Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.

Purpose: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.

Purpose: The 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 Methods: The 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. Results: Over 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. Conclusion: Based 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.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model.

INTRODUCTION: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data. METHODS: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. RESULTS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (-0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol. CONCLUSION: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Economic evaluation of a fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant for patients with DME based on the FAME study.

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic macular edema (DME) is the most common cause of visual impairment in patients with diabetes. DME is a complex disease characterized by the deposition of fluid and proteins within the intraretinal layers, and the disease is recognized as being mediated by multiple cytokines, requiring a multifactorial therapeutic approach. Iluvien (fluocinolone acetonide intravitreal implant) 0.19 mg contains a corticosteroid, fluocinolone acetonide [FAc], and is indicated for the treatment of DME in patients who have been previously treated with a course of corticosteroids and did not have a clinically significant rise in intraocular pressure. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed in Microsoft Excel with a 15-year time horizon comparing the healthcare and productivity costs with health outcomes from treatment. The model was structured around 13 best corrected visual acuity states using Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scores. Observations and extrapolations from the Fluocinolone Acetonide for Diabetic Macular Edema study were applied to determine observed and ongoing treatment effects. RESULTS: The expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment with an FAc implant is $38,763, assuming 40% of patients are treated unilaterally; when 100% of patients receive unilateral treatment with an FAc implant, it is cost-saving. CONCLUSION: Administering an FAc implant to patients with DME previously treated with a corticosteroid is a cost-effective treatment option for ophthalmologists.

A comparison of national guidelines for network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Within technology appraisals, it is necessary to compare the complete set of treatments that may be used in the patient group under consideration. Randomized controlled trials are a key source of evidence for these comparisons. The techniques of network meta-analysis allow the networks of trial evidence to be evaluated to obtain estimates of comparative efficacy between sets of treatments. These techniques may be the only source of estimates of comparative effectiveness if trials directly comparing the treatments of interest have not been conducted, and may provide useful additional evidence if both direct and indirect comparisons exist. METHODS: We examined both published and draft guidelines from reimbursement and health technology appraisal bodies, and considered their recommendations using appropriate methodology for the conduct of indirect comparisons and the assessments of their validity. RESULTS: Guidelines from 33 countries were reviewed. Of these, guidelines from 9 countries-Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Scotland, Spain, South Africa, and the United Kingdom (England and Wales)-included detailed recommendations on the conduct of network meta-analysis. The recommendations were summarized. CONCLUSIONS: No two recommendations from the multiple national guidelines are mutually exclusive. It is possible to perform one network meta-analysis for submission to multiple national jurisdictions.