Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol in the management of moderate and severe COPD in China.

OBJECTIVE: A study has analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol dual therapy (UMEC/VI) in the treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing evidence for decision-making in COPD treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of the whole society, a Markov model based on the severity of COPD was established, consisting of four states: moderate, severe, very severe, and death. The cycle of the model is three months, and the time frame of the study is 20 years. Data such as initial states, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were collected from published literature, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COPD economic report, Yaozh database, and the National Statistics Office. The discount rate is 5 %, and the willingness to pay threshold is set at three times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to obtain the results of multiplication analyses, and one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study findings demonstrate that for patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, the 20-year treatment costs amount to $10,126.46 and $10,685.74, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness is 32.94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 32.19 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $-745.70/QALY, which is lower than the willingness to pay threshold. The tornado plot from one-way factor analysis indicates that the first two factors impacting the results are the utility values for severe COPD of UMEC/VI and FF/UMEC/VI. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that FF/UMEC/VI compared to UMEC/VI can be considered a more cost-effective treatment at the willingness to pay threshold of $35,806.96. CONCLUSION: The triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is more affordable than dual therapy (UMEC/VI) when compared to China's three times GDP per capita criterion.

24-Hour Serial Spirometric Assessment of Once-Daily Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Versus Twice-Daily Budesonide/Formoterol in Patients with COPD: Analysis of the FULFIL Study.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have utilized 24-h serial spirometry to compare the effects of inhaled chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies on lung function. The FULFIL study previously reported significant lung function improvements with once-daily single-inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus twice-daily single-inhaler budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. METHODS: This prespecified analysis evaluated 24-h serial spirometry data from a subgroup of 406 patients in FULFIL. BUD/FOR twice-daily dosing was maintained during 24-h spirometry. A post hoc analysis evaluated serial forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) at day 1 and week 24 by disease severity at screening (FEV1 < 50% predicted and no moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, FEV1 < 50% predicted and ≥ 1 moderate or severe exacerbation in prior year, and FEV1 ≥ 50% and < 80% predicted and ≥ 2 moderate or ≥ 1 severe exacerbations in prior year). RESULTS: Odds of achieving a ≥ 100-mL increase from baseline in FEV1 within the first 6 h post dose on day 1 were significantly greater with FF/UMEC/VI than BUD/FOR [odds ratio 2.79 (95% confidence interval 1.56-4.98); p < 0.001]. FF/UMEC/VI led to greater improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-6, 0-12, 0-24, and 12-24 h on day 1 and at week 24, with the greatest between-group differences at week 24 (range 196-210 mL; all p < 0.001). Significant between-treatment differences in FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) in favor of FF/UMEC/VI versus BUD/FOR were seen at all time points at week 24 (FEV1 range 156-231 mL, all p < 0.001; FVC range 139-309 mL, all p ≤ 0.002). Serial FEV1 results were consistent irrespective of disease severity at screening. CONCLUSION: These findings further demonstrate sustained lung function benefits with once-daily FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations across a range of disease severities.

COPD exacerbation costs in the IMPACT study: a within-trial analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Exacerbations account for the greatest proportion of costs associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Here we aimed to evaluate, from the US payer perspective, the costs associated with moderate and severe COPD exacerbation events for patients treated with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI. STUDY DESIGN: This post hoc, within-trial economic analysis used data derived from the InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment (IMPACT) study (NCT02164513). METHODS: Treatment groups within the IMPACT trial received either triple therapy with FF/UMEC/VI (100/62.5/25 mcg) or dual therapy (FF/VI [100/25 mcg] or UMEC/VI [62.5/25 mcg]). The primary end point for this IMPACT post hoc analysis was cost differences between the treatment arms related to 1-year on-treatment combined moderate and severe COPD exacerbation events. RESULTS: The final study sample for this within-trial analysis consisted of 10,355 patients, 49% of whom experienced an on-treatment moderate or severe exacerbation during the study. The mean 1-year on-treatment cost estimate associated with combined moderate and severe exacerbations was highest with UMEC/VI and lowest with FF/UMEC/VI ($6205 vs $4913, respectively). Mean cost differences were statistically significant for all pairwise comparisons of FF/UMEC/VI with FF/VI or UMEC/VI (-$549 [95% CI, -$565 to -$533] and -$1292 [95% CI, -$1313 to -$1272], respectively; both P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the US healthcare system resulted in lower exacerbation-related costs for combined moderate/severe exacerbation events, as well as moderate and severe exacerbations separately.

Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain. METHODS: A 1-year cost-consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448. CONCLUSIONS: The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.

Assessment of COPD-related outcomes in patients initiating a once daily or twice daily ICS/LABA.

BACKGROUND: Use of inhaled corticosteroids and long acting beta agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy has been shown to decrease the frequency of exacerbations in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In this population, adherence to treatment is associated with better disease control and lower risk of COPD-related exacerbations in the future. Using a treatment with a more convenient regimen or easier-to-use device could improve patient adherence, improve disease control, decrease the frequency of exacerbations and minimize the COPD-related economic burden. Real-world information on the impact on healthcare costs and exacerbation risk of initiating once-daily or twice daily ICS/LABA in this patient population is limited. The objective of this study was to assess COPD-related healthcare costs, adherence, and exacerbations in COPD patients initiating treatment with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 (FF/VI) or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 (BUD/F) using a large managed care database in the US. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study among COPD patients initiating FF/VI or BUD/F between January 01, 2014 and June 30, 2016. The analysis used the Optum Research Database (ORD) which contains patients from commercial and Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. The study included new initiators of ICS/LABA as either FF/VI or BUD/F for COPD, ≥40 years of age at index, ≥15 months of continuous enrollment (12 months pre-index and ≥3 months post-index). New users of FF/VI or BUD/F were matched on baseline characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM) methods. Multivariate models including ordinary least squares regression, Lin's regression, logistic regression, and Cox proportional hazards were used to assess differences between the cohorts on outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 18,652 subjects met all inclusion and exclusion criteria with 5044 initiating FF/VI and 13,608 initiating BUD/F. Of these, 9026 subjects were matched at a 1:1 ratio (4513 patients in each cohort) and were included in the final analyses. Proportion of days covered (PDC), was significantly better for FF/VI (mean PDC [SD]: FF/VI: 0.46 [0.31], BUD/F: 0.41 [0.29], p < 0.001) while FF/VI was associated with a 9% lower risk (adj. hazard ratio (HR): 0.91, 95% CI: 0.85-0.96) of having a moderate or severe COPD-related exacerbation. However, COPD-related healthcare costs were not significantly different, $11,521 vs $10,986, p = 0.41 for FF/VI and BUD/F, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients initiating once-daily FF/VI were more adherent, and were associated with a lower risk of subsequent COPD-related exacerbations compared with twice-daily BUD/F, however this was not associated with a significant difference in costs. (GSK Study HO1617333/206702).

Assessment of Adherence and Asthma Medication Ratio for a Once-Daily and Twice-Daily Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting ß-Agonist for Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Although efficacy and safety of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) and budesonide/formoterol (BUD/F) have been demonstrated in clinical studies, real-world comparisons of utilization have not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare similar patients with asthma initiating FF/VI or BUD/F on measures of adherence, persistence, and the asthma medication ratio (AMR). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of commercial and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees initiating FF/VI or BUD/F for asthma. Adult patients (≥18 years) with at least 15-month (12-month preindex and 3-month postindex) continuous enrollment and 1 or more asthma diagnosis code were eligible for the study. Patients with a history of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß-agonist and other respiratory disorders (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cystic fibrosis, acute respiratory failure) in the baseline period were excluded. Propensity-score matching was used to balance cohorts on baseline characteristics. Logistic regression and Cox-proportional hazard models were used to assess differences. RESULTS: A total of 9951 patients met all criteria. After propensity-score matching, 1725 patients were matched in each cohort. Subjects who initiated FF/VI had a significantly higher mean proportion of days covered (P < .001), had 86% greater odds of having a proportion of days covered value of greater than or equal to 0.80 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.51-2.30), 26% lower risk of discontinuation (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.69-0.79), and 36% greater odds of an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.50 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.50) compared with BUD/F. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence and treatment persistence were low in both cohorts; however, patients initiating once-daily FF/VI were more likely to be adherent, have an AMR of greater than or equal to 0.5, and were less likely to discontinue therapy compared with patients initiating twice-daily BUD/F (GlaxoSmithKline Study HO1617302/206482).

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.

Potential economic impact of using a proprietary willow bark extract in outpatient treatment of low back pain: an open non-randomized study.

An open, non-randomised, study (postmarketing surveillance) was carried out on three groups of patients aged 18 to 80 presenting over an 18 month period with acute exacerbations of low back pain. The objective was to assess the possible economic impact of including a regular dose of proprietary willow bark extract (Assalix) in the treatment provided. A first group of 115 patients, presenting to 3 general practitioners in the first 3 months, was prescribed a daily dose of extract containing 120 mg of salicin (group W120). They also had access, if necessary, to the range of conventional treatments allowed for in the general practitioners' budgets. A second group of 112 patients presenting to the same general practitioners over the next 15 months, was prescribed extract equivalent to 240 mg salicin per day (group W240). A third "control" or "comparator" group of 224 patients, presenting to 3 orthopedists (specialists in physical medicine) over the whole 18 month period, received only the conventional therapeutic options allowed in the orthopedists' budgets (Group C). In the group C patients, the exacerbations had been shorter but the pain had been more intense as judged by Arhus Index and Total Pain Index. After 4 weeks of treatment, about 40% of group W240 patients were free of pain whether or not they had to resort to supplementary treatments. In group W120 as a whole, about 19% of patients were pain-free at 4 weeks, but only 8% of those who did not resort to supplementary treatment. In group C, 18% of patients were painfree. These findings were reflected reasonably well in the changes in the Arhus Index and Total Pain Index, and the findings in group W240 were consistent with those in a previous randomised controlled trial. Multivariable modelling to examine for possible confounding effects tended to identify membership of group W240 as an independent explanator of better pain relief than membership of group C. Though the measures of effect tended to be similar in group W120 as a whole and group C, the avoidance of more expensive conventional treatments in group W120 meant that the average cost per patient of treatment was reduced by about 35-50% (health service and private costings respectively). The better pain relief in group W240 was accompanied by an even smaller reliance on supplementary conventional treatments than in group W120 but the extra savings on these were outweighed by the extra cost of the additional Assalix so that the average cost per patient was reduced by 14-40% of the costs in group C. The possibility is discussed that, if orthopedists had relied more on regular full dosing with NSAIDs, they might have increased the effectiveness and reduced the cost of their treatment, though with the possibility of more side effects. Substituting established NSAIDs with COX-2 inhibitors might reduce the side effects, but at greater cost than with the Assalix.