Tiotropium's cost-effectiveness for the treatment of COPD: a cost-utility analysis under real-world conditions

Methodology and results of real-world cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in relapsed multiple myeloma using registry data

OBJECTIVE

To predict the real-world (RW) cost-effectiveness of carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd) versus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in relapsed multiple myeloma (MM) patients after one to three prior therapies.

METHODS

A partitioned survival model that included three health states (progression-free, progressed disease and death) was built. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and time to discontinuation (TTD) data for the Rd arm were derived using the Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies in the Czech Republic; the relative treatment effects of KRd versus Rd were estimated from the phase 3, randomised, ASPIRE trial, and were used to predict PFS, OS and TTD for KRd. The model was developed from the payer perspective and included drug costs, administration costs, monitoring costs, palliative care costs and adverse-event related costs collected from Czech sources.

RESULTS

The base case incremental cost effectiveness ratio for KRd compared with Rd was €73,156 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Patients on KRd incurred costs of €117,534 over their lifetime compared with €53,165 for patients on Rd. The QALYs gained were 2.63 and 1.75 for patients on KRd and Rd, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining the strengths of randomised controlled trials and observational databases in cost-effectiveness models can generate policy-relevant results to allow well-informed decision-making. The current model showed that KRd is likely to be cost-effective versus Rd in the RW and, therefore, the reimbursement of KRd represents an efficient allocation of resources within the healthcare system.

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.

Extrafine beclometasone diproprionate/formoterol fumarate: a review of its effects in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

A fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) combination of extrafine beclometasone dipropionate and formoterol fumarate (BDP/FF) has been recently approved for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Small airway inflammation and remodelling are cardinal features of COPD; therefore, the ability of this extrafine formulation to reach the small, as well as the large, airways is likely to be therapeutically important by enabling treatment of inflammatory processes in the whole bronchial tree. The clinical development of extrafine BDP/FF has demonstrated significant benefits over extrafine FF in terms of lung function improvement and reduction of the exacerbation rate, thus supporting the beneficial effect of an ICS combined to a LABA in COPD patients. Head-to-head comparison studies versus other ICS/LABA combinations have shown that the extrafine formulation enables the clinical benefits to be achieved with a lower dose of ICS. Extrafine BDP/FF showed lung function and dyspnoea improvements comparable to other ICS/LABAs, and a significantly faster onset of action was observed when compared with a salmeterol-containing fixed-dose combination. This review summarises the clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of extrafine BDP/FF in COPD and confirming that extrafine BDP/FF achieves the type of health benefit expected from such a targeted ICS/LABA combination in COPD.

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.

Tiotropium versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium is an anticholinergic agent which has gained widespread acceptance as a once daily maintenance therapy for symptoms and exacerbations of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the past few years there have been several systematic reviews of the efficacy of tiotropium, however, several new trials have compared tiotropium treatment with placebo, including those of a soft mist inhaler, making an update necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tiotropium and placebo in patients with COPD, upon clinically important endpoints.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group RCTs of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium against placebo for patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and then extracted data on study quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information, and collected information on adverse effects from all trials. We analysed the data using Cochrane Review Manager 5, RevMan 5.2.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 22 studies of good methodological quality that had enrolled 23,309 participants with COPD. The studies used similar designs, however, the duration varied from three months to four years. In 19 of the studies, 18 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Handihaler dry powder inhaler was evaluated, and in three studies, 5 or 10 mcg tiotropium once daily via the Respimat soft mist inhaler was evaluated. Compared to placebo, tiotropium treatment significantly improved the mean quality of life (mean difference (MD) -2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.35 to -2.44), increased the number of participants with a clinically significant improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.52; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.68), and reduced the number of participants with a clinically significant deterioration (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) in quality of life (measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)). Tiotropium treatment significantly reduced the number of participants suffering from exacerbations (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87). This corresponds to a need to treat 16 patients (95% CI 10 to 36) with tiotropium for a year in order to avoid one additional patient suffering exacerbations, based on the average placebo event rate of 44% from one-year studies. Tiotropium treatment led to fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00), but there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalisations (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13) or non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the tiotropium and placebo groups (Peto OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). However, subgroup analysis found a significant difference between the studies using a dry powder inhaler and those with a soft mist inhaler (test for subgroup differences: P = 0.01). With the dry powder inhaler there were fewer deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 2.8%), but with the soft mist inhaler there were significantly more deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 1.8%). It is noted that the rates of patients discontinuing study treatment were uneven, with significantly fewer participants withdrawing from tiotropium treatment than from placebo treatment (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.73). Participants on tiotropium had improved lung function at the end of the study compared with those on placebo (trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) MD 118.92 mL; 95% CI 113.07 to 124.77).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that tiotropium treatment was associated with a significant improvement in patients' quality of life and it reduced the risk of exacerbations, with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 16 to prevent one exacerbation. Tiotropium also reduced exacerbations leading to hospitalisation but no significant difference was found for hospitalisation of any cause or mortality. Thus, tiotropium appears to be a reasonable choice for the management of patients with stable COPD, as proposed in guidelines. The trials included in this review showed a difference in the risk of mortality when compared with placebo depending on the type of tiotropium delivery device used. However, these results have not been confirmed in a recent trial when 2.5 mcg or 5 mcg of tiotropium via Respimat was used in a direct comparison to the 18 mcg Handihaler.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease hospital admissions and drugs--unexpected positive associations: a retrospective general practice cohort study

BACKGROUND

Increased prescribing of inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic (LAMA) and combined inhaled long-acting β2-agonist and corticosteroid (LABA+ICS) drugs for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has led to hopes of reduced hospital admissions from this disease.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of rising primary care prescribing of LAMA and LABA+ICS drugs on COPD admissions.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study of general practice COPD admission and prescribing data between 2007 and 2010 comprised a representative group of 806 English general practices (population 5,264,506). Outcome measures were practice rates of COPD patient admissions and prescription costs of LAMA and LABA+ICS. General practice characteristics were based on the UK quality and outcomes framework.

RESULTS

Rates of COPD admissions remained stable from 2001 to 2010. Practice-prescribing volumes of LAMA per practice patient and LABA+ICS per practice patient increased by 61 and 26%, respectively, between 2007 and 2010. Correlation between costs of LAMA and those of LABA+ICS increased year on year, and was the highest in 2010 (Pearson's r=0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.72). Practice COPD admission rates were positively predicted by practice-prescribing volumes of LAMA (2010: B=1.23, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.85) and of LABA+ICS (2010: B=0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52) when controlling for practice list size, COPD prevalence and deprivation.

CONCLUSION

The increase in the prescribing of LAMA and LABA+ICS inhalers was not associated with the predicted fall in hospital admission rates for COPD patients. The positive correlation between high practice COPD prescribing and high practice COPD admissions was not explained.

Cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for COPD in ambulatory care: a review

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This article conducts a literature review about the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in ambulatory care.

METHODS

Relevant economic evaluations were identified by searching Medline (PubMed) and the National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database. The search strategy focused on literature reviews and primary economic evaluations. Economic evaluations were included, which compared pharmacotherapy for COPD, chronic bronchitis or pulmonary emphysema with an alternative in terms of costs and health outcomes.

RESULTS

The majority of economic evaluations show that pharmacotherapy for COPD in ambulatory care is cost-effective. Cost-effectiveness derives from an improvement in lung function and a reduction in the number of exacerbations, which translates into cost savings from fewer hospitalizations. Pharmacotherapy also tends to be more cost-effective in patients with more severe COPD. When applying these results to a specific country or setting, the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy will depend on the distribution of COPD severity among patients, the alternative with which pharmacotherapy is compared, the impact of pharmacotherapy on exacerbations, costs and treatment patterns of exacerbations, and price of pharmacotherapy. Economic evaluations tended to suffer from short-time horizons, restricted scope of included costs and use of various health outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a case to be made in favour of economic evaluations from the societal perspective that are based on a decision-analytic model to allow for extrapolation beyond the duration of clinical trials and that use generic health outcome measures such as quality-adjusted life years.

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.

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 placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium is an anticholinergic agent which has gained widespread acceptance as a once daily maintenance therapy for symptoms and exacerbations of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In the past few years there have been several systematic reviews of the efficacy of tiotropium, however, several new trials have compared tiotropium treatment with placebo, including those of a soft mist inhaler, making an update necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of tiotropium and placebo in patients with COPD, upon clinically important endpoints.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group's Specialised Register of Trials (CAGR) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to February 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel group RCTs of three months or longer comparing treatment with tiotropium against placebo for patients with COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and then extracted data on study quality and the outcome results. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information, and collected information on adverse effects from all trials. We analysed the data using Cochrane Review Manager 5, RevMan 5.1.

MAIN RESULTS

This review included 22 studies of good methodological quality that had enrolled 23,309 participants with COPD. The studies used similar designs, however, the duration varied from three months to four years. In 19 of the studies, 18 μg tiotropium once daily via the Handihaler dry powder inhaler was evaluated, and in three studies, 5 or 10 μg tiotropium once daily via the Respimat soft mist inhaler was evaluated. Compared to placebo, tiotropium treatment significantly improved the mean quality of life (mean difference (MD) -2.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.35 to -2.44), increased the number of participants with a clinically significant improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.52; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.68), and reduced the number of participants with a clinically significant deterioration (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.72) in quality of life (measured by the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)). Tiotropium treatment significantly reduced the number of participants suffering from exacerbations (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87). This corresponds to a need to treat 16 patients (95% CI 10 to 36) with tiotropium for a year in order to avoid one additional patient suffering exacerbations, based on the average placebo event rate of 44% from one-year studies. Tiotropium treatment led to fewer hospitalisations due to exacerbations (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00), but there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause hospitalisations (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13) or non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.10). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between the tiotropium and placebo groups (Peto OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11). However, subgroup analysis found a significant difference between the studies using a dry powder inhaler and those with a soft mist inhaler (test for subgroup differences: P = 0.01). With the dry powder inhaler there were fewer deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 2.8%), but with the soft mist inhaler there were significantly more deaths in the tiotropium group (Peto OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.08) than in the placebo group (yearly rate 1.8%). It is noted that the rates of patients discontinuing study treatment were uneven, with significantly fewer participants withdrawing from tiotropium treatment than from placebo treatment (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.73). Participants on tiotropium had improved lung function at the end of the study compared with those on placebo (trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) MD 118.92 mL; 95% CI 113.07 to 124.77).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that tiotropium treatment was associated with a significant improvement in patients' quality of life and it reduced the risk of exacerbations, with a number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) of 16 to prevent one exacerbation. Tiotropium also reduced exacerbations leading to hospitalisation but no significant difference was found for hospitalisation of any cause or mortality. Thus, tiotropium appears to be a reasonable choice for the management of patients with stable COPD, as proposed in guidelines. The review however, shows that tiotropium delivered via the Respimat soft mist inhaler was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality compared with placebo, which calls for caution with this device whilst awaiting the results of an ongoing head-to-head trial comparing tiotropium delivery devices and doses.

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.

"Show me the money": a fair criticism of economic studies on inhaled bronchodilators for COPD

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a significant burden for healthcare systems that is expected to grow further in the future. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators, including tiotropium, represent the cornerstone of management of COPD patients. Economic studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness ratio of inhaled bronchodilators have to take into account several parameters, including the reduction of COPD exacerbations and related hospitalizations, as well as disease modification and improvement in quality of life and mortality. At an era when the healthcare resources are unlikely to grow as quickly as demand, economic analyses remain the cornerstone for the justification of the broad use of medication with an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio. The greatest importance of such studies in COPD is the identification of subgroups of patients that will have the most benefit with an acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio for the healthcare providers. The development of models that will incorporate a global evaluation of the different aspects of this multi-component disease, in order to provide the best available care to each individual patient is urgently needed.