The long-term clinical and economic benefits of treating advanced COPD patients with single-inhaler triple therapy in Quebec, Canada - The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: This cost-utility analysis assessed the long-term clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy vs FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Quebec societal perspective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the previous year. METHODS: The validated GALAXY disease progression model was utilized, with parameters set to baseline and efficacy data from IMPACT. Treatment costs (2017 Canadian dollars [C$]) were estimated using Quebec-specific unit costs. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5 %/year. A willingness-to-pay threshold of C$50,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was considered cost-effective. Outcomes modeled were exacerbation rates, QALYs, life years (LYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to prior treatment, exacerbation history in the previous year, and baseline lung function. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in more QALYs and LYs gained, at a small incremental cost compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI. From a societal perspective, the estimated ICER for the base case was C$18,152/QALY vs FF/VI, and C$15,847/QALY vs UMEC/VI. For the subgroup analyses (FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI), ICERs ranged from: C$17,412-25,664/QALY and C$16,493-18,663/QALY (prior treatment); C$15,247-19,924/QALY and C$15,444-28,859/QALY (exacerbation history); C$14,025-34,154/QALY and C$16,083-17,509/QALY (baseline lung function). INTERPRETATION: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be cost-effective vs both comparators in the base case and all subgroup analyses, and based on this analysis would be an appropriate investment of health service funds in Quebec. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IMPACT trial NCT02164513.

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD. METHODS: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources. RESULTS: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

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.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

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 umeclidinium as add-on to ICS/LABA therapy in COPD: A UK perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 µg as add-on therapy to other maintenance COPD treatments is unknown. METHODS: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of the following in COPD: UMEC + fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg (FF/VI); UMEC + fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg (FP/SAL); and UMEC + several alternative choices of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA). The model was informed with direct and indirect data from previously published studies, with a UK perspective and a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For the lifetime horizon, compared with FF/VI, FP/SAL and ICS/LABAs, addition of UMEC was associated with incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of £4050, £7210 and £5780, respectively, and incremental costs per life year gain of £3380, £6020 and £4940. All UMEC-containing regimens resulted in numerically lower exacerbation rates versus comparator regimens over a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of UMEC to various ICS/LABA treatments was associated with higher cost than ICS/LABA alone, but was cost-effective in most scenarios.

Initiating or changing to a fixed-dose combination of Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol over Fluticasone propionate/Salmeterol: A real-life effectiveness and cost impact evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Asthma has a substantial impact on quality of life and health care resources. The identification of a more cost-effective, yet equally efficacious, treatment could positively influence the economic burden of this disease. Fluticasone propionate/Formoterol (FP/FOR) may be as effective as Fluticasone Salmeterol (FP/SAL). We evaluated non-inferiority of asthma control in terms of the proportion of patients free from exacerbations, and conducted a cost impact analysis. METHODS: This historical, matched cohort database study evaluated two treatment groups in the Optimum Patient Care Research Database in the UK: 1) an FP/FOR cohort of patients initiating treatment with FP/FOR or changing from FP/SAL to FP/FOR and; 2) an FP/SAL cohort comprising patients initiating, or remaining on FP/SAL pMDI combination therapy. The main outcome evaluated non-inferiority of effectiveness (defined as prevention of severe exacerbations, lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean difference between groups in patient proportions with no exacerbations is -3.5% or higher) in patients treated with FP/FOR versus FP/SAL. RESULTS: After matching 1:3, we studied a total of 2472 patients: 618 in the FP/FOR cohort (174 patients initiated on FP/FOR and 444 patients changed to FP/FOR) and 1854 in the FP/SAL cohort (522 patients initiated FP/SAL and 1332 continued FP/SAL). The percentage of patients prescribed FP/FOR met non-inferiority as the adjusted mean difference in proportion of no severe exacerbations (95%CI) was 0.008 (-0.032, 0.047) between the two cohorts. No other significant differences were observed except acute respiratory event rates, which were lower for patients prescribed FP/FOR (rate ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% CI 0.71, 0.94). CONCLUSIONS: Changing to, or initiating FP/FOR combination therapy, is associated with a non-inferior proportion of patients who are severe exacerbation-free at a lower average annual cost compared with continuing or initiating treatment with FP/SAL.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.

Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessment of fluticasone furoate + vilanterol for the treatment of asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of long-acting ß2-agonists and mostly inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) shape the efficacy and safety of these agents in the treatment of asthma. In fact, the PK and PD characteristics of the drug largely determine the degree of pulmonary targeting Areas covered. In this review, we summarize the PK and PD properties of inhaled fluticasone furoate (FF) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) and their fixed-dose combination (FDC) for the treatment of asthma Expert opinion. It is difficult to interpret the data that we have described because the preclinical and clinical development of FF/VI FDC was not really based on solid information on quantitative PK/PD approach. Unfortunately, for both FF and VI we only know concentrations in systemic blood, a compartment that is downstream of both target and non-target respiratory tissue. This lack of information does not allow us to understand the temporal relationship between the delivered dose and the drug concentration at the sites of action within the lungs. In addition, all studies performed with FF and VI did not address the fundamental issue that asthma can significantly alter lung deposition, absorption and also clearance of inhaled medicines.

Ethnic sensitivity assessment of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol in East Asian asthma patients from randomized double-blind multicentre Phase IIb/III trials.

BACKGROUND: Fluticasone furoate (FF)/vilanterol (VI) is a once daily (OD) inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination asthma therapy approved in Japan and the EU. FF/VI efficacy and safety data from asthma studies including patients in East Asia were evaluated to assess ethnic sensitivity. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase IIb/III trials were assessed. Change from baseline relative to placebo or twice-daily fluticasone propionate 500 µg in trough FEV1 was compared between patients from Japan (N = 148) and Not-Japan (N = 3,066; three studies). Adverse events (AEs), laboratory results, and electrocardiograms were compared between patients from Japan + Korea (N = 188) and Not-Japan + Korea (N = 3,840; five studies). RESULTS: For trough FEV1, improvements from baseline (least-squares mean difference [95% confidence interval]) were reported for FF/VI 100/25 µg OD versus placebo at Week 12 (Japan: 0.323 L [0.104-0.542]; Not-Japan: 0.168 L [0.095-0.241]). Improvements from baseline (least-squares mean change [standard error]) were reported with FF/VI 200/25 µg OD at Week 24 (Japan: 0.355 L [0.1152]; Not-Japan: 0.396 L [0.0313]). A greater proportion of patients from Japan + Korea versus Not-Japan + Korea reported AEs in all treatment arms including placebo (FF/VI 100/25 µg: 79% versus 57%; FF/VI 200/25 µg: 64% versus 45%; placebo: 41% versus 23%). There were no notable differences in treatment-related or class-related AEs. No clinically significant changes in electrocardiogram assessments or statistically significant differences in 24 h urinary cortisol excretion were observed between the Japan + Korea and Not-Japan + Korea cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Good efficacy and an acceptable safety profile were observed for FF/VI 100/25 µg and 200/25 µg OD in East Asian asthma patients; these globally recommended doses are appropriate for asthma patients in Japan. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration numbers: NCT01165138 , NCT01134042 , NCT01086384 , NCT00603278 , NCT00603382 .

The introduction of generic aromatase inhibitors and treatment adherence among Medicare D enrollees.

BACKGROUND: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) substantially reduce breast cancer mortality in clinical trials, but high rates of nonadherence to these long-term oral therapies have reduced their impact outside of trials. We examined the association of generic AI availability with AI adherence among a large national breast cancer cohort. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental prepost design, we examined the effect of generic AI introductions (7/2010 and 4/2011) on adherence among a national cohort of women with incident breast cancer in 2006 and 2007 who were enrolled in the Medicare D pharmaceutical coverage program. Medicare D claims were used to calculate AI adherence, defined as a medication possession ratio of 80% or more of eligible days, over 36 months. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated with generalized estimating equations were applied to longitudinal adherence data to control for possible confounders, including receipt of a Medicare D low-income subsidy, and to account for repeated measures. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Sixteen thousand four hundred sixty-two Medicare D enrollees were eligible. Adherence declined throughout the study. However, among women without a subsidy, the median quarterly out-of-pocket cost of anastrozole fell from $183 in the fourth quarter of 2009 to $15 in 2011, and declines in adherence were attenuated with generic AI introductions. Regression-adjusted adherence probabilities were estimated to be 5.4% higher after generic anastrozole was introduced in 2010 and 11% higher after generic letrozole/exemestane was introduced in 2011. Subsidy recipients had higher adherence rates throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of generic medications attenuated the decline in adherence to AIs over three years of treatment among breast cancer survivors not receiving low-income subsidies for Medicare D coverage.

[Socio-economic impact of allergic rhinitis and perspectives of appropriate therapy]. / Sozioökonomische Auswirkungen der allergischen Rhinitis und Perspektiven einer adäquaten Therapie.

Allergic rhinitis is a very common disease that causes high economic costs. Furthermore inadequate treatment can lead to bronchial asthma. Against this background, drugs for the treatment of allergic rhinitis should be evaluated from a comprehensive medical-economic perspective. The new combination of an antihistamine and a corticosteroid, introduced in the market in 2013, emerges as useful pharmaceutical alternative, both with regard to the medical outcome parameters as well as cost-effectiveness.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model. CONCLUSION: In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Cost of adverse events during treatment with everolimus plus exemestane or single-agent chemotherapy in patients with advanced breast cancer in Western Europe.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for recurrent or progressive hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer include chemotherapy and everolimus plus exemestane (EVE + EXE). This study estimates the costs of managing adverse events (AEs) during EVE + EXE therapy and single-agent chemotherapy in Western Europe. METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the per patient cost of managing grade 3/4 AEs for patients who were treated with EVE + EXE or chemotherapies. AE rates for patients receiving EVE + EXE were collected from the phase III BOLERO-2 trial. AE rates for single-agent chemotherapy, capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin were collected from published clinical trial data. AEs with at least 2% prevalence for any of the treatments were included in the model. A literature search was conducted to obtain costs of managing each AE, which were then averaged across Western European countries (when available). Per patient costs for managing AEs among patients receiving different therapies were reported in 2012 euros (€). RESULTS: The EVE + EXE combination had the lowest average per patient cost of managing AEs (€730) compared to all chemotherapies during the first year of treatment (doxorubicin: €1230; capecitabine: €1721; docetaxel: €2390). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with EVE + EXE was anemia (on average €152 per patient). The most costly adverse event among all patients treated with capecitabine, docetaxel, or doxorubicin was lymphocytopenia (€861 per patient), neutropenia (€821 per patient), and leukopenia (€382 per patient), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The current model estimates that AE management during the treatment of HR+ advanced breast cancer will cost one-half to one-third less for EVE + EXE patients than for chemotherapy patients. The consideration of AE costs could have important implications in the context of healthcare spending for advanced breast cancer treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of everolimus plus exemestane versus exemestane alone for treatment of hormone receptor positive metastatic breast cancer.

Everolimus in combination with exemestane significantly improved progression-free survival compared to exemestane alone in patients previously treated with non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors in the BOLERO-2 trial. As a result, this combination has been approved by the food and drug administration to treat postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine whether everolimus represents good value for money, utilizing data from BOLERO-2. A decision-analytic model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between treatment arms of the BOLERO-2 trial. Costs were obtained from the Center for Medicare Services drug payment table and physician fee schedule. Benefits were expressed as quality-adjusted progression-free survival weeks (QAPFW) and quality-adjusted progression-free years (QAPFY), with utilities/disutilities derived from the literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A willingness to pay threshold of 1-3 times the per capita gross domestic product was adopted, as per the definition of the World Health Organization. The U.S. per capita gross domestic product in 2013 was $49,965; thus, a threshold varying between $49,965 and $149,895 was considered. Everolimus/exemestane had an incremental benefit of 11.88 QAPFW (0.22 QAPFY) compared to exemestane and an incremental cost of $60,574. This translated into an ICER of $265,498.5/QAPFY. Univariate sensitivity analyses showed important variations of the ICER, ranging between $189,836.4 and $530,947/QAPFY. A tornado analysis suggested that the key drivers of our model, by order of importance, included health utility value for stable disease, everolimus acquisition costs, and transition probabilities from the stable to the progression states. The Monte-Carlo simulation showed results that were similar to the base-case analysis. This cost-effectiveness analysis showed that everolimus plus exemestane is not cost-effective compared to exemestane alone. Further research is needed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of the drug combination within sub-groups of the population studied in BOLERO-2.

Decision-making analysis for allergen immunotherapy versus nasal steroids in the treatment of nasal steroid-responsive allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the age at which initiation of specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) becomes more cost-effective than continued lifetime intranasal steroid (NS) therapy in the treatment of allergic rhinitis, with the use of a decision analysis model. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was created for this study. Economic analyses were performed to identify "break-even" points in the treatment of allergic rhinitis with the use of SCIT and NS. Efficacy rates for therapy and cost data were collected from the published literature. Models in which there was only incomplete improvement while receiving SCIT were also evaluated for economic break-even points. The primary perspective of the study was societal. RESULTS: Multiple break-even point curves were obtained corresponding to various clinical scenarios. For patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis requiring NS (i.e., fluticasone) 6 months per year, the age at which initiation of SCIT provides long-term direct cost advantage is less than 41 years. For patients with perennial rhinitis symptoms requiring year-round NS, the cut-off age for SCIT cost-effectiveness increases to 60 years. Hypothetical subjects who require continued NS treatment (50% reduction of previous dosage) while receiving SCIT also display break-even points, whereby it is economically advantageous to consider allergy referral and SCIT, dependent on the cost of the NS prescribed. CONCLUSION: The age at which SCIT provides economic advantages over NS in the treatment of allergic rhinitis depends on multiple clinical factors. Decision analysis models can assist the physician in accounting for these factors and customize patient counseling with regard to treatment options.

Adherence patterns for abiraterone acetate and concomitant prednisone use in patients with prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: With the growing use of oral anticancer medications, understanding adherence patterns has become increasingly important. Abiraterone acetate (AA) is a prodrug of abiraterone, a novel androgen biosynthesis inhibitor. AA is approved for use in combination with prednisone for treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate AA and concomitant prednisone utilization and adherence patterns for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. METHODS: This study used data from 2 administrative health care claims databases--Dataset 1: Truven Health Analytics MarketScan (December 2010 to August 2012) and Dataset 2: Symphony Health Solutions' ProMetis Lx (June 2009 to March 2013). To evaluate the consistency of medication-taking behavior, adherence was measured using medication possession ratio (MPR), which was calculated as the sum of days of supply divided by the days on therapy in patients with at least 2 AA prescriptions. Additional outcomes included the proportion of patients taking prednisone, mean and median daily dose of AA, and concomitant prednisone use. Adherence was also studied by age, health care plan type, or previous recent chemotherapy subgroups. RESULTS: 515 patients (mean age: 72.2) and 3,228 patients (mean age: 72.2) with at least 1 AA claim were selected from Dataset 1 and Dataset 2, respectively. The mean (median) daily AA dose per person per prescription was 998.8 (1,000) mg for Dataset 1 and 994.2 (1,000) mg for Dataset 2, which is within 1% of the recommended daily dose (1,000 mg). Mean (median) MPR was 93% (98%; n = 492) in Study Population 1 and 93% (100%; n = 2,449) in Study Population 2. The mean (median) daily prednisone dose per person per prescription was similar in both datasets with 10.1 (10.0; n = 488) mg and 10.6 (10.0; n = 2,425) mg in Dataset 1 and 2, respectively. Similar adherence patterns were observed for patients in different age groups, for patients with commercial health care plans versus patients with Medicare coverage, and for patients with recent chemotherapy compared with patients without. CONCLUSIONS: Results from 2 observational studies reported high levels of adherence to AA dosing and administration patterns consistent with prescribing information. These findings provide useful insights into the treatment patterns in patients with prostate cancer treated with AA and can contribute to the current discussion in oncologic research and practice.

Quality of life assessment in patients with moderate to severe allergic rhinitis treated with montelukast and/or intranasal steroids: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated improvements in quality of life associated with eight weeks of montelukast and/or intranasal steroid treatment for moderate to severe allergic rhinitis. METHODS: A single-centre, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was carried out. Assessments were made using the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire and symptom scales. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients (aged 13-51 years) were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In the montelukast group, patients were treated with montelukast tablets and fluticasone propionate nasal spray (n = 64). In the placebo group, treatment comprised a placebo and fluticasone propionate. The results showed significant improvements in symptom scores and quality of life scores for both groups after one month and two months of treatment, compared with baseline values; these improvements were significantly greater for the montelukast group compared with the placebo group. The mean number of loratadine tablets taken by each patient during the study period was only 0.73 for the montelukast group compared with 9 for the placebo group. CONCLUSION: The combination of montelukast tablets and fluticasone propionate nasal spray improved symptom control and overall quality of life for moderate to severe allergic rhinitis patients.