Cost analysis of COPD exacerbations and cardiovascular events in SUMMIT.

OBJECTIVES: The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT) trial compared the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) with placebo, FF monotherapy, and VI monotherapy on mortality in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history/increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. We conducted a post hoc economic analysis using data from SUMMIT to evaluate the economic benefits of treating these patients with COPD and CV risk. STUDY DESIGN: Patients (aged 40-80 years, with ≥10 pack-years' smoking history and a risk of CV events) were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive placebo, FF 100 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or FF/VI 100 mcg/25 mcg. METHODS: This was a post hoc economic analysis to assess the rates and associated costs of the composite end point (acute COPD exacerbations and revascularization/CV composite events) in the SUMMIT trial from a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Overall, 16,485 patients were evaluated; of these, 5246 (31.8%) experienced an on-treatment composite end point event (28.5% experienced a COPD exacerbation, 4.2% experienced a CV event, and 2.0% underwent a revascularization procedure). The mean estimated 1-year on-treatment combined end point cost was highest for placebo and lowest for FF/VI ($4220 vs $3482, respectively). The reductions in cost versus placebo were significant for all active treatments (P <.0001). The likelihood of experiencing an on-treatment combined end point event was lower for patients treated with FF/VI versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-year combined end point event costs were significantly lower for all active treatments versus placebo. Clinicians and payers may be able decrease costs by effectively managing patients' COPD in those with CV risk.

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 ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.