Treatment pathways, economic burden and clinical outcomes in new users of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting B2-agonist dual therapy with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a primary care setting in England: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) improves lung function and health status and reduces COPD exacerbation risk versus monotherapy. This study described treatment use, healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), healthcare costs and outcomes following initiation of single-device ICS/LABA as initial maintenance therapy (IMT). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care, England. DATA SOURCES: Linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COPD and ≥1 single-device ICS/LABA prescription between July 2015 and December 2018 were included. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Treatment pathways, COPD-related HCRU and healthcare costs, COPD exacerbations, time to triple therapy, medication adherence (proportion of days covered ≥80%) and indexed treatment time to discontinuation. Data for patients without prior maintenance therapy history (IMT users) and non-triple users were assessed over a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Of 13 451 new ICS/LABA users, 5162 were IMT users (budesonide/formoterol, n=1056; beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol, n=2427; other ICS/LABA, n=1679), for whom at 3 and 12 months post-index, 45.6% and 39.4% were still receiving any ICS/LABA. At >6 to ≤12 months, the proportion of IMT users with ≥1 outpatient visit (10.1%) and proportion with ≥1 inpatient stay (12.6%) had increased from those at 3 months (9.0% and 7.4%, respectively). Inpatient stays contributed most to total COPD-related healthcare costs. For non-triple IMT users, at 3 and 12 months post-index, 4.5% and 13.7% had ≥1 moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbation. Time to triple therapy initiation and time to discontinuation of index medication ranged from 45.9 to 50.2 months and 2.3 to 2.8 months between treatments. Adherence was low across all time points (21.5-27.6%). Results were similar across indexed therapies. CONCLUSIONS: In the year following treatment initiation, ICS/LABA adherence was poor and many patients discontinued or switched therapies, suggesting that more consideration and optimisation of treatment is required in England for patients initiating single-device ICS/LABA therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine. METHODS: We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000). RESULTS: Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in childhood asthma: Real-world effectiveness and economic assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The study aims to compare the real-world effectiveness and economy of the budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy (SMART) with fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting b-agonist (LABA) or ICS alone plus as-needed, short-acting ß2 agonists (SABA) in pediatric patients. METHODS: The outpatient data warehouse of a hospital in China was used. A total of 103 patients under 18 years old in the SMART group and 63 patients in the control group were included from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. The effectiveness was assessed using asthma attacks and lung function at baseline, 6 months and 12 months follow-up. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with a three-state Markov model from the healthcare system perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The SMART regimen was more effective than other strategies in reducing the risk of mild and severe attacks in the real-life management of childhood asthma. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement in lung function at 6 and 12 months in contrast to baseline. Compared with other strategies, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) level in the SMART group was markedly improved at 6 months. The total cost of outpatient service using the SMART regimen was lower than that of other strategies, while the drug costs were similar in different groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis results showed that using the SMART regimen reduced the total cost by approximately CNY 10,516.11 per year with a 0.12 quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) increase. Sensitive analyses supported that the SMART regimen was the dominant choice at the willingness-to-pay threshold of CNY 85,698, per capita GDP in China. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, our findings indicate that the real-world effectiveness and economy of the SMART regimen are superior to the traditional strategies in pediatric asthma patients.

Assessment of OXIS contacts-a comparison of three methods.

PURPOSE: To compare OXIS contacts by means of Replication using Sectional die Models (RSM) and Photographs of the Models (PM) with Direct Clinical Examination (DCE) in a sample of preschool children aged 3-4 years. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using existing records of sectional die models and their photographs among 4257 contacts of 1104 caries-free pre-school children. Two calibrated examiners scored the contacts between the distal surface of the primary first molar and mesial surface of the primary second molar using OXIS criteria from the occlusal view using the RSM & PM methods. These were compared to the OXIS scores from DCE method which was available from previous records. Kappa agreement was used to compare results obtained RSM and PM methods with DCE. RESULTS: The kappa agreement between the RSM and DCE methods was 98.48%; and between the PM and DCE methods was 99.42%, both of which indicated perfect agreement. CONCLUSION: The RSM and PM methods were found to have an excellent agreement in scoring OXIS contacts when compared to the DCE method. PM was found to be slightly more accurate than the RSM method for scoring OXIS contacts.

American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred steps 1 to 3 asthma maintenance and reliever therapy and incomplete insurance coverage indicated as main practice hurdle.

BACKGROUND: New asthma guidelines (GINA, 2022; NAEPP EPR-4, 2020) include considerable changes in treatment recommendations, specifically regarding anti-inflammatory rescue and Single MAintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART). OBJECTIVE: To explore American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members' preferred treatment and perceived hurdles. METHODS: A survey (SurveyMonkey) regarding steps 1 to 3 asthma therapy was e-mailed to American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology members. RESULTS: The allergists completed 147 surveys (46% with >20 years of experience; 98% from United States; 29% academic, 75% [also] private practice). In addition, 69% follow the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program and 81% the Global Initiative for Asthma recommendations. Of 147 allergists, 117 (80%) indicated correctly what SMART strategy is; 21%/36%/50%/39% would use SMART in step 3 treatment of a below 5-year-old/5- to 11-year-old/12- to 65-year-old/above 65-year-old patient, respectively. In this group, 11% to 14% incorrectly chose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus salmeterol and 9% ICS plus vilanterol for SMART. In a 4-year-old needing step 1 therapy (N = 129), 55% of the respondents would add anti-inflammatory therapy; for step 2 treatment, most would prescribe ICS 100 to 200 µg budesonide equivalent daily; in step 3, 49% would prescribe ICS plus long-acting beta-agonist (LABA). In a 7-year-old needing step 1 treatment (N = 134), 40% would prescribe only short-acting beta-agonist; in step 3, 45% would institute SMART strategy, but only 8 of 135 (6%) chose very-low dose ICS plus formoterol (as recommended in Global Initiative for Asthma); most (39%) use low-dose ICS plus formoterol. As for rescue therapy, 59% is now instituting some form of anti-inflammatory rescue. Finally, in a 25-year-old patient (N = 144): in step 1, 39% would prescribe exclusively short-acting beta-agonist; in step 2, 4% only anti-inflammatory rescue and the rest prescribes ICS maintenance; one-third begins SMART strategy at step 2 and 50% in step 3. Major hurdles for prescribing one's preferred strategy included incomplete insurance coverage, insurance not approving more than one canister of ICS-formoterol per month, and cost. CONCLUSION: Asthma therapy varies among physicians, with respondents suggesting underutilization of the recommended anti-inflammatory rescue and SMART therapy. A major hurdle is lack of insurance coverage of medication in line with the guidelines.

Characteristics of initiators of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol for treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the United States: the AURA study.

INTRODUCTION: A twice-daily single inhaler triple therapy consisting of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in July 2020 as a maintenance treatment for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective of this AURA study is to describe patient characteristics, exacerbation and treatment history, and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) before BGF initiation to better inform treatment decisions for prescribers. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study leveraged data of all payer types from IQVIA's Longitudinal Prescription Data (LRx) linked to Medical Data (Dx). Patients with COPD who had ⩾1 LRx claim for BGF between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2021 were included. The date of first BGF claim was the index date. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics, history of COPD exacerbation or related event, treatment history, and HCRU were assessed during the 12 months before index (baseline). RESULTS: We identified 30,339 patients with COPD initiating BGF (mean age: 68.2 years; 57.1% female; 67.6% Medicare). Unspecified COPD (J44.9; 74.0%) was the most commonly coded COPD phenotype. The most prevalent respiratory conditions/symptoms were dyspnea (50.8%), lower respiratory tract infection (25.3%), and sleep apnea (19.0%). Uncomplicated hypertension (58.8%), dyslipidemia (43.9%), cardiovascular disease (41.4%), and heart failure (19.9%) were the most prevalent nonrespiratory conditions. During the 12-month baseline, 57.9% of patients had evidence of a COPD exacerbation or related event, and 14.9% had ⩾1 COPD-related emergency department (ED) visit; 21.0% of patients had evidence of prior triple therapy use, while 54.3% had ⩾1 oral corticosteroid (OCS) fill. Among OCS users, 29.9% had cumulative exposures >1000 mg [median [Q1-Q3] exposure: 520 (260-1183) mg]. CONCLUSION: This real-world data analysis indicates that BGF is being initiated in patients with COPD experiencing symptoms and exacerbations despite current therapy, and among patients who have various chronic comorbidities, most often cardiopulmonary-related.

Comparison of three alternatives for the management of moderate asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent asthma guidelines for children 6-11 years with persistent asthma advocate three alternatives: SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 mcg qd plus additional doses as needed), fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol, and fixed-dose budesonide. Concerns have arisen as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy were calculated over a time horizon of 6 years. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The mean QALY per patient was 0.57 and 0.56 QALYs per patient per year of SMART and fixed combination and 0,52 with fixed-dose budesonide. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$111 for SMART, US$133 for fixed combination, and US$67 for fixed-dose budesonide. The net monetary benefit of SMART was US$12,549, US$12278 for fixed combination, and US$11,380 for fixed-dose budesonide. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that SMART was more cost-effective than fixed combination and fixed-dose budesonide. These findings complement and support the GINA 2021 and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guideline recommendations for use of inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

How do we manage asthma? Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns among pulmonologists and allergists.

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare knowledge, attitude, and practice patterns between pulmonologists and allergists for adult asthma in Turkey.Methods: Questionnaire-based data were gathered from 236 pulmonologists and 62 allergists, who had been members of the Turkish Thoracic Society and Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology in January-March 2021. Univariate and multivariate statistics were used to determine the factors associated with primary reliever preferences.Results: Of the 298 physicians, 39% encountered at least five asthma patients daily. Spirometer was used frequently by both the allergists (82.3%) and pulmonologists (77.5%) for asthma diagnosis. Budesonide was the most preferred inhaler corticosteroid. Formoterol/budesonide was the most preferred ICS/LABA combination, followed by beclomethasone/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol for asthma treatment. For mild asthmatics, formoterol/ICS was the most preferred (72.6%) reliever among allergists, whereas salbutamol was the most preferred (66.1%) among pulmonologists (p < 0.001). Age and workplace were associated with salbutamol preference of doctors for mild asthmatics. Age, specialty, and patient examination time were significantly associated with salbutamol preference for severe asthmatics.Conclusions: The use of diagnostic tools, such as a spirometer, for asthma diagnosis was compatible with the guidelines. While recent updates of the guidelines indicate that salbutamol should not be used solely in mild asthmatics due to its harmful effects in long-term use, it still was the most preferred drug by pulmonologists. Postgraduate education programs are needed to improve compliance with the guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/ Glycopyrronium/ Formoterol Fumarate versus Dual Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Spain.

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA, respectively, in patients with moderate to severe COPD, from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. Methods: A lifetime Markov model with monthly cycle length was developed with baseline and treatment effect data from ETHOS clinical trial, together with utility values from literature and Spanish healthcare resource costs (€, 2021). A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and benefits. The model comprised ten health states: nine forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)-related, which were divided by three levels of severity: moderate (FEV1 ≥50% and <80%); severe (FEV1 ≥30% and <50%) and very severe (FEV1 <30%) and a death state. Each FEV1-health state was divided into no exacerbation, moderate exacerbation, and severe exacerbations. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost per exacerbation avoided, per life year (LY) gained, and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICUR). One-way (OWSA), scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Results: According to this cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model, BUD/GLY/FOR was associated with a lower totals exacerbation per patient (12.80) compared to LAMA/LABA (13.36) and ICS/LABA (13.23) and higher LYs (10.32 vs 10.14 and 10.06, respectively) and QALYs (7.55 vs 7.41 and 7.32, respectively). The incremental costs were €850.95, and €2422.26, respectively, per exacerbation avoided, €2733.38 and €4111.15, respectively, per LY gained and €3461.19 and €4545.24 per QALY gained. OWSA showed that the model was most sensitive to the costs of treatments following discontinuation, but the ICUR remained below the cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY gained. In the PSA, the probability of BUD/GLY/FOR being cost-effective was 91.32% vs LAMA/LABA and 99.29% vs ICS/LABA. Conclusion: BUD/GLY/FOR is a cost-effective treatment strategy for Spanish NHS patients with COPD compared to dual therapies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate Dihydrate versus Dual Therapies in Moderate-to-Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: United Kingdom Analysis Using the ETHOS Study.

Background: In the 52-week ETHOS study (NCT02465567), fixed-dose triple therapy with budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BGF) reduced moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations versus fixed-dose long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) or inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA dual therapies. Here, ETHOS data were used to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies in the United Kingdom. Methods: Costs, exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and LYs were extrapolated using a Markov model that considered disease severity progression, risk of moderate and severe exacerbations, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD receiving BGF 320/14.4/10 µg, the LAMA/LABA glycopyrronium/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 14.4/10 µg (GFF), or the ICS/LABA budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate 320/10 µg (BFF). Utilities for COPD severity states were estimated using EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level data from ETHOS. Exacerbation disutilities were sourced from published literature. Healthcare resource utilization was based on ETHOS data, published literature, key external experts' input, and informed assumptions. Unit costs came from the UK National Health Service Schedule of Reference Costs, Unit Costs of Health and Social Care from the Personal Social Services Research Unit, and published literature. A lifetime horizon was considered, with costs, QALYs, and LYs discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results: The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR; per QALY gained) was £9901 for BGF versus GFF and £2164 for BGF versus BFF. The probability of treatments being cost-effective at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold of ICUR <£20,000 was 85.1% for BGF, 14.3% for GFF, and 0.6% for BFF. Conclusion: Based on ETHOS data, BGF was demonstrated to be cost-effective versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA dual therapies at the conventional UK-adopted willingness-to-pay threshold (ICUR <£20,000). The main cost-effectiveness driver for BGF versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA therapies was reduction in rate of exacerbations, which reduced costs and preserved quality of life.

Assessment of extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A non-interventional study in a Bulgarian population.

BACKGROUND: The beneficial effects of application of a fixed dose beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol fumarate (F) for the treatment of severe chronic obstructive disease (COPD) has been amply proven in well controlled clinical trials. Whether this also holds for real-world conditions and in such a heterogeneous patient population as is encountered in Bulgaria remained to be investigated. METHODS: In an observational, non-interventional study, 441 Bulgarian patients with severe COPD who were enrolled at 36 sites across the country received extrafine BDP/FF-combination therapy using the NEXThaler® DPI or the Foster® pMDI over a period of 16 weeks. At visits at the beginning, after 4 weeks and at the end of the study, alterations in lung function parameters FEV1 and FVC, disease symptoms, changes in CAT score, and patient distribution in GOLD 2017 categories A through D were assessed. RESULTS: A large share of the Bulgarian patients with severe COPD suffered from serious comorbidities, received additional medication, and about 2/3 were former or current smokers. Extrafine BDP/FF caused an increase in mean FEV1, FVC, a decrease of health impact as assessed by the CAT score, and a considerable shift of the share of category C and D patients towards A and B. In addition, the percentage of patients that were free of symptoms impacting everyday life such as fatigue and shortness of breath at rest increased throughout the study. A comparison of both application devices indicated that the NEXThaler® was superior in terms of lung functional aspects, as these parameters displayed a constant improvement over the observation period, whereas they plateaued at week 4 when using the pMDI. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic benefits of extrafine BDP/FF known from clinical trials could also be observed in a real-world setting, even in such a heterogenous patient population as the Bulgarian. The NEXThaler® appeared to be highly efficient in this setting, opening a new choice for the lung specialist and the patient to select the one device considered most suitable and practical.

[Pharmacoeconomics analysis of using a fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol in patients with asthma in the health care system of the Russian Federation].

AIM: To evaluate the budgetary impact of using budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) as maintenance therapy in real clinical practice compared with standard therapy for asthma of varying severity: for mild asthma with on-demand salbutamol; for moderate and severe asthma with the drug salmeterol + fluticasone and salbutamol on demand. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A static mathematical model was built to assess the impact on the budget when introducing the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) in the treatment of asthma into clinical practice from the point of view of the state. Demographic data was taken from the official data of the Federal State Statistics Service. Direct medical costs included the cost of medicines, the cost of hospitalization of patients associated with the development of asthma exacerbations, and the cost of scheduled outpatient visits. Indirect costs considered the loss of GDP due to hospitalization of patients against the background of asthma exacerbations. A one-way sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm the robustness of the study results. RESULTS: Assessment of direct costs in the treatment of mild, moderate and severe asthma showed that a gradual increase in the proportion of patients receiving the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) over the years to 5.5, 7.7 and 9.7% accordingly, led to an increase in the cost of pharmacotherapy over 3 years by 1.7 billion rubles, while direct non-drug costs associated with the treatment of complications that developed during the treatment of asthma decreased by 8.3 billion rubles. Thus, the reduction in total direct costs amounted to RUB 6.7 billion. At the same time, indirect costs decreased by 6.0 billion rubles. The total reduction in all costs (direct and indirect) when switching patients to budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) amounted to 12.5 billion rubles. In addition, the use of the drug budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) resulted in a decrease in the number of exacerbations: in the first year by 3137, in the second by 4393 and in the third by 5534 cases. A total of 13 064 asthma exacerbations were prevented over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Increasing the proportion of patients with asthma of varying severity receiving therapy with budesonide + formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) will reduce the financial burden on both the healthcare system and the budgetary system.

Risk Assessment of Acute Myocardial Infarction and Stroke Associated with Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists, Alone or in Combination, versus Long-Acting beta2-Agonists.

Background: The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) aclidinium was approved in Europe in 2012 to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A post-authorization safety study was initiated to assess potential cardiovascular risks associated with LAMAs versus long-acting beta2-agonists. Purpose: To estimate incidence rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in new users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, long-acting beta-agonists/inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA/LABA compared with initiators of LABA. Patients and Methods: This population-based cohort study included patients with COPD aged ≥40 years initiating COPD medications in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database from 2012 to 2019. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the IRR for AMI, stroke, and MACE in users of COPD medications versus LABA, adjusting for clinically relevant covariables. Results: The study included 11,121 new users of aclidinium, 4804 of aclidinium/formoterol, 56,198 of tiotropium, 23,856 of other LAMA, 17,450 of LAMA/LABA, 70,289 of LABA/ICS, and 13,716 of LABA. During periods of continuous medication use after initiation (current use), crude incidence rates per 1000 person-years for AMI ranged from 8.7 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 12.4 (LAMA/LABA), for stroke ranged from 4.8 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 7.2 (LAMA/LABA), and for MACE ranged from 13.5 (aclidinium/formoterol) to 19.3 (LAMA/LABA). Using LABA as reference, adjusted IRRs [95% confidence intervals] were close to 1 for all study drugs for AMI (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.95 [0.60-1.52], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.23 [0.91-1.67]), stroke (lowest for aclidinium/formoterol, 0.64 [0.39-1.06], and highest for tiotropium, 1.02 [0.81-1.27] for tiotropium) and for MACE (lowest for aclidinium, 0.93 [0.75-1.16], and highest for LAMA/LABA, 1.24 [0.97-1.59]). Conclusion: Risks of AMI, stroke, and MACE in current users of aclidinium, aclidinium/formoterol, tiotropium, other LAMA, LAMA/LABA, or LABA/ICS were similar to the risks among current users of LABA.

Cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium in patients with uncontrolled asthma in England.

BACKGROUND: In patients with asthma that is uncontrolled by a medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA), a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic agonist, either via multiple inhalers, or single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). One SITT is the extrafine formulation of beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G). We used data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER), both conducted in adults with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA, to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FF/G. METHODS: A Markov cohort state transition model (focusing on exacerbations) was used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of medium- or high-dose BDP/FF/G vs medium- or high-dose BDP/FF, and high-dose BDP/FF/G vs high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium. The model analysed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and was developed from the England National Health Service perspective (2020 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs BDP/FF, with ICERs of £12,224 and £15,587 per QALY gained. High-dose BDP/FF/G was dominant vs BDP/FF + tiotropium, as it was both cheaper and gained QALYs. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base model: medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G had 94.3% and 88.3% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs BDP/FF; high-dose BDP/FF/G had 100% likelihood to be a dominant strategy vs BDP/FF + tiotropium. CONCLUSIONS: Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs medium- and high-dose BDP/FF in adults with asthma that was uncontrolled by ICS/LABA. In addition, high-dose BDP/FF/G was a dominating strategy to high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT02676076 and NCT02676089.

Adherence and quality of life assessment in patients with asthma treatment with budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device: the COMPLETE study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways that causes recurring episodes of wheezing, breathlessness, chest tightness and coughing. Inhaled drugs on a daily basis are the cornerstone of asthma treatment, therefore, patient adherence is very important. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open, non-interventional, observational, prospective study of 716 adult patients diagnosed with asthma receiving FDC (Fixed-dose combination) budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device. We assessed the adherence to treatment at 3 and 6 months (based on the MMAS-8: 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale), the quality of life and change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) from baseline to follow-up. RESULTS: Approximately 80% of the patients showed medium to high adherence throughout the study. The mean (SD) MMAS-8 score at 6 months was 6.85 (1.54) and we observed a statistically significant shift of patients from the low adherence group to the high adherence group at 6 months. Moreover, after 6 months of treatment with FDC budesonide/formoterol, we observed an increase in the patients' quality of life that as expressed by a change 2.01 (95%CI 1.93-2.10) units in Mini AQLQ (p < 0.0001) that was more pronounced in the high adherence group. The same trend was also observed in terms of spirometry (mean FEV1 2.58 L (0.85) at the end of the study, increased by 220 mL from baseline) with a higher improvement in the medium and high adherence groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with FDC of budesonide/formoterol via the Elpenhaler device was associated with improvement in asthma-related quality of life and lung function over 6 months that were more prominent in patients with higher adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2017-HAL-EL-74 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03300076).

Economic Evaluation of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate for the Treatment of Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China Using a Semi-Markov Model.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic respiratory disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) is a newly approved pharmacotherapy for COPD in China that has been shown to improve lung function and reduce the risk of exacerbations, but the cost-effectiveness of BGF remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BGF in patients with moderate to very severe COPD from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A semi-Markov model was developed to compare the costs and benefit of treatment with BGF versus a composite comparator of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapies. Clinical inputs for BGF and the composite comparator were based on the KRONOS study (NCT02497001) and a network meta-analysis. Cost inputs were derived from published literature and Chinese government documents, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Health-related quality-of-life inputs were also obtained based on the KRONOS study. Lifetime costs, number of exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Costs were measured in 2020 Chinese Yuan (CN¥) and converted into US dollars (US$). Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over the lifetime horizon, BGF treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (4.01 and 0.87, respectively) versus the composite comparator (8.42 and 2.04, respectively), with a base-case ICER of CN¥13,685.94 (US$1983.47) per QALY gained. Scenario analyses considering different population and utilities resulted in ICERs ranging from dominant to CN¥13,673.91 (US$1981.73). Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated robust base-case results since all analyses yielded ICERs below the conservative cost-effectiveness threshold of one times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product (CN¥72,447.00 [US$10,499.57], 2020). CONCLUSION: Triple therapy with BGF was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option compared with LAMA/LABA therapies for patients with moderate to very severe COPD in China.

How the cost-effectiveness results change in the China health policy environment: an economic evaluation of glycopyrrolate/formoterol for the treatment of COPD.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of glycopyrrolate/formoterol compared with tiotropium bromide for the treatment of moderate-to-severe COPD in China and discuss the influence of healthcare policies on the economic evaluation. METHODS: A Markov model with seven disease states was built to evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of glycopyrrolate/formoterol from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare sector. Drug prices both before and after the negotiation were applied to discuss the influence on the economic evaluation results. Exacerbation and adverse event were included in each cycle. The improvement of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and incidence rate of exacerbation were derived from pooled PINNACLE analysis. Mortality rates from Chinese life tables were adjusted using hazard ratios. Direct medical costs were modeled in accordance with the perspective chosen. Health resource utilization were derived from previous studies and expert's opinions. Life-years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incidence of exacerbation were simulated as the health outcomes. One-way sensitivity analysis and probability analysis were conducted to explore the robustness of the base case results. Several scenario analyses were also designed. RESULTS: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol generated an additional 0.0063 LYs and 0.0032 QALYs with lower lifetime costs compared with tiotropium (CNY 27,854 vs. CNY 33,189) and was proved to be the dominant strategy in the base case analysis. The one-way sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the base case results. The probabilities of glycopyrrolate/formoterol being cost-effective were 96.5, 95.7, and 93.0% when CNY 72,000 (1 time GDP per capital), CNY 108,000, and CNY 216,000 were used as thresholds, respectively. Compared with the scenario where price before negotiation was used, the cost-effectiveness based on current price was significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Glycopyrrolate/formoterol was demonstrated to be a clinically and cost-effective treatment for moderate-to-severe COPD in China using the latest price. The negotiation policy could increase the cost-effectiveness and benefit the patients.

Asthma management in low and middle income countries: case for change.

Asthma is the most common noncommunicable disease in children, and among the most common in adults. The great majority of people with asthma live in low and middle income countries (LMICs), which have disproportionately high asthma-related morbidity and mortality. Essential inhaled medications, particularly those containing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), are often unavailable or unaffordable, and this explains much of the global burden of preventable asthma morbidity and mortality. Guidelines developed for LMICs are generally based on the outdated assumption that patients with asthma symptoms <1-3 times per week do not need (or benefit from) ICS. Even when ICS are prescribed, many patients manage their asthma with oral or inhaled short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) alone, owing to issues of availability and affordability. A single ICS-formoterol inhaler-based approach to asthma management for all severities of asthma, from mild to severe, starting at diagnosis, might overcome SABA overuse/over-reliance and reduce the burden of symptoms and severe exacerbations. However, ICS-formoterol inhalers are currently very poorly available or unaffordable in LMICs. There is a pressing need for pragmatic clinical trial evidence of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this and other strategies to improve asthma care in these countries. The global health inequality in asthma care that deprives so many children, adolescents and adults of healthy lives and puts them at increased risk of death, despite the availability of highly effective therapeutic approaches, is unacceptable. A World Health Assembly Resolution on universal access to affordable and effective asthma care is needed to focus attention and investment on addressing this need.

Medication Cost-Savings and Utilization of Generic Inhaled Corticosteroid (ICS) and Long-Acting Beta-Agonist (LABA) Drug Products in the USA.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, drug costs associated with the inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long acting ß agonist (LABA) combination products have been increasing since 2001. In January 2019, the first generic ICS/LABA drug product was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. METHODS: We investigated retrospectively the effects of the first approved generic ICS/LABA drug from 2019 to 2020 on the wholesale cost-savings and prescription dispensing using the IQVIA data system in the USA. RESULTS: The marketing of the first generic for fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate dry powder inhaler was associated with $941 million in drug cost-savings during the first year for this class of medications. Although the brand-name drug manufacturer concurrently introduced its authorized generic, these cost-savings were driven by the averaged unit cost of the approved generic at $115, compared to $169 for the authorized generic and $334 for the branded product. Generic initiation and substitution with the first generic were, respectively, higher compared to those with authorized generics; however, overall dispensing of the first generic was lower than that of its branded product. As in the case of budesonide and formoterol fumarate dry powder inhaler, marketing of authorized generics alone was not associated with any noticeable change in sales or prescription cost-saving. CONCLUSION: We estimated that more than 20% of prescription cost-saving was achieved for the ICS/LABA dry powder inhalers in the first year following the introduction of the first approved generic, even though generic utilization remained lower than that of the branded counterpart.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries. METHODS: A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year). RESULTS: Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.