Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

ABSTRACT: The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model.The model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. For the selected timeframe (1-40 years) and probabilistic analysis, model outputs included disaggregated costs, total costs, exacerbations, life-years and QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Random-effects meta-analysis of tiotropium comparator trials estimated treatment effect of UMEC/VI as 92.17 mL (95 % confidence interval: 61.52, 122.82) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s. With this benefit, UMEC/VI resulted in an estimated annual exacerbation reduction of 0.04 exacerbations/patient and 0.36 life years gained compared to tiotropium over patient lifetime. With an additional 0.18 QALYs/patient and an additional lifetime cost of £372/patient at price parity, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared to tiotropium was £2088/QALY. This ICER increased to £17,541/QALY when price of UMEC/VI was increased to that of indacaterol plus tiotropium in separate inhalers. The ICER improved when model duration was reduced from patient lifetime to 1 or 5 years, or when treatment effect was assumed to last for 12 months following treatment initiation.UMEC/VI can be considered a cost-effective alternative to tiotropium at a certain price.

SUBMITTER: Punekar YS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4676898 | biostudies-other | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

Punekar Yogesh Suresh YS Roberts Graeme G Ismaila Afisi A O'Leary Martin M

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 20151212

<h4>Background</h4>The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model.<h4>Methods</h4>The model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equation ...[more]

PMID: 26692823

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods:A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model. Results:Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+?0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+?0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (-?0.053; 95% CI: -?0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: -?£645, -?£240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+?0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+?0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (-?0.033; 95% CI: -?0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses. Conclusions:For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Project description:BackgroundBoth 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.ObjectiveThis 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThis 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.ConclusionUMEC/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.

Project description:BackgroundTiotropium (TIO) is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long-acting anticholinergic), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence suggests that tiotropium is superior to usual non-LAMA care (UC) but may also have benefits compared to other LAMAs in preventing and limiting the effects of severe exacerbations. The primary objective of this study was to undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of adding tiotropium to usual care versus usual care alone. A secondary objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to glycopyrronium (GLY), another LAMA. The study was conducted with a Swedish setting in mind.MethodsA Markov cohort model, incorporating the effects of exacerbations, was populated with efficacy data from the UPLIFT and SPARK trials and epidemiological data relevant for a Swedish patient population. Treatment efficacy of tiotropium was modelled as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations and as a slow-down of overall disease progression. The model followed patients over their remaining life-time.ResultsThe base case analysis showed that patients treated with tiotropium gained 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to usual care alone at an incremental cost of SEK 15,041, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of SEK 224,850. Compared to glycopyrronium the QALY gained was estimated to 0.23 QALYs in favour of tiotropium at an incremental cost of SEK 2423, yielding a cost per QALY gained of SEK 10,456. The results were mainly driven by differences in the risk of severe exacerbations.ConclusionAt the current implicit willingness-to-pay (WTP) per QALY threshold in Sweden, the results from this study indicate that tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when added to usual non-LAMA care in the treatment of moderate to very severe COPD in Sweden. In addition, tiotropium is a highly cost-effective intervention when compared to glycopyrronium monotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundA 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsUMEC/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.ConclusionUMEC/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 ?2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Project description:ObjectivesChronic 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsTreatment 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.ConclusionsBased 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.

Project description:The approval of new immunotherapies has dramatically changed the treatment landscape of metastatic melanoma. These survival gains come with trade-offs in side effects and costs, as well as important considerations for third-party payer systems, physicians, and patients.To develop a Markov model to determine the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab-ipilimumab combination as firstline therapy in metastatic melanoma, while accounting for differential effectiveness in programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) positive and negative patients.A 3-state Markov model (PD-L1 positive stable disease, PD-L1 negative stable disease, and progression and/or death) was developed using a U.S. societal perspective with a lifetime time horizon of 14.5 years. Transition probabilities were calculated from progression-free (PF) survival data reported in the CheckMate-067 trial. Costs were expressed in 2015 U.S. dollars and were determined using national sources. Adverse event (AE) management was determined using immune-related AE (irAE) data from CheckMate-067, irAE management guides for nivolumab and ipilimumab, and treatment guidelines. Utilities were obtained from published literature, using melanoma-specific studies when available, and were weighted based on incidence and duration of irAEs. Base case, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not the cost-effective choice ($454,092 per PF quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) compared with nivolumab monotherapy in a base case analysis at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per PFQALY. Combination therapy and nivolumab monotherapy were cost-effective choices compared with ipilimumab monotherapy. PD-L1 positive status, utility of nivolumab and combination therapy, and medication costs contributed the most uncertainty to the model. In a population of 100% PD-L1 negative patients, nivolumab was still the optimal treatment, but combination therapy had an improved incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $295,903 per PFQALY. Combination therapy became dominated by nivolumab, when 68% of the sample was PD-L1 positive. In addition, the cost of ipilimumab would have to decrease to < $21,555 per dose for combination therapy to have an ICER < $100,000 per PFQALY and to < $19,151 (a 42% reduction) to be more cost-effective than nivolumab monotherapy.Nivolumab-ipilimumab combination therapy was not cost-effective compared with nivolumab monotherapy, which was the most cost-effective option. Professionals in managed care settings should consider the pharmacoeconomic implications of these new immunotherapies as they make value-based formulary decisions, and future cost-effectiveness studies are completed.No funding supported this study. Merino was a contractor with EMD Serono at the time of this study but does not have any conflicts of interest and did not receive any funding related to this study. All other authors have no financial disclosures and no conflicts of interest. All the authors contributed to the study concept and design. Tran, McDowell, and Barcelon took the lead in data collection, along with Oh, Keyvani, and Merino. All authors except Merino contributed to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Oh, Tran, McDowell, and Wilson and revised by Oh, Tran, McDowell, Wilson, and Keyvani. This analysis was presented at Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting 2016, April 19-22, 2016, in San Francisco, California, and at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Annual International Meeting, May 21-25, 2016, in Washington DC.

Project description:Objectives: This study analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone/umeclidinium/vilanterol triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. budesonide/formoterol double combination (BUD/FOR) in the treatment of moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and provides evidence for COPD treatment decisions. Methods: From the perspective of the healthcare system, a Markov model was established that consists of four states-stable period, non-severely deteriorating period, severely deteriorating period, and death-according to real-world COPD progression. The model period comprises 6 months, with a cycle length of 14 years. The initial state, transition probabilities, costs, and utility data were collected from the FULFIL trial, published literature, hospital record surveys, and China Health Statistics Yearbook. The discount rate was 5%, and the threshold was set as the Chinese per capita GDP in 2020 (¥72,447). The cost, utility, transition probabilities, and discount rate were calculated through TreeagePro11 software. The results were analyzed via one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Results: The baseline study shows that the 14-year treatment for FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/FOR groups are ¥199,765.55 and ¥173,030.05 with effectiveness at 8.54 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 7.73 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is ¥33,006.80/QALY, which is below the threshold. A tornado diagram of a one-way sensitivity analysis shows that the top three factors that affected the results are the non-severe deterioration rates of FF/UMEC/VI, the cost of FF/UMEC/VI and the non-severe deterioration rates of BUD/FOR. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that FF/UMEC/VI (compared to BUD/FOR) can be made cost-effective under the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold (¥38,000). Furthermore, the likelihood of cost-effectiveness increases with a higher WTP. Conclusions: Compared with the double combination (BUD/FOR), the triple combination (FF/UMEC/VI) is more cost-effective under the Chinese per capita GDP threshold.

Project description:ImportancePulmonary rehabilitation (PR) after exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is effective in reducing COPD hospitalizations and mortality while improving health-related quality of life, yet use of PR remains low. Estimates of the cost-effectiveness of PR in this setting could inform policies to improve uptake.ObjectiveTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR after hospitalization for COPD.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation estimated the cost-effectiveness of participation in PR compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization in the US using a societal perspective analysis. A Markov microsimulation model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness in the US health care system with a lifetime horizon, 1-year cycle length, and a discounted rate of 3% per year for both costs and outcomes. Data sources included published literature from October 1, 2001, to April 1, 2021, with the primary source being an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries living with COPD between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. The analysis was designed and conducted from October 1, 2019, to December 15, 2021. A base case microsimulation, univariate analyses, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.InterventionsPulmonary rehabilitation compared with no PR after COPD hospitalization.Main outcomes and measuresNet cost in US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.ResultsAmong the hypothetical cohort with a mean age of 76.9 (age range, 60-92) years and 58.6% women, the base case microsimulation from a societal perspective demonstrated that PR resulted in net cost savings per patient of $5721 (95% prediction interval, $3307-$8388) and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (gain of 0.53 [95% prediction interval, 0.43-0.63] years). The findings of net cost savings and improved QALE with PR did not change in univariate analyses of patient age, the Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease stage, or number of PR sessions. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PR resulted in net cost savings and improved QALE in every one of 1000 samples and was the dominant strategy in 100% of simulations at any willingness-to-pay threshold. In a 1-way sensitivity analysis of total cost, assuming completion of 36 sessions, a single PR session would remain cost saving to $171 per session and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $884 per session for $50 000/QALY and $1597 per session for $100 000/QALY.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, PR after COPD hospitalization appeared to result in net cost savings along with improvement in QALE. These findings suggest that stakeholders should identify policies to increase access and adherence to PR for patients with COPD.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets