RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52â weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25â µg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25â µg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25â µg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters. RESULTS: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20â000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Flowable haemostatic agents have been shown to be superior to non-flowable agents in terms of haemostatic control and need for transfusion products in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We investigated the economic impact of the use of a flowable haemostatic agent (Floseal) compared with non-flowable oxidised regenerated cellulose (ORC) agent in primary elective cardiac surgery from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A cost-consequence framework based upon clinical data from a prospective trial and an observational trial and NHS-specific actual reference costs (2016) was developed to compare the economic impact of Floseal with that of ORC. The individual domains of care investigated comprised complications (major and minor) avoided, operating room time savings, surgical revisions for bleeding avoided and transfusions avoided. The cost impact of Floseal versus ORC on ICU days and extended bed days avoided was modelled separately. RESULTS: Compared with ORC, the use of Floseal would be associated with overall net savings to the NHS of £178,283 per 100 cardiac surgery patients who experience intraoperative bleeding requiring haemostatic therapy. Cost savings were apparent in all individual domains of care (complications avoided: £83,536; operating room time saved: £63,969; surgical revisions avoided: £34,038; and blood transfusions avoided: £22,317). Cost savings per 100 patients with Floseal over ORC in terms of ICU days avoided (n = 30) and extended bed days avoided (n = 51.7) were £57,960 and £21,965, respectively. A sensitivity analysis indicated that these findings remained robust when the model parameters representing the clinical benefit of Floseal over ORC were reduced by up to 20%. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher initial acquisition costs, the use of flowable haemostatic agents achieves substantial cost savings over non-flowable agents in cardiac surgery. These cost savings commence during the operating theatre and appear to continue to be realised throughout the postoperative period.
