Real-World Disease Burden and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with COPD and Asthma Using Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) in the United States.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are associated with chronic inflammation of the respiratory tract; despite some overlap of symptoms, they are considered separate disorders. Triple therapy is recommended for patients with COPD and asthma whose symptoms remain uncontrolled despite dual therapy. There are limited real-world studies evaluating outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma who are receiving inhaled triple therapy. This United States (US)-based real-world study aimed to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma receiving single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]). Patients and Methods: Retrospective pre-post study using claims data from the Optum Clinformatics® database. Patients with COPD and asthma were indexed on the first date of FF/UMEC/VI prescription (1 October 2017-31 March 2019). Each patient acted as their own control. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to (pre-treatment) and following (post-treatment) index. Exacerbations, all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization, and costs were compared before and after FF/UMEC/VI initiation. Results: Overall, 2743 patients were included (mean age: 71 years; 64% female). Cardiovascular disease was the most prevalent comorbidity during both the pre- and post-treatment periods (90% for both periods). There was a lower proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation or ≥1 asthma exacerbation post-treatment versus pre-treatment (51% vs 57%, p<0.0001, and 22% vs 32%, p<0.0001, respectively). Fewer patients had ≥1 all-cause office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (99.3% vs 99.7%, p=0.0329); more patients had ≥1 COPD-related office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (89.6% vs 87.5%, p=0.0035). Total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher post-treatment versus pre-treatment ($72,809 vs $63,734, p<0.0001). The driver of increased costs appeared to be primarily non-COPD-related (COPD-related costs: post-treatment $27,779 vs pre-treatment $25,081, p=0.0062). Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI reduced exacerbations among patients with COPD and asthma in a real-world setting in the US.

COPD Exacerbations, Costs, and Health Care Resource Utilization Before and After Initiation of Fluticasone Furoate/Umeclidinium/Vilanterol in Routine Care in the USA.

Purpose: To examine the impact of initiating fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in a single device on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs in patients with COPD. Methods: Retrospective database analysis of patients with COPD aged ≥40 years who initiated FF/UMEC/VI between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018 (index date: first pharmacy claim for FF/UMEC/VI), following evidence of multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) (≥30 consecutive days) in the year prior to index. COPD exacerbations, COPD exacerbation-related costs, and all-cause and COPD-related HCRU and costs were compared between the baseline period (12 months prior to and including index) and follow-up period (12 months following index). Results: Data from 912 patients (mean [SD] age: 71.2 [8.1], 51.2% female) were included in the analyses. Among the overall cohort, mean count of total COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe) per patient was statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (1.2 vs 1.4, p=0.001). The proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation (moderate or severe) was also statistically significantly lower in the follow-up period compared to baseline (56.4% vs 62.4%, p=0.001). All-cause and COPD-related HCRU were similar during follow-up compared to baseline, although the proportion of patients with COPD-related ambulatory visits was lower during follow-up (p<0.001). COPD-related office visit costs, emergency room visit costs, and pharmacy costs were statistically significantly lower during follow-up compared to baseline (p<0.001; p=0.019; p<0.001, respectively). Conclusion: In a real-world setting, patients on MITT who subsequently initiated FF/UMEC/VI in a single device had significant reductions in the rate of COPD exacerbations (moderate or severe). Switching to FF/UMEC/VI also resulted in improvements in some HCRU and cost outcomes. These data support the use of FF/UMEC/VI among patients at high risk of exacerbation to reduce future risk and improve outcomes.

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.

Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) maintenance medication is important for managing symptoms and exacerbation risk, and is associated with reduced mortality, hospitalizations, and costs. This study compared on-treatment exacerbations, medical costs, and medication adherence in patients with COPD initiating treatment with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective matched cohort study selected patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI or TIO between 01/01/2014 and 12/31/2017 (index date defined as the first dispensing). Eligible patients were ≥ 40 years of age and had ≥ 12 months continuous health plan coverage pre- and post-index; ≥ 1 medical claim for COPD pre-index or on the index date; no moderate/severe COPD-related exacerbations on the index date; no asthma diagnosis pre- or post-index; no maintenance medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists pre-index or on the index date; and no fills for both UMEC/VI and TIO on the index date. Outcomes included time-to-first (Kaplan-Meier analysis) and rates of on-treatment COPD-related moderate/severe exacerbations, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] and proportion of adherent patients [PDC ≥ 0.8]), and COPD-related medical costs per patient per month (PPPM). Propensity score matching was used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: Each cohort included 3929 matched patients. Kaplan-Meier rates of on-treatment COPD-related exacerbations were similar between cohorts (hazard ratio at 12 months; overall: 0.93, moderate: 0.92, severe: 1.07; all p > 0.05). UMEC/VI versus TIO initiators had significantly higher adherence (mean PDC: 0.44 vs 0.37; p < 0.001; proportion with PDC ≥ 0.8: 22.0% vs 16.4%; p< 0.001) and significantly lower mean on-treatment COPD-related total medical costs ($867 vs $1095 PPPM; p = 0.028), driven by lower outpatient visit costs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable information for physicians considering UMEC/VI or TIO as initial maintenance therapy options for patients with COPD.

Umeclidinium/Vilanterol Compared with Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol, Budesonide/Formoterol, and Tiotropium as Initial Maintenance Therapy in Patients with COPD Who Have High Costs and Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are associated with increased medical costs and risk of exacerbations. This study compared COPD-related medical costs and exacerbations in high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving initial maintenance treatment (IMT) with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/SAL), budesonide/formoterol (B/F), or tiotropium (TIO). METHODS: This retrospective, matched cohort study identified patients from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database who initiated UMEC/VI, FP/SAL, B/F, or TIO between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 (index date defined as date of the first fill). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years at index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, 12 months of continuous insurance coverage pre-index, and high pre-index costs (≥80th percentile of IMT population) and comorbidities (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index ≥3). Propensity score matching was used to control for potential confounders. On-treatment COPD-related medical costs (primary endpoint) and exacerbations were evaluated. RESULTS: Matched cohorts were well balanced on baseline characteristics (UMEC/VI vs FP/SAL: n=1194 each; UMEC/VI vs B/F: n=1441 each; UMEC/VI vs TIO: n=1277 each). Patients receiving UMEC/VI had significantly lower COPD-related medical costs versus FP/SAL (difference: $6587 per patient per year; P=0.048), and numerically lower costs versus B/F and TIO. Patients initiating UMEC/VI had significantly lower risk of COPD-related severe exacerbation versus FP/SAL (hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.78 [0.62, 0.98]; P=0.032), B/F (0.77 [0.63, 0.95]; P=0.016), and TIO (0.79 [0.64, 0.98]; P=0.028). The rate of COPD-related severe exacerbations was significantly lower with UMEC/VI versus FP/SAL (rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.73 [0.59, 0.91]; P=0.008) and B/F (0.73 [0.59, 0.93]; P=0.012), and numerically lower versus TIO (0.83 [0.68, 1.04]; P=0.080). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that high-cost, high-comorbidity patients with COPD receiving UMEC/VI compared with FP/SAL, B/F, and TIO as IMT may have lower medical costs and exacerbation risk.

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.

Evaluation of Medication Adherence and Rescue Medication Use in Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD Receiving Umeclidinium/Vilanterol or Budesonide/Formoterol as Initial Maintenance Therapy.

Background: Adherence to inhaled maintenance therapy is critical to managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), while increasing rescue medication usage may indicate worsening symptoms. This study evaluated adherence and rescue medication use in patients with COPD without a history of exacerbation who initiated combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (B/F) or umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI). Methods: Retrospective observational study of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage with Part D enrollees who initiated UMEC/VI or B/F between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 (earliest fill defined as index date). Eligibility criteria included age ≥40 years, 12 months continuous enrollment pre- and post-index, ≥1 pre-index COPD diagnosis, no pre-index asthma diagnosis, COPD-related exacerbations, or medication fills containing inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting ß2-agonists, or long-acting muscarinic antagonists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance treatment groups on potential confounders. Medication adherence (primary endpoint) was evaluated by the proportion of days covered (PDC). Rescue medication use (secondary endpoint) was standardized to canister equivalents (1 metered dose inhaler [200 puffs] or ~100 nebulized doses of short-acting ß2-agonist- and/or short-acting muscarinic agonist-containing medication). Results: After IPTW, covariates were balanced between cohorts (UMEC/VI: N=4082; B/F: N=9529). UMEC/VI initiators had a significantly greater mean PDC (UMEC/VI: 0.47 [0.33]; B/F: 0.38 [0.30]; P<0.001) and significantly higher rates of adherence (PDC≥0.80) than B/F initiators (UMEC/VI: n=1004 [25%], B/F: n=1391 [15%]; relative risk: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.57, 1.81; P<0.001). In the year following initiation, UMEC/VI initiators filled significantly fewer rescue medication canister equivalents than B/F initiators (predicted mean [95% CI]: 1.78 [1.69, 1.88] vs 2.15 [2.08, 2.23]; mean difference [95% CI]: -0.37 [-0.50, -0.24]; P<0.001), corresponding to 17% less (estimated) rescue medication use (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]: 0.83 [0.78, 0.88]). Conclusion: Among non-exacerbating patients with COPD initiating dual therapy, UMEC/VI demonstrated improved adherence and reduced rescue medication use compared with B/F.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) are central to the pharmacological management of COPD. Dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5/25 µg) is a novel LAMA/LABA combination approved for maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg, open dual LAMA + LABA treatment, or no long-acting bronchodilator treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with UMEC/VI treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD (GSK study number: HO-13-13411). Clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, and mortality obtained from the published literature were used as the model inputs. Costs are presented in US dollars based on 2015 prices. The model outputs are total costs, drug costs, other medical costs, number of COPD exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: UMEC/VI treatment for moderate to very severe COPD was associated with lower lifetime medical costs ($82,344) compared with TIO ($88,822), open dual LAMA + LABA treatment ($114,442), and no long-acting bronchodilator ($86,751). Fewer exacerbations were predicted to occur with UMEC/VI treatment compared with no long-acting bronchodilator treatment. UMEC/VI provided an 0.11 and 0.25 increase in QALYs compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and as such, dominated these cost-effectiveness analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that UMEC/VI treatment would be dominant compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and less costly than open dual LAMA + LABA treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

Cost-effective priorities for cancer prevention.

Faced with limited resources, the United States must set priorities for research to identify preventable causes of cancer. A quantitative approach to priority setting, based on principles of decision analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis, can offer guidance in this process. An illustrative application of such a model suggests that the National Institutes of Health-supported clinical trial of dietary beta-carotene offers a greater expected reduction in cancer mortality per research dollar than carcinogen bioassays of high-volume industrial chemicals such as p-dichlorobenzene. National research priorities should reflect the relative cost-effectiveness of such investments.