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

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

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.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic lung disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Pharmacologic maintenance drugs (such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) play an important role in the treatment of COPD. The cost effectiveness of these treatments has been frequently assessed, but studies to date have largely neglected the impact of treatment sequence and the exact stage of disease in which the drugs are used in real life.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review recently published articles that reported the cost effectiveness of COPD maintenance treatments, with a focus on key findings, quality and methodological issues.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in Embase, PubMed, the UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) and EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases) and included all relevant articles published between 2011 and 2015 in either Dutch, English or German. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used as basis for quality assessment, but additional items were also addressed.

RESULTS

The search identified 18 recent pharmacoeconomic analyses of COPD maintenance treatments. Papers reported the cost effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy (n = 6), phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors (n = 4), long-acting beta agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations (n = 4), LABA monotherapy (n = 2) and LABA/LAMA combinations (n = 2). All but two studies were funded by the manufacturer, and all studies indicated favourable cost effectiveness; however, the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was small. Less than half of the studies reported a COPD-specific outcome in addition to a generic outcome (mostly QALYs). Exacerbation and mortality rates were found to be the main drivers of cost effectiveness. According to the QHES, the quality of the studies was generally sufficient, but additional assessment revealed that most studies poorly represented the cost effectiveness of real-life medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies showed that pharmacologic COPD maintenance treatment is cost effective, but most studies poorly reflected real-life drug use. Consistent and COPD-specific methodology is recommended.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus glycopyrronium in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the UK

OBJECTIVES

Tiotropium (TIO), Spiriva® Handihaler®, is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long acting muscarinic antagonist), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence from the SPARK trial suggests that TIO is superior to glycopyrronium (GLY), Seebri® Breezhaler®, in terms of severe exacerbations. This modeling study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIO versus GLY for Canada (CAN), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), and the UK, making use of this new clinical evidence.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model, with moderate to very severe (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease II-IV) COPD patients, was populated with efficacy data from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) and SPARK trials as well as costs, utilities, and epidemiological data relevant for each country. Treatment efficacy was modeled as improvements in lung function, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations (rate of exacerbations). Risks of exacerbations differed between cohorts based on data from SPARK. Health and cost outcomes were simulated over an approximate lifetime horizon, starting from the age of 65 years. Robustness of results was validated in deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Over the lifetime horizon, patients treated with TIO accumulated -623 (CAN), 1,066 (ESP), 1,137 (SWE), and -169 (UK), respectively, in incremental costs (€2014). TIO generated better health outcomes compared to GLY in all countries, 0.21 (CAN), 0.25 (ESP), 0.23 (SWE), and 0.23 (UK) in incremental QALYs. The cost per QALY gained was found to be €4,281 and €1,137 for ESP and SWE, respectively, while TIO was found to be cost saving in CAN and the UK. The results were mainly driven by the relative risk of severe exacerbations found in SPARK (GLY/TIO relative risk: 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.97, P=0.025).

CONCLUSION

The results from this study show that TIO is a cost-effective treatment compared to GLY in moderate to very severe COPD. The cost per QALY is well below the existing implicit and explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds.