Dataset Information

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the FULFIL Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with a high healthcare resource and cost burden. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations in the FULFIL study. Patients received either once-daily, single inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg or twice-daily dual inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist therapy (budesonide/formoterol) 400 µg/12 µg.

Methods

FULFIL was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers were recorded by patients in a daily electronic diary; the costs of healthcare resource utilization were calculated post hoc using UK reference costs.

Results

Over 24 weeks, slightly fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (169/911; 18.6%) required contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (180/899; 20.0%). Over 52 weeks in an extension population, fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol required unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (25.2% vs. 32.7%). Non-drug costs per treated patient per year were lower in the fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol group than the budesonide/formoterol group over 24 and 52 weeks (£653.80 vs. £763.32 and £749.22 vs. £988.03, respectively), with the total annualized cost over 24 weeks being slightly greater for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol than budesonide/formoterol (£1,289.35 vs. £1,267.45).

Conclusions

This healthcare resource utilization evidence suggests that, in a clinical trial setting over a 24- or 52-week timeframe, non-drug costs associated with management of a single inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol are lower compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.

Funding

GSK.

SUBMITTER: Ismaila AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5599456 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Patients and methodsThe validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionAt the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Project description:BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV), primarily genotypes 6 and 11, cause the majority of cases of anogenital warts (AGW). Although benign, AGW are associated with a substantial economic and psychosocial burden. Several vaccines have been developed to prevent HPV. The objective of this study was to describe the epidemiology and healthcare resource utilization of AGW in Morocco, as well as the associated costs of treatment from the public healthcare perspective.MethodsThis was a descriptive analysis of questionnaire data obtained via a Delphi panel. The panel consisted of 9 physicians practicing in public hospitals in Morocco (4 dermatologists and 5 obstetricians/gynecologists). The questionnaire collected data on physician and practice characteristics, diagnostic tests and procedures, treatments, and follow-up (including recurrence) of patients with AGW. Questionnaire items on which ≥ 70% of respondents agreed were considered as having consensus. Costs associated with diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up were calculated in Moroccan dirham (MAD) and converted to euros (€) based on official national price lists for public hospitals and the HCRU estimates from the questionnaire.ResultsThe physician-estimated prevalence of AGW in Morocco was 1.6%-2.6% in women and 2.0%-5.3% in men. A mean (median) of 6.4 (4) patients per month per physician sought medical attention for AGW. Simple observation was the most common diagnostic method for AGW in both men and women, and excision was the most prescribed therapy (75%), requiring a mean of 2 visits. Recurrence occurred in approximately 27% of patients. The cost per case of managing AGW, including recurrence, was estimated at 2182-2872 MAD (€207-272) for women and 2170-2450 MAD (€206-233) for men. The total annual cost of medical consultations for AGW in Morocco ranged from 3,271,877 MAD to 4,253,703 MAD (€310,828-404,102).ConclusionsExpert consensus indicates that AGW represent a significant burden to the Moroccan public healthcare system. These data can inform policy makers regarding this vaccine-preventable disease.

Project description:IntroductionDirectly recorded patient experience of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) can complement lung function and exacerbation rate data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical studies. The FULFIL study recorded daily symptoms and activity limitation together with additional patient-reported outcomes of dyspnea and HRQoL, as part of the prespecified analyses. FULFIL co-primary endpoint data have been previously reported.MethodsFULFIL was a phase III, 24-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study comparing once-daily single inhaler triple therapy [fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI)] 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg with twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist therapy [budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR)] 400 µg/12 µg in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. A subset participated for 52 weeks. Patient-reported assessments were: Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD™ (E-RS: COPD), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) for COPD, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), baseline and transitional dyspnea indices (TDI) and daily and global anchor questions for activity limitation.ResultsFF/UMEC/VI showed greater reductions from baseline in 4-weekly mean E-RS: COPD total and all subscale scores compared with BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) at each time period. FF/UMEC/VI also demonstrated greater improvements from baseline at weeks 4 and 24 in SGRQ domain scores and TDI focal score compared with BUD/FOR. At weeks 4 and 24, improvements greater than the minimal clinically important difference from baseline were observed in CAT score with FF/UMEC/VI, but not BUD/FOR; differences were statistically significant (P ≤ 0.003).ConclusionThese findings demonstrate sustained daily symptom and HRQoL benefits of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR. The inclusion of the CAT may provide data that are readily generalizable to everyday clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161.FundingGSK.