Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Inhaler Adherence Technologies in Difficult-to-Treat Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Digital inhalers can monitor inhaler usage, support difficult-to-treat asthma management, and inform step-up treatment decisions yet their economic value is unknown, hampering wide-scale implementation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of digital inhaler-based medication adherence management in difficult-to-treat asthma. METHODS: A model-based cost-utility analysis was performed. The Markov model structure was determined by biological and clinical understanding of asthma and was further informed by guideline-based assessment of model development. Internal and external validation was performed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic (AdViSHE) tool. The INCA (Inhaler Compliance Assessment) Sun randomized clinical trial data were incorporated into the model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of digital inhalers. Several long-term clinical case scenarios were assessed (reduced number of exacerbations, increased asthma control, introduction of biosimilars [25% price-cut on biologics]). RESULTS: The long-term modelled cost-effectiveness based on a societal perspective indicated 1-year per-patient costs for digital inhalers and usual care (ie, regular inhalers) of €7,546 ($7,946) and €10,752 ($11,322), respectively, reflecting cost savings of €3,207 ($3,377) for digital inhalers. Using a 10-year intervention duration and time horizon resulted in cost savings of €26,309 ($27,703) for digital inhalers. In the first year, add-on biologic therapies accounted for 69% of the total costs in the usual care group and for 49% in the digital inhaler group. Scenario analyses indicated consistent cost savings ranging from €2,287 ($2,408) (introduction biosimilars) to €4,581 ($4,824) (increased control, decreased exacerbations). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with difficult-to-treat asthma, digital inhaler-based interventions can be cost-saving in the long-term by optimizing medication adherence and inhaler technique and reducing add-on biologic prescriptions.

Symptom- and fraction of exhaled nitric oxide-driven strategies for asthma control: A cluster-randomized trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Aiming at partly controlled asthma (PCa) instead of controlled asthma (Ca) might decrease asthma medication use. Biomarkers, such as the fraction of exhaled nitric oxide (Feno), allow further tailoring of treatment. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of pursuing PCa, Ca, or Feno-driven controlled asthma (FCa). METHODS: In a nonblind, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial in primary care, adults (18-50 years of age) with a doctor's diagnosis of asthma who were prescribed inhaled corticosteroids were allocated to one of 3 treatment strategies: (1) aiming at PCa (Asthma Control Questionnaire [ACQ] score <1.50); (2) aiming at Ca (ACQ score <0.75); and (3) aiming at FCa (ACQ score <0.75 and Feno value <25 ppb). During 12 months' follow-up, treatment was adjusted every 3 months by using an online decision support tool. Outcomes were incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained, asthma control (ACQ score), quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire score), asthma medication use, and severe exacerbation rate. RESULTS: Six hundred eleven participants were allocated to the PCa (n = 219), Ca (n = 203), or FCa (n = 189) strategies. The FCa strategy improved asthma control compared with the PCa strategy (P < .02). There were no differences in quality of life (P ≥ .36). Asthma medication use was significantly lower for the PCa and FCa strategies compared with the Ca strategy (medication costs: PCa, $452; Ca, $551; and FCa, $456; P ≤ .04). The FCa strategy had the highest probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year (86%; PCa, 2%; Ca, 12%). There were no differences in severe exacerbation rate. CONCLUSION: A symptom- plus Feno-driven strategy reduces asthma medication use while sustaining asthma control and quality of life and is the preferred strategy for adult asthmatic patients in primary care.

Asthma control cost-utility randomized trial evaluation (ACCURATE): the goals of asthma treatment.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of effective therapies, asthma remains a source of significant morbidity and use of health care resources. The central research question of the ACCURATE trial is whether maximal doses of (combination) therapy should be used for long periods in an attempt to achieve complete control of all features of asthma. An additional question is whether patients and society value the potential incremental benefit, if any, sufficiently to concur with such a treatment approach. We assessed patient preferences and cost-effectiveness of three treatment strategies aimed at achieving different levels of clinical control:1. sufficiently controlled asthma2. strictly controlled asthma3. strictly controlled asthma based on exhaled nitric oxide as an additional disease marker DESIGN: 720 Patients with mild to moderate persistent asthma from general practices with a practice nurse, age 18-50 yr, daily treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (more then 3 months usage of inhaled corticosteroids in the previous year), will be identified via patient registries of general practices in the Leiden, Nijmegen, and Amsterdam areas in The Netherlands. The design is a 12-month cluster-randomised parallel trial with 40 general practices in each of the three arms. The patients will visit the general practice at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. At each planned and unplanned visit to the general practice treatment will be adjusted with support of an internet-based asthma monitoring system supervised by a central coordinating specialist nurse. Patient preferences and utilities will be assessed by questionnaire and interview. Data on asthma control, treatment step, adherence to treatment, utilities and costs will be obtained every 3 months and at each unplanned visit. Differences in societal costs (medication, other (health) care and productivity) will be compared to differences in the number of limited activity days and in quality adjusted life years (Dutch EQ5D, SF6D, e-TTO, VAS). This is the first study to assess patient preferences and cost-effectiveness of asthma treatment strategies driven by different target levels of asthma control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR1756.