UK-specific cost-effectiveness of tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus other LAMA + LABA combinations in patients with COPD

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fixed-Dose Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus Tiotropium for COPD Patients in China

Purpose

Tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) fixed-dose combination (FDC) can improve lung function and quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and is not inferior to other LAMA/LABAs. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of TIO/OLO FDC in patients with moderate to very severe COPD in China.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of TIO/OLO FDC versus TIO in the treatment of COPD from Chinese health system perspective. Four health states were based on 2021 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2021), which included moderate (GOLD II, 50% ≤ FEV1 ≤ 80% of predicted), severe (GOLD III, 30% ≤ FEV1 ≤ 50% of predicted) and very severe (GOLD IV, FEV1 > 30% of predicted) COPD and death. The model simulated in cycles yearly. The indicators of total costs, number of COPD exacerbations, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used as the model output. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted over a 10-year time horizon. The threshold of incremental total cost per unit effectiveness gained (ICER) was 1.5 times of GDP per capita. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Results

TIO/OLO was 0.007 QALYs more than TIO but 0.012 LYs lower, which increased the total cost by $2268.17 per patient, but the total exacerbations number was less. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis had shown that the ICER exceeded the willingness to pay threshold. Results were robust under most parameter variation, except the parameters of total drug cost of TIO/OLO FDC in univariate sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Although TIO/OLO FDC could reduce the exacerbation risk, it was not cost-effective, and needed to be repriced.

Cost-effectiveness of the fixed-dose combination tiotropium/olodaterol versus tiotropium monotherapy or a fixed-dose combination of long-acting β2-agonist/inhaled corticosteroid for COPD in Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands: a model-based study

OBJECTIVES

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) guidelines advocate treatment with combinations of long-acting bronchodilators for patients with COPD who have persistent symptoms or continue to have exacerbations while using a single bronchodilator. This study assessed the cost-utility of the fixed dose combination of the bronchodilators tiotropium and olodaterol versus two comparators, tiotropium monotherapy and long-acting β2 agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations, in three European countries: Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A previously published COPD patient-level discrete event simulation model was updated with most recent evidence to estimate lifetime quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs for COPD patients receiving either tiotropium/olodaterol, tiotropium monotherapy or LABA/ICS. Treatment efficacy covered impact on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), total and severe exacerbations and pneumonias. The unit costs of medication, maintenance treatment, exacerbations and pneumonias were obtained for each country. The country-specific analyses adhered to the Finnish, Swedish and Dutch pharmacoeconomic guidelines, respectively.

RESULTS

Treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol gained QALYs ranging from 0.09 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.11 (the Netherlands) versus tiotropium and 0.23 (Finland and Sweden) to 0.28 (the Netherlands) versus LABA/ICS. The Finnish payer's incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of tiotropium/olodaterol was €11 000/QALY versus tiotropium and dominant versus LABA/ICS. The Swedish ICERs were €6200/QALY and dominant, respectively (societal perspective). The Dutch ICERs were €14 400 and €9200, respectively (societal perspective). The probability that tiotropium/olodaterol was cost-effective compared with tiotropium at the country-specific (unofficial) threshold values for the maximum willingness to pay for a QALY was 84% for Finland, 98% for Sweden and 99% for the Netherlands. Compared with LABA/ICS, this probability was 100% for all three countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the simulations, tiotropium/olodaterol is a cost-effective treatment option versus tiotropium or LABA/ICS in all three countries. In both Finland and Sweden, tiotropium/olodaterol is more effective and cost saving (ie, dominant) in comparison with LABA/ICS.

Comparison of Effectiveness Using Different Dual Bronchodilator Agents in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment

The effectiveness and safety of fixed dual long-acting bronchodilators for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients have been well established; however, there is a paucity of clinical effectiveness comparison in patients with COPD treatment. The aim of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of three once-daily dual bronchodilator agents in patients with COPD. Patients with diagnosed COPD and treated with a long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) + long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) fixed-dose combination therapy (UME/VIL (umeclidinium and vilanterol inhalation powder), IND/GLY (indacaterol and glycopyrronium), and TIO/OLO (tiotropium and olodaterol)) were enrolled in this retrospective study over a period of 12 months. Effectiveness assessments were evaluated using a COPD assessment test (CAT) and lung function parameters. Besides, times for acute exacerbation were also assessed. The enrolled patients’ number was 177 in IND/GLY, 176 in UME/VIL and 183 in TIO/OLO. Lung function measurements with FEV1 had significantly improved for patients using TIO/OLO (98.7 mL) compared to those of IND/GLY (65.2 mL) and UME/VIL (64.4 mL) (p < 0.001). CAT scores were also significantly decreased in patients treated with TIO/OLO (CAT down 5.6) than those with IND/GLY (3.8) and UME/VIL (3.9) (p = 0.03). Acute exacerbation was also reduced in patients using TIO/OLO (4.9%) compared with those using IND/GLY (10.2%) and UME/VIL (11.9%) (p = 0.01). Significant improvement in pulmonary function, symptoms were demonstrated after 12 months of LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combination therapy with three different treatment options. TIO/OLO demonstrated higher therapeutic effects compared with UME/VIL or IND/GLY. Determining clinical relevance will require a well-designed randomized controlled trial.

A randomized controlled trial of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2 agonist fixed-dose combinations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, combination treatment with long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and long-acting β2 agonist (LABA) increases forced expiratory volume in one second and reduces symptoms compared to monotherapy. In Japan, three different once-daily fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have been prescribed since 2015, although a direct comparison of these FDCs has never been performed. The objective of the present study was to compare the effectiveness, preference, and safety of three LAMA/LABA FDCs—glycopyrronium/indacaterol (Gly/Ind), umeclidinium/vilanterol (Ume/Vil), and tiotropium/olodaterol (Tio/Olo)—in patients with COPD.

Methods

We enrolled 75 COPD outpatients (male:female ratio, 69:6; 77.4 ± 6.9 years). A prospective, randomized, crossover study was conducted on three groups using three FDCs: Gly/Ind; Ume/Vil; and Tio/Olo. Each medication was administered for 4 weeks before crossover (total 12 weeks). After each FDC administration, a respiratory function test and questionnaire survey were conducted. A comparative questionnaire survey of all three LAMA/LABA FDCs was conducted after 12 weeks (following administration of final FDC).

Results

No significant differences in COPD Assessment Test or modified Medical Research Council dyspnea questionnaire were reported in the surveys completed after each FDC administration; no significant differences in spirometric items were observed. In the final comparative questionnaire survey, patients reported better actual feeling of being able to inhale following Gly/Ind administration compared with Tio/Olo, although no significant differences in adverse events or other evaluations were reported.

Conclusions

The three LAMA/LABA FDCs administered to COPD patients show similar effects and safety, although some minor individual preference was reported.

Trial registration This study retrospectively registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (number UMIN000041342, registered on August 6, 2020).

Economic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacotherapy: how well are the real-world issues of medication adherence, comorbidities and adverse drug-reactions addressed?

INTRODUCTION

When estimating the cost-effectiveness or budget impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) medication, it is common practice to use trial data for clinical inputs. However, such inputs do not always reflect the real-world situation. Previous reviews recognized the need for taking real-world data (medication adherence, comorbidity and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) into account. Whether recent cost-effectiveness analyses of COPD medication implemented those recommendations is unknown.

AREAS COVERED

The authors reviewed recent economic evaluations of COPD-maintenance treatments focusing on medication adherence, comorbidity and ADRs.

EXPERT OPINION

In most registration trials of COPD treatment, strict inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied. During trials, patient monitoring is well controlled. As such, medication adherence is often higher than seen in less controlled, real-world environments with more heterogeneous characteristics. Additionally, safety data collected in trials may not be widely generalizable due to more comorbidity and polypharmacy in the real-world. Consequently, when merely relying on trial data, the impact of adherence, comorbidity and ADRs on the cost-effectiveness can be underestimated. To overcome these real-world data gaps, use of pragmatic trials and observational studies in addition to strictly controlled trial data is recommended. To catalyze implementation of these real-world issues, reporting checklists should be updated.

Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone Using a Novel Markov Exacerbation-Based Approach

Purpose

Exacerbations drive outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While patient-level (micro) simulation cost-effectiveness models have been developed that include exacerbations, such models are complex. We developed a novel, exacerbation-based model to assess the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in COPD, using a Markov structure as a simplification of a previously validated microsimulation model.

Methods

The Markov model included three health states: infrequent or frequent exacerbator (IE or FE; ≤1 or ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in prior 12 months, respectively), or death. The model used data from the FLAME study and was run over a 10-year horizon. Cycle length was 1 year, after which patients remained in the same health state or transitioned to another. Analysis was conducted from a Swedish payer's perspective (Swedish healthcare costs, converted into Euros), with incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated (discounted 3% annually).

Results

At all post-baseline timepoints, IND/GLY was associated with more patients in the IE health state and fewer patients in the FE and dead states relative to SFC. Over a 10-year period, IND/GLY was associated with a cost saving of €1,887/patient, an incremental benefit of 0.142 QALYs, and an addition of 0.057 life-years, compared with SFC.

Conclusion

This Markov model represents a novel cost-effectiveness analysis for COPD, with simpler methodology than prior microsimulation models, while retaining exacerbations as drivers of disease progression. In patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations in the previous year, IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SFC.

Fixed-dose combination of umeclidinium and vilanterol for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A systematic review

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common respiratory disease that is predicted to be one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Pharmacologic treatment options of COPD are bronchodilators, using either long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs), or long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), or a combination of two. Anoro Ellipta (umeclidinium + vilanterol) dry powder inhaler, a fixed-dose combination of LAMA and LABA, was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved in 2013 for COPD. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of once daily umeclidinium/vilanterol (62.5 mcg/25 mcg) in COPD patients, focusing on pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics, efficacy and safety in clinical studies and cost. Literature search was done through PubMed (2004-2017) using the terms umeclidinium, vilanterol, COPD, LABA and LAMA. Recent and significant clinical trials about the monocomponents and their combination were identified, in addition to reviews, guidelines for COPD, data from manufacturer and FDA product labels. The search was limited to English language studies on human subjects. Clinical data published on the combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD have shown greater improvements in lung function compared to monotherapies. However, further studies comparing umeclidinium/vilanterol FDC (ANORO) to other LABA/LAMA combinations are needed.

Tiotropium/Olodaterol: A Review in COPD

Tiotropium/olodaterol (Stiolto® Respimat®; Spiolto® Respimat®) is an inhaled fixed-dose combination of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium bromide (hereafter referred to as tiotropium) and the long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist olodaterol. It is available in several countries, including the USA, Japan, China and those of the EU, where it is indicated for the long-term maintenance treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The efficacy of tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 μg/day in patients with COPD was evaluated in phase III or IV trials of 6-52 weeks' duration. Tiotropium/olodaterol improved lung function to a greater extent than each of its individual components or placebo in 12- and 52-week trials. In 6-week trials, tiotropium/olodaterol provided greater lung function benefits over 24 h than the individual components, placebo or twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol. Tiotropium/olodaterol also demonstrated beneficial effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), dyspnoea, inspiratory capacity, exercise endurance and the need for rescue medication. In an 8-week open-label trial, umeclidinium/vilanterol was superior to tiotropium/olodaterol for the primary endpoint of trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s. The tolerability profile of tiotropium/olodaterol was generally similar to that of the individual components. In conclusion, tiotropium/olodaterol provides a useful option for the maintenance treatment of COPD, with the convenience of once-daily administration via a single inhaler.

The once-daily fixed-dose combination of olodaterol and tiotropium in the management of COPD: current evidence and future prospects

Long-acting bronchodilators are the cornerstone of pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Spiolto® or Stiolto® is a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing two long-acting bronchodilators, the long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist tiotropium (TIO) and the long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonist olodaterol (OLO), formulated in the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler. A total of 13 large, multicentre studies of up to 52 weeks' duration have documented its efficacy in more than 15,000 patients with COPD. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg FDC significantly increases pulmonary function compared with placebo and its respective constituent mono-components TIO 5 µg and OLO 5 µg. TIO/OLO 5/5 µg also results in statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as dyspnoea, use of rescue medication, and health status. Addition of OLO 5 µg to TIO 5 µg reduces the rate of moderate-to-severe exacerbations by approximately 10%. Compared with placebo and TIO 5 µg, TIO/OLO 5/5 µg significantly improves exercise capacity (e.g. endurance time) and physical activity, the latter increase being reached by a unique combination behavioural modification intervention, dual bronchodilatation and exercise training. Overall, the likelihood for patients to experience a clinically significant benefit is higher with TIO/OLO 5/5 µg than with its constituent mono-components, which usually yield smaller improvements which do not always reach statistical significance, compared with baseline or placebo. This supports the early introduction of TIO/OLO 5/5 µg in the management of patients with symptomatic COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Double bronchodilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a crude analysis from a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The combination of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) in a single inhaler is a viable treatment option for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here, we systematically review the current knowledge on double bronchodilation for the treatment of COPD, with a specific focus on its efficacy versus placebo and/or monotherapy bronchodilation.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical trials investigating LABA/LAMA combination therapies was conducted. Articles were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus on June 26, 2016. We specifically selected clinical trials with a randomized controlled or crossover design published in any scientific journal showing the following characteristics: 1) comparison of different LABA/LAMA combinations in a single inhaler for patients with COPD, 2) dose approved in Europe, and 3) focus on efficacy (versus placebo and/or bronchodilator monotherapy) in terms of lung function, respiratory symptoms, or exacerbations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 26 clinical trials conducted on 24,338 patients. All LABA/LAMA combinations were consistently able to improve lung function compared with both placebo and bronchodilator monotherapy. Improvements in symptoms were also consistent versus placebo, showing some lack of correlation for some clinical end points and combinations versus monotherapy bronchodilation. Albeit being an exploratory end point, exacerbations showed an improvement with LABA/LAMA combinations over placebo in some trials; however, scarce information was available in comparison with bronchodilator monotherapy in most studies.

CONCLUSION

Our data show consistent improvements for LABA/LAMA combinations, albeit with some variability (depending on the clinical end point, the specific combination, and the comparison group). Clinicians should be aware that these are average differences. All treatments should be tailored at the individual level to optimize clinical outcomes.