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

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 Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate versus Dual Therapies in Moderate-to-Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: United Kingdom Analysis Using the ETHOS Study

Background

In the 52-week ETHOS study (NCT02465567), fixed-dose triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) reduced moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations versus fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA dual therapies. Here, ETHOS data were used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies in the United Kingdom.

Methods

Costs, exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and LYs were extrapolated using a Markov model that considered disease severity progression, risk of moderate and severe exacerbations, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving BGF 320/14.4/10 µg, the LAMA/LABA glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg (GFF), or the ICS/LABA budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 320/10 µg (BFF). Utilities for COPD severity states were estimated using EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level data from ETHOS. Exacerbation disutilities were sourced from published literature. Healthcare resource utilization was based on ETHOS data, published literature, key external experts’ input, and informed assumptions. Unit costs came from the UK National Health Service Schedule of Reference Costs, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care from the Personal Social Services Research Unit, and published literature. A lifetime horizon was considered, with costs, QALYs, and LYs discounted at 3.5% per annum.

Results

The incremental cost–utility ratio (ICUR; per QALY gained) was £9901 for BGF versus GFF and £2164 for BGF versus BFF. The probability of treatments being cost-effective at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of ICUR <£20,000 was 85.1% for BGF, 14.3% for GFF, and 0.6% for BFF.

Conclusion

Based on ETHOS data, BGF was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold (ICUR <£20,000). The main cost-effectiveness driver for BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA therapies was reduction in rate of exacerbations, which reduced costs and preserved quality of life.

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.

The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background

Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) are widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A novel LAMA/LABA combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5 μg/25 μg) is approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μg in symptomatic patients with COPD from the perspective of the Chinese National Healthcare System.

Methods

A simple analysis included three studies in the meta-analysis that compared UMEC/VI with TIO. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI compared with TIO treatment in symptomatic patients with COPD. First, utilities, clinical efficacy, and adverse events obtained from the literature were utilized as model inputs. Costs were from Chinese average data, including local data. Costs were expressed in dollars based on 2020 prices. Then, the model outputs including drug costs, other medical costs, and total costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Furthermore, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were analyzed. Finally, the influences of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results were assessed by means of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

This study revealed that UMEC/VI treatment had a higher rate of clinical efficacy in comparison with TIO, and the differences in the rate of adverse events between the two treatments were not significant. The results indicated that UMEC/VI was superior to TIO, which provided an increase in QALYs (0.002) and a total cost savings of $765.67 per patient over 3 years. In the base case, the ICER of UMEC/VI is -$397468.04/QALY compared with TIO, suggesting that UMEC/VI may be considered a dominant option over TIO. According to the Chinese medical system, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 61.6% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31554/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

Conclusion

UMEC/VI could be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Chinese National Healthcare System perspective. These results may help decision-makers in China when making judgements on which treatments to administer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone in Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases in China

Background

Fixed dose dual bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) plus long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) are a new and important inhaled preparation for COPD treatment in China. Among these, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) is increasingly being used in China, especially among the elderly.

Purpose

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VIL compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (FSC) as one of the main therapeutic drugs for moderate to very severe COPD in China.

Methods

A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes from a societal perspective in a 10-year time horizon. Patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were treated with UMEC/VIL (62.5/25µg) or FSC (50/500ug). Data concerning clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, transition probability, exacerbation rate, and mortality were obtained from the published literature and official government datasets. The costs were presented in US dollars based on 2021 prices. The indicators of total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and mortality were used as the model output. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated considering the threshold recommended by WHO. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the stability of results.

Results

Compared with FSC, treatment with UMEC/VIL could save $1947.18, with a gain of 0.12 life-years and 0.05 QALYs. Further, 28.0% patients treated with UMEC/VIL and 29.2% patients treated with FSC were predicted to die after 10 years. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis showed that UMEC/VIL was dominant to FSC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.

Conclusion

UMEC/VIL is a cost-effective treatment option compared with FSC among patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.

The role of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β agonist fixed-dose combination treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China: a narrative review

Objective

To provide an overview of the existing international and Chinese evidence regarding dual bronchodilator inhalation therapy and to make recommendations for the further improvement of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management in clinical practice in China.

Background

COPD is a progressive lung disease that is characterized by persistent airflow limitation and is a major contributor to the disease burden in China. Symptoms in Chinese patients are relatively more severe. Currently, many Chinese COPD patients are undertreated. Dual bronchodilator therapy consisting of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β agonist (LABA) is considered a good choice for COPD patients due to the increased bronchodilation without an increase in adverse events; these combinations can fill in the gap in currently available COPD treatments and provide new pharmacotherapy options for Chinese patients. LAMA/LABA fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) have become more important in clinical practice and guidelines in China regarding their therapeutic effects and safety.

Methods

Clinical trials on LAMA/LABA in COPD were retrieved in ClinicalTrials.gov, while important COPD guidelines published in English or Chinese were found in PubMed and Wanfang Database.

Conclusions

We recommend the adoption of a clinical pathway in China that includes an assessment and management algorithm that considers the clinical characteristics in China and classifies the phenotypic characteristics of COPD according to a suitable system. Based on the current information, we can conclude that LAMA/LABA FDCs are a suitable and economically viable choice to reduce symptoms and improve the quality of life (QoL) of patients.

Therapeutic Success in Swiss COPD Patients Receiving Dual Bronchodilation Therapy as COPD Maintenance Treatment

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often reduced by high symptom burden and frequent exacerbations. So far, data on therapeutic success in Swiss COPD patients receiving dual bronchodilation therapy as COPD maintenance treatment are limited. Data from a recently published, non-interventional study on clinical benefit after the start of combined tiotropium-olodaterol treatment were analyzed focusing on Swiss patients compared to the overall cohort including patients from various European countries. Demographic data on the changes in Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) for the assessment of HRQoL in correlation to symptoms and the number of exacerbations, as well as physician's global assessment (PGE), were evaluated 6 weeks after treatment start. In Switzerland (n = 61), significantly more patients had comorbidities and exacerbations but showed less symptoms compared to the overall cohort (n = 4639). HRQoL improved in both cohorts, with a negative correlation to symptom burden and number of exacerbations in the overall cohort. PGE scores improved after 6 weeks with a better general condition at baseline in Swiss patients (PGE score 4/5: 68.9% [Swiss cohort] vs. 49.0% [overall cohort]. Despite significant differences regarding the presence of symptoms and exacerbations, therapeutic success was similar in both patient groups. Highly symptomatic patients benefited mostly from tiotropium-olodaterol treatment.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO).

METHODS

This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Hospital Admission and Readmission Among US Patients Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients hospitalized for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are at risk of further readmissions, increased treatment costs, and excess mortality. This study evaluated inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients receiving initial maintenance therapy with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium (TIO).

METHODS

This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients with COPD who initiated maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI or TIO from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as earliest dispensing). Eligibility criteria included: ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; ≥ 12 months of continuous eligibility pre-index; age ≥ 40 years at index; no pre- or post-index asthma diagnosis; and no pre-index claims for medications containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting β2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Outcomes included time to first on-treatment COPD-related inpatient admission, rate of on-treatment COPD-related admissions, and rate of all-cause and COPD-related readmissions within 30 and 90 days. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Matched UMEC/VI and TIO cohorts each included 7997 patients and were balanced on baseline characteristics (mean age 70.9 years; female 47.1-47.6%). Over 12 months, patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly reduced risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.87 [0.79, 0.96]; p = 0.006) and rates (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.72, 0.92]; p = 0.008) of COPD-related inpatient admissions compared with TIO. While all-cause readmission rates were similar between treatment cohorts, readmission rates among patients with an initial admission length of stay of 1-3 days were numerically lower for UMEC/VI versus TIO (30-day readmissions: 10.5% vs. 12.4%; 90-day readmissions: 15.5% vs. 19.8%). Similar patterns were observed for COPD-related readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight the real-world benefits of dual therapy with UMEC/VI versus TIO in reducing inpatient admissions and readmissions in patients with COPD, which may translate to lower healthcare costs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of COPD screening programs in primary care for high-risk patients in China

We built a decision-analytic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of using portable spirometer and questionnaire to screen chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD) with no screening (i.e. usual care) among chronic bronchitis patient in China. A lifetime horizon and a payer perspective were adopted. Cost data of health services including spirometry screening and treatment costs covered both maintenance and exacerbation. The result indicated that portable spirometer screening was cost-saving compared with questionnaire screening and no screening, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of −5026 and −1766 per QALY, respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. In summary, portable spirometer screening is likely the optimal option for COPD screening among chronic bronchitis patients China.

Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study

BACKGROUND

The Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) is a simple patient-reported tool to measure clinical control of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

This open-label, single-arm, non-interventional study (NCT03663569) investigated changes in CCQ score during treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol in clinical practice.

METHODS

Data were included from consenting COPD patients, enrolled in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Switzerland and Ukraine, who were receiving a new prescription for tiotropium/olodaterol according to the treating physician in a real-world environment. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of therapeutic success, defined as a 0.4-point decrease in CCQ score after treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol for approximately 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Overall, 4819 patients were treated; baseline and Week 6 CCQ scores were available for 4700 patients, mostly classified as Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) B (51.6%) or D (42.7%). After 6 weeks' treatment, 81.4% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 80.24-82.49) of patients achieved therapeutic success; mean improvement in overall CCQ score was 1.02 points (95% CI 1.00-1.05). Improved CCQ score was seen in 92.2% of patients (95% CI 91.43-92.98), 2.5% had no change and 5.3% showed a worsening. When stratified by prior treatment, the greatest benefit was seen in treatment-naïve patients, with 85.7% achieving therapeutic success, compared with 79.5% of those pretreated with long-acting β2-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and 74.2% of those pretreated with LABA or long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy. Overall, rescue medication decreased by 1.25 puffs/day (95% CI 1.19-1.31) versus baseline. In total, 29 patients (0.6%) reported drug-related adverse events and 7 patients reported serious adverse events (0.15%).

CONCLUSION

In 4700 COPD patients, 6 weeks' treatment with tiotropium/olodaterol, as initial treatment or follow-up to LAMA or LABA monotherapy or LABA/ICS, improved CCQ and decreased rescue medication use. The adverse event profile was consistent with the known safety profile of tiotropium/olodaterol.

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.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

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.

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.

The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high clinical and economic burden. Optimal pharmacological therapy for COPD aims to reduce symptoms and the frequency and severity of exacerbations. Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is an approved combination therapy for once-daily maintenance treatment of patients with COPD. This study evaluated the impact of delaying UMEC/VI initiation on medical costs and exacerbation risk.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with COPD who initiated UMEC/VI between 4/28/2014 and 7/31/2016 was conducted using the Optum Research Database. The index date was the first COPD visit after UMEC/VI available on US formulary (Commercial 4/28/2014; Medicare Advantage 1/1/2015). Patients were followed for 12 months post-index, and categorized into 12 cohorts corresponding to month (30-day period) of UMEC/VI initiation (i.e. Months 1-12) post-index. The outcomes studied during the follow up period included COPD-related and all-cause medical costs, and risk of COPD exacerbations. Marginal structural models (MSM) were used to control for time-varying confounding due to changes in treatment and severity during follow up.

RESULTS

2,200 patients initiating UMEC/VI were included in the study sample. Patients' average age was 69.3 years, 49.9% were female and 69.7% were Medicare insured. Following MSM analysis, 12-month adjusted COPD-related medical costs increased by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.1-5.9%; p = 0.044) for each monthly delay in UMEC/VI initiation, with a 37.4% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI in Month 12 versus Month 1 ($13,087 vs. $9524). The 12-month adjusted all-cause medical costs increased by 2.8% (95% CI: 0.6-5.2%; p = 0.013) for each monthly delay, with a 36.1% higher adjusted cost for patients initiating UMEC/VI at Month 12 versus Month 1 ($22,766 vs. $16,727). The monthly risk of severe exacerbation was significantly higher in patients who had not yet initiated UMEC/VI than those who had (hazard ratio: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.35-2.23; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prompt use of UMEC/VI following a physician visit for COPD appears to result in economic and clinical benefits, with reductions in medical costs and exacerbation risk. Additional research is warranted to assess the benefits of initiating UMEC/VI as a first-line therapy compared with escalation to UMEC/VI from monotherapies.

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.