysuria) among the most commonly reported adverse events. The UPLIFT® trial showed no significant difference between tiotropium bromide and placebo recipients in the risk of stroke, and the risk of serious cardiac adverse events (including congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction) was significantly lower with tiotropium bromide than with placebo. The absence of a detrimental effect on cardiovascular outcomes was supported by the results of a meta-analysis and pooled analyses. In addition, on-treatment mortality was lower with tiotropium bromide than with placebo in the UPLIFT® trial. Pooled analyses showed significantly lower cardiovascular mortality with tiotropium bromide than with placebo, with a meta-analysis demonstrating no significant difference between patients receiving tiotropium bromide and controls in cardiovascular mortality. Results of modelled pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in several developed countries suggest that tiotropium bromide is a cost-effective option in patients with COPD. In conclusion, tiotropium bromide inhalation powder is a useful option for the maintenance treatment of patients with COPD.

Cost effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review of the evidence and methodological issues

BACKGROUND

Over 200 million people have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) worldwide. The number of disease-year equivalents and deaths attributable to COPD are high. Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of the disease recommend an individualized step-up approach in which treatment is intensified when results are unsatisfactory.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to present a systematic review of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment for COPD and to discuss the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the studies.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for economic evaluations of drug therapy in COPD was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Economic Evaluation Database of the UK NHS (NHS-EED) and the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED). Full economic evaluations presenting both costs and health outcomes were included.

RESULTS

A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Of these, 16 were linked to a clinical trial, 14 used Markov models, eight were based on observational data and two used a different approach. The few studies on combining short-acting bronchodilators were consistent in finding net cost savings compared with monotherapy. Studies comparing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with placebo or no maintenance treatment reported inconsistent results. Studies comparing fluticasone with salmeterol consistently found salmeterol to be more cost effective. The cost-effectiveness studies of tiotropium versus placebo, ipratropium or salmeterol pointed towards a reduction in total COPD-related healthcare costs for tiotropium in many but not all studies. All of these studies reported additional health benefits of tiotropium. The cost-effectiveness studies of the combination of inhaled long-acting β₂-agonists and ICS all report additional health benefits at an increase in total COPD-related costs in most studies. The cost-per-QALY estimates of this combination treatment vary widely and are very sensitive to the assumptions on mortality benefit and time horizon.

CONCLUSIONS

The currently available economic evaluations indicate differences in cost effectiveness between COPD maintenance therapies, but for a more meaningful comparison of results it is important to improve the consistency with respect to study methodology and choice of comparator.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using an Ontario policy model

In July 2010, the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) began work on a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) evidentiary framework, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding treatment strategies for patients with COPD. This project emerged from a request by the Health System Strategy Division of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that MAS provide them with an evidentiary platform on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COPD interventions. After an initial review of health technology assessments and systematic reviews of COPD literature, and consultation with experts, MAS identified the following topics for analysis: vaccinations (influenza and pneumococcal), smoking cessation, multidisciplinary care, pulmonary rehabilitation, long-term oxygen therapy, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute and chronic respiratory failure, hospital-at-home for acute exacerbations of COPD, and telehealth (including telemonitoring and telephone support). Evidence-based analyses were prepared for each of these topics. For each technology, an economic analysis was also completed where appropriate. In addition, a review of the qualitative literature on patient, caregiver, and provider perspectives on living and dying with COPD was conducted, as were reviews of the qualitative literature on each of the technologies included in these analyses. The Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mega-Analysis series is made up of the following reports, which can be publicly accessed at the MAS website at: http://www.hqontario.ca/en/mas/mas_ohtas_mn.html. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Evidentiary Framework. Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Community-Based Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Long-Term Oxygen Therapy for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Chronic Respiratory Failure Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Hospital-at-Home Programs for Patients With Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Home Telehealth for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis. Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using an Ontario Policy Model. Experiences of Living and Dying With COPD: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of the Qualitative Empirical Literature. For more information on the qualitative review, please contact Mita Giacomini at: http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/ceb/faculty_member_giacomini.htm. For more information on the economic analysis, please visit the PATH website: http://www.path-hta.ca/About-Us/Contact-Us.aspx. The Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative has produced an associated report on patient preference for mechanical ventilation. For more information, please visit the THETA website: http://theta.utoronto.ca/static/contact.

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by chronic inflammation throughout the airways, parenchyma, and pulmonary vasculature. The inflammation causes repeated cycles of injury and repair in the airway wall— inflammatory cells release a variety of chemicals and lead to cellular damage. The inflammation process also contributes to the loss of elastic recoil pressure in the lung, thereby reducing the driving pressure for expiratory flow through narrowed and poorly supported airways, in which airflow resistance is significantly increased. Expiratory flow limitation is the pathophysiological hallmark of COPD. Exacerbations of COPD contribute considerably to morbidity and mortality, and impose a burden on the health care system. They are a leading cause of emergency room visits and hospitalizations, particularly in the winter. In Canada, the reported average cost for treating a moderate exacerbation is $641; for a major exacerbation, the cost is $10,086.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the following interventions in moderate to very severe COPD, investigated in the Medical Advisory Secretariat Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mega-Analysis Series: smoking cessation programs in moderate COPD in an outpatient setting: – intensive counselling (IC) versus usual care (UC). – nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) versus UC. – IC + NRT versus placebo. – bupropion versus placebo; multidisciplinary care (MDC) teams versus UC in moderate to severe COPD in an outpatient setting; pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) versus UC following acute exacerbations in moderate to severe COPD; long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) versus UC in severe hypoxemia in COPD in an outpatient setting; ventilation: – noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) + usual medical care versus usual medical care in acute respiratory failure due to an acute exacerbation in severe COPD in an inpatient setting. – weaning with NPPV versus weaning with invasive mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure due to an acute exacerbation in very severe COPD in an inpatient setting.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted using a Markov probabilistic model. The model consists of different health states based on the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease COPD severity classification. Patients were assigned different costs and utilities depending on their severity health state during each model cycle. In addition to moving between health states, patients were at risk of acute exacerbations of COPD in each model cycle. During each cycle, patients could have no acute exacerbation, a minor acute exacerbation, or a major exacerbation. For the purposes of the model, a major exacerbation was defined as one that required hospitalization. Patients were assigned different costs and utilities in each model cycle, depending on whether they experienced an exacerbation, and its severity. Starting cohorts reflected the various patient populations from the trials analyzed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)—that is, costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)—were estimated for each intervention using clinical parameters and summary estimates of relative risks of (re)hospitalization, as well as mortality and abstinence rates, from the COPD mega-analysis evidence-based analyses. A budget impact analysis was also conducted to project incremental costs already being incurred or resources already in use in Ontario. Using provincial data, medical literature, and expert opinion, health system impacts were calculated for the strategies investigated. All costs are reported in Canadian dollars.

RESULTS

All smoking cessation programs were dominant (i.e., less expensive and more effective overall). Assuming a base case cost of $1,041 and $1,527 per patient for MDC and PR, the ICER was calculated to be $14,123 per QALY and $17,938 per QALY, respectively. When the costs of MDC and PR were varied in a 1-way sensitivity analysis to reflect variation in resource utilization reported in the literature, the ICER increased to $55,322 per QALY and $56,270 per QALY, respectively. Assuming a base case cost of $2,261 per year per patient for LTOT as reported by data from the Ontario provincial program, the ICER was calculated to be $38,993 per QALY. Ventilation strategies were dominant (i.e., cheaper and more effective), as reflected by the clinical evidence of significant in-hospital days avoided in the study group. Ontario currently pays for IC through physician billing (translating to a current burden of $8 million) and bupropion through the Ontario Drug Benefit program (translating to a current burden of almost $2 million). The burden of NRT was projected to be $10 million, with future expenditures of up to $1 million in Years 1 to 3 for incident cases. Ontario currently pays for some chronic disease management programs. Based on the most recent Family Health Team data, the costs of MDC programs to manage COPD were estimated at $85 million in fiscal year 2010, with projected future expenditures of up to $51 million for incident cases, assuming the base case cost of the program. However, this estimate does not accurately reflect the current costs to the province because of lack of report by Family Health Teams, lack of capture of programs outside this model of care by any data set in the province, and because the resource utilization and frequency of visits/follow-up phone calls were based on the findings in the literature rather than the actual Family Health Team COPD management programs in place in Ontario. Therefore, MDC resources being utilized in the province are unknown and difficult to measure. Data on COPD-related hospitalizations were pulled from Ontario administrative data sets and based on consultation with experts. Half of hospitalized patients will access PR resources at least once, and half of these will repeat the therapy, translating to a potential burden of $17 million to $32 million, depending on the cost of the program. These resources are currently being absorbed, but since utilization is not being captured by any data set in the province, it is difficult to quantify and estimate. Provincial programs may be under-resourced, and patients may not be accessing these services effectively. Data from the LTOT provincial program (based on fiscal year 2006 information) suggested that the burden was $65 million, with potential expenditures of up to $0.2 million in Years 1 to 3 for incident cases. From the clinical evidence on ventilation (i.e., reduction in length of stay in hospital), there were potential cost savings to the hospitals of $42 million and $12 million for NPPV and weaning with NPPV, respectively, if the study intervention were adopted. Future cost savings were projected to be up to $4 million and $1 million, respectively, for incident cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, costs for most of these interventions are being absorbed by provider services, the Ontario Drug Benefit Program, the Assistive Devices Program, and the hospital global budget. The most cost-effective intervention for COPD will depend on decision-makers’ willingness to pay. Lack of provincial data sets capturing resource utilization for the various interventions poses a challenge for estimating current burden and future expenditures.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of tiotropium bromide in the long-term treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Italy

The randomized, double-blind trial UPLIFT(®) demonstrated in 5,993 patients with moderate to very severe COPD that 4 years of tiotropium bromide therapy were associated with improvements in lung function, exacerbations, quality of life, and mortality compared with placebo. The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was performed through a probabilistic, patient-level simulation Markov model. Routine COPD care (RC) was compared with the inclusion of tiotropium bromide on it. The analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, with 1 year cycles and a 3.5% annual discount rate. Patients were characterized by gender, age, height, smoking status, and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1). FEV1 time trend was modeled according to the annual decline recorded in UPLIFT®. Mortality derived from that of the general Italian population was adjusted by smoking status and FEV1. Health utilities derived from published Italian observational studies and were varied in time according to UPLIFT® data. Exacerbation rates were derived from a published Italian observational prospective study. The cost perspective was that of the Italian National Health Service. Healthcare resource consumption for RC and exacerbations derived from Italian observational studies were valued according to current price and tariffs. Simulated patients in the tiotropium arm gained an average (95% CI) 0.50 (-1.63 to 6.27) Life Years (LYs) and 0.42 (-0.25 to 3.05) Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). The incremental lifetime cost resulted €3,357 (-€10,669 to €29,820). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was €6,698/LY and €7,916/QALY. In the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), tiotropium had a 90% probability of being cost-effective for a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of € 10,000/QALY.

Utility estimation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a preference for change?

Economic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) incorporate utilities through multi-attribute utility (MAU) measures, most commonly the EQ-5D, to report health-related quality-of-life (HR-QOL) changes or differences. Questions have been raised about the sensitivity of these measures in COPD. Limitations in detecting adequate patient-level changes in HR-QOL over time in stable and exacerbation states compared with disease-specific instruments could also result in underestimation of known treatment benefits. The purpose of this article was to present and discuss the empirical evidence on the validity of generic MAU measures within the COPD population. We built upon a previously conducted validation review for the period 1997-2007 that used 'respiratory disease' and 'EQ-5D' as keywords. For this discussion, PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for articles in English from 1988 to August 2009, using similar search words. Based on the performance of MAU measures in COPD and exacerbations, they appear to have limited discriminatory ability, particularly between moderate and severe COPD, despite known differences in HR-QOL. Sensitivity to clinically relevant change in stable COPD over time due to treatment also appears limited. Current research suggests adequate sensitivity regarding detecting the onset and resolution of an exacerbation; however, sensitivity is limited in the short term, such as daily changes in health status. The evidence suggests responsiveness of MAU measures may be restricted to large within-patient change, which leads to difficulties in evaluating the subtle but important impact of exacerbations. Studies presenting alternative methods of deriving COPD-related utilities are also discussed. Overall, the insensitivities of generic MAU measures in COPD can lead to biased cost-effectiveness analyses and ill-informed economic decisions. Alternative measures such as condition-specific preference-based measures may be used in circumstances where more sensitivity is needed. The trade-off allows relevant and sensitive matters most important to patients to be evaluated; however inevitable gaps such as those related to adverse events are not considered.

Cost-utility analysis of indacaterol in Germany: a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD

INTRODUCTION

Indacaterol is a novel inhaled once-daily long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) for the maintenance treatment of COPD that has been compared to existing inhaled monotherapies on a number of symptomatic endpoints in clinical studies. With constrained healthcare budgets, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol 150 μg, the approved starting dose for maintenance therapy, from a German heath service perspective against the most widely used bronchodilator tiotropium, and the twice-daily LABA, salmeterol.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with the following main health states: Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Very Severe COPD, based on pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) measures reported in the indacaterol clinical trials, and death. Each disease severity health state had two associated health states for severe or non-severe exacerbation. The model considered patients with moderate to severe COPD, with a mean age of 64 years. The base case time horizon was three years, with discounting set at 3% for costs and benefits. Selected clinical inputs and health state utilities were derived from indacaterol clinical trials, while costs were based on publicly available drug prices and tariffs or published sources. Inputs describing disease progression were based on published data on the rate of FEV(1) decline.

RESULTS

Point-estimates show that indacaterol 150 μg is dominant (lower total costs and better outcomes) against tiotropium and salmeterol. An alternative analysis comparing indacaterol 300 μg (maximum dose) against tiotropium, showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately €28,300 per QALY.

CONCLUSION

Indacaterol is cost-effective compared to tiotropium and salmeterol.