Cost-effectiveness analysis of a fixed-dose combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium as maintenance treatment for COPD

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

The basis of COPD maintenance treatment is the long-acting bronchodilators and the inhaled corticosteroids. Faced with the recent modifications in the clinical practice guidelines, we have carried out a review of studies that contrast the various therapeutic alternatives and pharmacological agents within each category, with the fundamental purpose of shedding light on which of these options prove to be more effective. Triple therapy stands out as essential in poorly controlled patients or with an eosinophilic phenotype, surpassing dual therapy. However, among the combinations of LAMA/LABA or LAMA/LABA/IC, no drug is observed to be superior in the reviewed evidence. Although triple therapies include corticosteroids, there does not appear to be a significant increase in side effects or pneumonia. Regarding monotherapy with LAMA, no significant differences are seen between the drugs, but in dual therapy with LABA/IC, the budesonide/formoterol combination seems to offer better control than fluticasone/salmeterol.

How the cost-effectiveness results change in the China health policy environment: an economic evaluation of glycopyrrolate/formoterol for the treatment of COPD

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of glycopyrrolate/formoterol compared with tiotropium bromide for the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD in China and discuss the influence of healthcare policies on the economic evaluation.

METHODS

A Markov model with seven disease states was built to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of glycopyrrolate/formoterol from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare sector. Drug prices both before and after the negotiation were applied to discuss the influence on the economic evaluation results. Exacerbation and adverse event were included in each cycle. The improvement of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) and incidence rate of exacerbation were derived from pooled PINNACLE analysis. Mortality rates from Chinese life tables were adjusted using hazard ratios. Direct medical costs were modeled in accordance with the perspective chosen. Health resource utilization were derived from previous studies and expert's opinions. Life-years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incidence of exacerbation were simulated as the health outcomes. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability analysis were conducted to explore the robustness of the base case results. Several scenario analyses were also designed.

RESULTS

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol generated an additional 0.0063 LYs and 0.0032 QALYs with lower lifetime costs compared with tiotropium (CNY 27,854 vs. CNY 33,189) and was proved to be the dominant strategy in the base case analysis. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base case results. The probabilities of glycopyrrolate/formoterol being cost-effective were 96.5, 95.7, and 93.0% when CNY 72,000 (1 time GDP per capital), CNY 108,000, and CNY 216,000 were used as thresholds, respectively. Compared with the scenario where price before negotiation was used, the cost-effectiveness based on current price was significantly increased.

CONCLUSION

Glycopyrrolate/formoterol was demonstrated to be a clinically and cost-effective treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD in China using the latest price. The negotiation policy could increase the cost-effectiveness and benefit the patients.

Benefit-harm analysis of azithromycin for the prevention of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Background

Low-dose oral azithromycin therapy is recommended as a preventive treatment for acute exacerbations of COPD. However, the overall benefit–harm balance of this treatment has not been well studied.

Methods

A probabilistic Markov model of COPD was created to simulate the course of COPD over 20 years. The model was populated with evidence from the literature and dedicated data analysis. The benefit of azithromycin was modelled as a reduction in exacerbation rates. Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, hearing loss, gastrointestinal symptoms and antimicrobial resistance (leading to a gradual decline in the effectiveness of azithromycin), were considered. All outcomes were assigned a health-related utility weight to estimate the overall net change in the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) associated with the use of azithromycin.

Results

In patients with a positive exacerbation history, azithromycin resulted in a net QALY gain of 17.9 per 100 patients (99.8% probability of expected QALY gain) over 20 years. The net benefit increased to 21.8 QALYs per 100 patients (99.9% probability of expected QALY gain) among the ‘frequent exacerbator’ subgroup. Azithromycin was not net beneficial among those without any moderate/severe exacerbations in the previous year. Findings were robust against series of sensitivity, scenario and threshold analyses.

Conclusions

Long-term therapy with azithromycin confers a net benefit to ex-smoker patients with COPD with a recent history of exacerbations and an even larger benefit to those who are frequent exacerbators.

[COPD inhaled therapy narrative review]

Inhaled therapy with long-acting bronchodilators is the base of pharmacological treatment in COPD. In order to find out those that offer better control, a search was carried out in Medline (Pubmed). Comparative studies of inhaler therapy in COPD patients were analyzed. The comparison between the fixed combination LABA/LAMA versus LABA/CI in non-exacerbating patients, revealed a better control with LABA/LAMA. Within the LABA/CI combinations, budesonide/formoterol combination offered better control. LAMA inhalers revealed no great differences, but when compared to LABA, it offered a better control. Regarding triple therapy in a single device, was superior to double therapy and to triple therapy in two devices, with no relevant differences among the available combinations.

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 drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability.Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value.Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country's essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.