Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK.

ABSTRACT: UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.

SUBMITTER: Fenwick E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7983252 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.Patients and methodsThe analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.ConclusionBased on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

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:Background: The US population includes 24 million to 29 million people with diagnosed and undiagnosed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) in reducing COPD exacerbations. Long-term population implications of SITT use have not been quantified. Objectives: This simulation-based projection aimed to estimate the potential impact of widespread SITT use on the US COPD population. Methods: Exacerbation and all-cause mortality reductions reported in the Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy in Obstructive Lung Disease trial (ETHOS; NCT02465567) were used to project clinical outcomes in US patients meeting ETHOS trial eligibility criteria (ETHOS-Eligible) and patients meeting a practical definition of SITT eligibility (Expanded ETHOS-Eligible). The US COPD population was modeled with 1000 simulations of patient progression over 10 years. Agent characteristics were based on literature and claims analysis of the 2016-2018 Medicare 100% fee-for-service and IBM MarketScan® databases. Agent annual characteristics reflected incident cases, changes in COPD severity, treatment, mortality, and exacerbations under status quo treatment patterns and scenarios for the adoption of SITT. The scenarios assumed the reduced exacerbation and mortality rates associated with SITT according to ETHOS trial outcomes mean values. Results: Higher than current SITT adoption over 10 years would be expected to substantially reduce COPD exacerbation-associated hospitalizations by 2 million. Applying mean improvements reported in ETHOS for SITT would extend average patient life expectancy 2.2 years for ETHOS-Eligible patients and 1.7 years for Expanded ETHOS-Eligible patients. The number needed to treat to extend the average patient life by 1 year was 8 for the ETHOS-Eligible population and 10 for the Expanded ETHOS-Eligible population. Discussion: Widespread SITT adoption may be impeded by competitive pressures from generic treatments and nonadherence, and efficacy observed in clinical trials may not occur in real-world populations. Conclusions: Assuming ETHOS treatment effects and adherence translate to clinical practice, higher than current use of SITT can substantially reduce COPD exacerbations and hospitalizations and extend survival. These results should be viewed cautiously, because the improved outcomes for SITT in the ETHOS final retrieved vital statistics data were not statistically significant for all comparator therapy groups.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets