Availability, cost and affordability of essential medicines for chronic respiratory diseases in low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study.

Contemporary data on the availability, cost and affordability of essential medicines for chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are missing, despite most people with CRDs living in LMICs. Cross-sectional data for seven CRD medicines in pharmacies, healthcare facilities and central medicine stores were collected from 60 LMICs in 2022-2023. Medicines for symptomatic relief were widely available and affordable, while preventative treatments varied widely in cost, were less available and largely unaffordable. There is an urgent need to address these issues if the Sustainable Development Goal 3 is to be achieved for people with asthma by 2030.

Consideration and Assessment of Patient Factors When Selecting an Inhaled Delivery System in COPD.

Because guidelines and strategies for pharmacologic treatment of COPD focus on specific classes of inhaled medications, there is an unmet need for information to guide health care professionals for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system that matches the unique characteristics of individual patients. This article provides guidance for selecting an inhaled medication delivery system based on three "key" patient factors: cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and peak inspiratory flow. In addition, information is provided about specific tests to assess these patient factors. Cognitive impairment with an estimated prevalence of 25% among patients with COPD adversely affects patients' ability to correctly use a handheld device. To our knowledge, the prevalence of impaired manual dexterity/strength has not been reported in those with COPD. However, 79% of patients with COPD have reported one or more physical impediments that could influence their ability to manipulate an inhaler device. The measurement of peak inspiratory flow against the simulated resistance (PIFr) of a dry powder inhaler establishes whether the patient has the inhalation ability for creating optimal turbulent energy within the device. A suboptimal PIFr for low to medium-high resistance dry powder inhalers has been reported in 19% to 84% of stable outpatients with COPD. Health care professionals should consider cognitive function, manual dexterity/strength, and PIFr in their patients with COPD when prescribing inhaled pharmacotherapy. Impairments in these patient factors are common among those with COPD and can affect the individual's competency and effectiveness of using inhaled medications delivered by handheld devices.

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.

The availability, cost, and affordability of essential medicines for asthma and COPD in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cause a considerable burden of morbidity and mortality in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Access to safe, effective, quality-assured, and affordable essential medicines is variable. We aimed to review the existing literature relating to the availability, cost, and affordability of WHO's essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was done by searching seven databases to identify research articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and June 30, 2022. Studies on named essential medicines for asthma and COPD in LMICs were included and review articles were excluded. Two authors (MS and HT) screened and extracted data independently, and assessed bias using Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. The main outcome measures were availability (WHO target of 80%), cost (compared with median price ratio [MPR]), and affordability (number of days of work of the lowest paid government worker). The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021281069. FINDINGS: Of 4742 studies identified, 29 met the inclusion criteria providing data from 60 LMICs. All studies had a low risk of bias. Six of 58 countries met the 80% availability target for short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs), three of 48 countries for inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), and zero of four for inhaled corticosteroid-long-acting beta-agonist (ICS-LABA) combination inhalers. Costs were reported by 12 studies: the range of MPRs was 1·1-351 for SABAs, 2·6-340 for ICSs, and 24 for ICS-LABAs in the single study reporting this. Affordability was calculated in ten studies: SABA inhalers typically cost around 1-4 days' wages, ICSs 2-7 days, and ICS-LABAs at least 6 days. The included studies showed heterogeneity. INTERPRETATION: Essential medicines for treating asthma and COPD were largely unavailable and unaffordable in LMICs. This was particularly true for inhalers containing corticosteroids. FUNDING: WHO and Wellcome Trust.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial.

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.

Higher COPD Assessment Test Score Associated With Greater Exacerbations Risk: A Post Hoc Analysis of the IMPACT Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This post hoc analysis tested the relationship between baseline health status, risk of future exacerbations, and efficacy outcomes. METHODS: IMPACT was a Phase 3, double-blind, 52-week trial in patients with symptomatic COPD (COPD Assessment Test [CAT] score ≥10) and ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the prior year randomized 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25mcg, FF/VI 100/25mcg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25mcg. Annual rate of on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbations, lung function, and safety were analyzed by continuous baseline CAT score. RESULTS: Moderate/severe exacerbation rates increased with increasing baseline CAT scores in FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI arms. There was a very small increase in on-treatment pneumonia rates at higher baseline CAT scores across all treatment arms. FF/UMEC/VI reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus UMEC/VI (i.e., the inhaled corticosteroid effect) consistently across the range of CAT scores. The reduction with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI (i.e., the long-acting muscarinic antagonist effect) was greatest at lower CAT scores and appeared lesser at higher CAT scores. Improvements in lung function were observed with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI, regardless of baseline CAT score. CONCLUSIONS: The CAT score was predictive of exacerbation risk. Worse baseline health status was associated with higher moderate/severe exacerbation and pneumonia rates. Irrespective of baseline CAT score, FF/UMEC/VI improved lung function, and reduced the annual moderate/severe exacerbation rates versus dual therapy. Results indicate an overall favorable benefit-risk profile of triple versus dual therapy, irrespective of CAT score. Clinical Trial Registration:GSK (CTT116855/NCT02164513).

Improving lung health in low-income and middle-income countries: from challenges to solutions.

Low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionately high burden of the global morbidity and mortality caused by chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs), including asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, and post-tuberculosis lung disease. CRDs are strongly associated with poverty, infectious diseases, and other non-communicable diseases (NCDs), and contribute to complex multi-morbidity, with major consequences for the lives and livelihoods of those affected. The relevance of CRDs to health and socioeconomic wellbeing is expected to increase in the decades ahead, as life expectancies rise and the competing risks of early childhood mortality and infectious diseases plateau. As such, the World Health Organization has identified the prevention and control of NCDs as an urgent development issue and essential to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. In this Review, we focus on CRDs in LMICs. We discuss the early life origins of CRDs; challenges in their prevention, diagnosis, and management in LMICs; and pathways to solutions to achieve true universal health coverage.

Effect of Age on the Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple-Therapy Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Patients With COPD: A Post Hoc Analysis of the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Informing the Pathway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) trial, single-inhaler triple-therapy fluticasone furoate (FF), umeclidinium (UMEC), and vilanterol (VI) reduced moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations, with a similar safety profile. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are trial outcomes with single-inhaler triple-therapy FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI affected by age in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: IMPACT was a phase III, double-blind, 52-week trial. Patients ≥ 40 years of age with symptomatic COPD and ≥ 1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year were randomly assigned 2:2:1 to FF/UMEC/VI 100/62.5/25 µg, FF/VI 100/25 µg, or UMEC/VI 62.5/25 µg. End points assessed by age included annual rate of moderate/severe exacerbations, change from baseline (CFB) in trough FEV1, proportion of St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) responders (≥ 4 units decrease from baseline in SGRQ total score), and safety. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population comprised 10,355 patients; 4,724 (46%), 4,225 (41%), and 1,406 (14%) were ≤ 64, 65 to 74, and ≥ 75 years of age, respectively. FF/UMEC/VI reduced on-treatment moderate/severe exacerbation rates vs FF/VI (% reduction [95% CI]: ≤ 64 years, 8% [-1 to 16]; P = .070; 65-74 years, 22% [14-29]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 18% [3-31]; P = .021) and vs UMEC/VI (≤ 64 years, 16% [7-25]; P = .002; 65-74 years, 33% [25-41]; P < .001; ≥ 75 years, 24% [6-38]; P = .012), with greatest rate reduction seen in the 65 to 74 and ≥ 75 years subgroups. Post hoc analyses of CFB in trough FEV1 and proportion of SGRQ responders at week 52 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in all subgroups. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI reduced the rate of moderate/severe exacerbations and improved lung function and health status vs FF/VI and UMEC/VI irrespective of age for most end points, with a similar safety profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02164513; URL: www.clinicaltrials.govCTT116855.

Lessons from the major studies in COPD: problems and pitfalls in translating research evidence into practice.

Translating the growing evidence base on COPD management into practice can be challenging and understanding the strengths and weakness of published studies is crucial. Studies should conform to the standards of CONSORT statement; they should be sufficiently powered, participants should be randomised, there should be assignment concealment, and the outcome measures and analyses should be decided in advance. The interpretation of the results may be affected by age and severity inclusion criteria for the study and the exclusion of patients with co-morbid illnesses. Whether previous medication is continued or stopped can affect the interpretation of the results. Secondary analyses in sub-groups should be viewed with caution unless pre-specified and accommodated in the trial design and power calculations. Real world observational studies may be confounded by non-randomisation of participants but can sometimes yield valuable insights. The way in which the results are presented can influence their interpretation and their magnitude with respect to minimal important differences as well as statistical significance is important. Research help formulate management algorithms but often the questions they address are too specific to allow evidence-based sequencing of therapies.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the disease and its burden to society.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a multicomponent disease with inflammation at its core, and a major cause of morbidity and mortality. It represents a substantial economic and social burden throughout the world. Currently, COPD is the fifth leading cause of death worldwide, and despite advances in management, mortality is expected to increase in the coming decades, in marked contrast to other chronic diseases, such as heart disease and stroke, where there have been considerable decreases in mortality. On a patient level, the burden of COPD to patients and their families and carers is high, both in terms of health-related quality of life and health status. Health care providers and patients often underestimate the substantial morbidity associated with COPD; the condition is also frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated, which further compromises morbidity. Reducing the burden of COPD requires better evaluation and diagnosis, as well as improved management of chronic symptoms. As exacerbations and hospitalizations represent an important driver of the cost and morbidity of COPD, high priority should be given to interventions aimed at delaying the progression of disease, preventing exacerbations, and reducing the risk of comorbidities to alleviate the clinical and economic burden of disease.

Health economics of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Studies describing the economic impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are used for several purposes. There can, however, be limitations as costs based on results of a clinical trial are likely to be significantly different from real world practice. Sometimes, it may be more useful to capture the costs of the important components accurately rather than the often unachievable aim of capturing every cost however small. Burden of illness studies can help identify clinical targets or patterns of care-for example, hospitalization-that are major health care cost drivers. In the United Kingdom, burden of COPD studies suggest an annual cost of 781 pounds sterlings- 1,154 pounds sterlings per patient. Cost analyses can be divided into four types: cost minimization, cost-effectiveness, cost benefit, and cost utility. Utilities such as quality-adjusted life year (QALY) measure the effectiveness of different therapies, and can be obtained in various ways and in different populations, potentially leading to significant differences in the results. Payers often apply cost per QALY thresholds when assessing whether a new therapy should be used or not. In the United Kingdom, it is accepted that there is a sigmoid relationship between the cost per QALY and the likelihood of a therapy being recommended, with a lower inflection between 5,000 pounds sterlings and 15,000 sterlings, below which rejection is unlikely and an upper inflection between 25,000 pounds sterlings and 35,000, above which acceptance is unlikely, but not impossible. On this basis, pulmonary rehabilitation and inhaled steroids are unlikely to be rejected but lung volume reduction surgery may be.