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.This study was funded by GSK (study number HO-17-17500). The funders of the study had a role in study design, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the report. Data analysis was conducted by ICON Health Economics and funded by GSK. No funding was provided to employees of ICON Health Economics for manuscript developmen

Single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with advanced COPD: Bayesian modeling of the healthcare resource utilization data and associated costs from the IMPACT trial.

This is the final version. Available from Dove Press via the DOI in this record. Data Availability: The datasets supporting the results reported in this manuscript are not publicly available. Access to the raw data may be granted on reasonable request to the corresponding author dependent on the intended use and subject to third-party agreements.OBJECTIVES: In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting. METHODS: In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs. RESULTS: Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals. CONCLUSIONS: PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.GlaxoSmithKlin

Development of the Galaxy Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Model Using Data from ECLIPSE: Internal Validation of a Linked-Equations Cohort Model

BACKGROUND: The recent joint International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research / Society for Medical Decision Making Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force emphasized the importance of conceptualizing and validating models. We report a new model of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (part of the Galaxy project) founded on a conceptual model, implemented using a novel linked-equation approach, and internally validated. METHODS: An expert panel developed a conceptual model including causal relationships between disease attributes, progression, and final outcomes. Risk equations describing these relationships were estimated using data from the Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study, with costs estimated from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study. Implementation as a linked-equation model enabled direct estimation of health service costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for COPD patients over their lifetimes. Internal validation compared 3 years of predicted cohort experience with ECLIPSE results. RESULTS: At 3 years, the Galaxy COPD model predictions of annual exacerbation rate and annual decline in forced expiratory volume in 1 second fell within the ECLIPSE data confidence limits, although 3-year overall survival was outside the observed confidence limits. Projections of the risk equations over time permitted extrapolation to patient lifetimes. Averaging the predicted cost/QALY outcomes for the different patients within the ECLIPSE cohort gives an estimated lifetime cost of £25,214 (undiscounted)/£20,318 (discounted) and lifetime QALYs of 6.45 (undiscounted/5.24 [discounted]) per ECLIPSE patient. CONCLUSIONS: A new form of model for COPD was conceptualized, implemented, and internally validated, based on a series of linked equations using epidemiological data (ECLIPSE) and cost data (TORCH). This Galaxy model predicts COPD outcomes from treatment effects on disease attributes such as lung function, exacerbations, symptoms, or exercise capacity; further external validation is required

Hereditary angioedema: beyond international consensus - circa December 2010 - The Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Dr. David McCourtie Lecture

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The 2010 International Consensus Algorithm for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema was published earlier this year in this Journal (Bowen et al. <it>Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology </it>2010, 6:24 - <url>http://www.aacijournal.com/content/6/1/24</url>). Since that publication, there have been multiple phase III clinical trials published on either prophylaxis or therapy of hereditary angioedema and some of these products have changed approval status in various countries. This manuscript was prepared to review and update the management of hereditary angioedema.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To review approaches for the diagnosis and management of hereditary angioedema (HAE) circa December 2010 and present thoughts on moving from HAE management from international evidence-based consensus to facilitate more local health unit considerations balancing costs, efficacies of treatments, and risk benefits. Thoughts will reflect Canadian and international experiences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>PubMed searches including hereditary angioedema and diagnosis, therapy, management and consensus were reviewed as well as press releases from various pharmaceutical companies to early December 2010.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 2010 International Consensus Algorithms for the Diagnosis, Therapy and Management of Hereditary Angioedema is reviewed in light of the newly published phase III Clinical trials for prevention and therapy of HAE. Management approaches and models are discussed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Consensus approach and double-blind placebo controlled trials are only interim guides to a complex disorder such as HAE and should be replaced as soon as possible with large phase IV clinical trials, meta analyses, data base registry validation of approaches including quality of life and cost benefit analyses, safety, and head-to-head clinical trials investigating superiority or non-inferiority comparisons of available approaches. Since not all therapeutic products are available in all jurisdictions and since health care delivery approaches and philosophy vary between countries, each health care delivery sector will likely devise their own algorithms based on local practicalities for implementing evidence-based guidelines and standards for HAE disease management. Quality-of-life and cost affordability benefit conclusions will likely vary between countries and health care units. Data base registries for rare disorders like HAE should be used to detect early adverse events for new therapies and to facilitate phase IV clinical trials and encourage superiority and non-inferiority comparisons of HAE management approaches.</p

Potential cost effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of protease inhibitors in the treatment of HIV

Objectives: To quantify the value of TDM of dual PIs (IDV and RTV 800/100 bid) as cost per additional person with undetectable viral load<50 copies per mL (UVL) at 6 months from a government payer perspective. Methods: We developed a theoretical model (DATA 3.5) to estimate the costs and outcomes of usual care with genotyping (UC) compared to genotyping + TDM in HIV+ and ART experienced patients beginning a new regimen. Based on previous studies, we estimated a 20% difference in the proportion of patients achieving UVL who had therapeutic vs subtherapeutic PI concentrations. Approximately 15% to 40% of patients receiving dual PIs have subtherapeutic concentrations (STC). We assumed 15% of TDM and UC would switch the PI at 3 months due to adverse events (AE) and cost an extra CDN$238.06 in physician visits and labs. TDM patients had a minimum of one peak/trough measurement per PI, costing CDN$100. We assumed TDM patients with STC required 3 peak/trough assays per PI, two physician visits and a 20% increase in indinavir dose to attain therapeutic concentrations. Results: If at least 15% of the population had STC with dual PI use, and 85% tolerated the TDM dose increase, management with TDM would cost an additional CDN$178 per patient (UC:$6954 vs TDM: $7132) and achieve UVL in 1 additional patient per 100 (UC: 74.5$109 and achieve UVL in 8 additional patients per 100 by 6 months. Conclusions: If TDM proves to be efficacious, knowing the cost of implementing TDM in Canada will be as equally as important. Given this preliminary data, TDM potentially provides an important improvement at a reasonable additional cost