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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

SMART therapy in adolescent and adults patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recent asthma guidelines, recommends for persistent asthma as first alternative low dose inhaled budesonide-formoterol maintenance and reliever over fixed combination of low doses inhaled corticosteroids - long-acting beta-agonist, or fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. Concerns arise 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 inhaled corticosteroids in patients with moderate-severe 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 inhaled corticosteroids were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 1.27 and 1.34 QALYs per patient per year on SMART respect to fixed combination and fixed-dose ICS respectively. We observed a reduction of US$4 in total discounted cost per person-year on SMART with respect to fixed combination and US$0.1 respect to fixed-dose ICS. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: SMART therapy was found to be cost-effective regarding fixed combination and fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids. This evidence supports the use of SMART therapy in Colombia and must to be replicated in others middle-income countries.

Cost-utility of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol in adolescents mild asthma.

BACKGROUND: Previously evidence has demonstrated that as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol reduced the risk of severe exacerbations compared with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in an adolescent with mild asthma. Concerns as if the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in adolescents with mild asthma in Colombia. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.03 QALYs and per patient per year on low-dose budesonide-formoterol. The cost difference per person was US$-4 per patient per year in favor of budesonide- formoterol. The position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in adolescents with mild asthma. This evidence should promote economic evaluations in developed and developing countries for the inclusion of new drugs in health insurance plans.

Two cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease evaluated by dynamic-ventilatory digital radiography for pulmonary function and assessment of treatment efficacy.

Spirometry is a crucial test used in the diagnosis and monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic has posed numerous challenges in performing spirometry. Dynamic-ventilatory digital radiography (DR) provides sequential chest radiography images during respiration with lower doses of radiation than conventional X-ray fluoroscopy and computed tomography. Recent studies revealed that parameters obtained from dynamic DR are promising for evaluating pulmonary function of COPD patients. We report two cases of COPD evaluated by dynamic-ventilatory DR for pulmonary function and treatment efficacy and discuss the potential of dynamic DR for evaluating COPD therapy.

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.

Inclusão da apresentação spray de Formoterol + Budesonida para o tratamento da Asma / Inclusion of the Formoterol + spray presentation Budesonide for Asthma Treatment

INTRODUÇÃO: De acordo com a Iniciativa Global para Asma (Global Initiative for Asthma - GINA)1 , a asma é uma doença heterogênea, geralmente caracterizada por inflamação crônica das vias aéreas. Afeta tanto adultos quanto crianças e é a doença crônica mais comum entre essas últimas. A base do tratamento é constituída por corticosteroide inalatório associado ou não a um ß2-agonista de longa duração, podendo ser necessário associar ß2-agonista de curta duração ou antagonista muscarínico de longa duração. Considerando as recomendações, associações de medicamentos são disponibilizadas em diferentes dispositivos dosimétricos com inalador único. De acordo com o Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas da Asma de 2013, a associação de formoterol / budesonida é disponibilizada no Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS) na apresentação cápsula ou pó inalante. A escolha do dispositivo deve considerar fatores relacionados ao paciente, como habilidade e capacidade de uso, para obtenção da máxima efetividade. Consequentemente, a associação formoterol / budesonida em spray poderia representar uma alternativa para pacientes com dificuldades de inspiração e incapacidade de alcance de fluxo inspiratório mínimo. TECNOLOGIA: Fumarato de formoterol di-hidratado associado à budesonida spray (SymbicortSpray, Symbicort e Vannair®). PERGUNTA: A associação formoterol / budesonida em spray é uma opção segura e eficaz para o tratamento da asma em comparação com as demais apresentações do medicamento já disponíveis no SUS? EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: Foram identificados três ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECR) que compararam a eficácia e a segurança de formoterol / budesonida nas apresentações spray e pó seco para inalação no tratamento da asma. Os estudos foram realizados em adultos, adolescentes e crianças (≥ 6 anos), e evidenciaram semelhança em desfechos relevantes de eficácia como função pulmonar, qualidade de vida, exacerbações e hospitalizações,sem diferenças no perfil de segurança. Os achados, no entanto, foram obtidos no cenário da pesquisa clínica, em que os pacientes são altamente treinados e monitorados em relação ao uso dos dispositivos. AVALIAÇÃO DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: No caso base, que considerou os medicamentos já incorporados ao SUS para o tratamento da asma, o impacto orçamentário em cinco anos foi de R$ 424.939.102,13. Para o cenário proposto, que considerou a inclusão do formoterol / budesonida spray, o impacto foi de R$ 579.431.076,82. Por conseguinte, o impacto orçamentário incremental em cinco anos da incorporação do formoterol / budesonida spray foi de R$ 154.491.974,69. Deve-se ressaltar, entretanto, que variação na dose utilizada pelos pacientes podem resultar em variações significativas no impacto. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram detectadas as combinações formoterol + mometasona e indacaterol + mometasona. Ambas administradas por via inalatória. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: Os estudos de comparação de formoterol / budesonida nas apresentações spray e pó seco para inalação não evidenciam diferenças em desfechos de eficácia e segurança entre os dispositivos, tanto em adultos e adolescentes, quanto em crianças com idade ≥ 6 anos. Os desfechos, no entanto, foram mensurados em ambientes altamente controlados, e podem não refletir as dificuldades de adequação e habilidades de uso da prática clínica. Pacientes com dificuldade de inspiração e de alcance de fluxo inspiratório necessário não têm indicação de uso de cápsula ou pó inalante. RECOMENDAÇÃO PELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Na 94ª reunião ordinária da Conitec, realizada em 03 de fevereiro de 2021, o Plenário deliberou que a matéria fosse disponibilizada em consulta pública com recomendação preliminar desfavorável à incorporação do fumarato de formoterol di-hidratado associado à budesonida spray para o tratamento da asma. A deliberação considerou o fato das tecnologias avaliadas apresentarem eficácia e perfil de segurança semelhantes e a ausência de evidências que mostrassem benefícios ou melhora da adesão para populações específicas. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: A consulta pública nº 07 ficou vigente no período entre 18/02/2021 e 09/03/2021. Foram recebidas 1.234 contribuições, sendo 317 pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e 917 pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. A maioria das contribuições recebidas na consulta pública foram com relação a certos grupos de pacientes que apresentam grande chance de não conseguir utilizar corretamente o dispositivo de pó seco com formoterol/budesonida, por falta de coordenação motora, condições físicas, fluxo inalatório inadequado. Estes grupos incluem crianças menores de sete anos de idade, idosos, pacientes com problemas cognitivos e paciente com comorbidade neurológica. Portanto, a apresentação em spray melhoraria a adesão destes pacientes ao tratamento. No entanto, não houve estudos anexados que comprovassem este efeito e não se sabe ao certo o quanto a apresentação em spray irá interferir de forma benéfica no tratamento. Ressalta-se que esta possível melhora clínica não foi quantificada pelos profissionais que apresentaram suas contribuições. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL DA CONITEC: Diante do exposto, o Plenário entendeu que não existem evidências robustas de que o uso do formoterol + budesonida em spray resulte em maior adesão à apresentação já fornecida pelo SUS por grupos específicos. Não foram identificados estudos que comparam as duas apresentações do medicamento e os estudos apresentados eram relativos apenas ao uso do dispositivo de pó seco. Ademais, não foram fornecidas evidências adicionais ou proposta de preço pela empresa fabricante da tecnologia que resultassem em alteração na decisão. Assim, manteve-se a recomendação desfavorável à incorporação do formoterol + budesonida em spray para o tratamento da asma. Foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 602/2021. DECISÃO: Não incorporar o fumarato de formoterol di-hidratado associado à budesonida spray para o tratamento da asma, no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde ­ SUS, conforme Portaria nº 17, publicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 79, Seção 1, página 329, em 29 de abril de 2021.

Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence.

Asthma is the commonest chronic disease affecting airways in humans and has an increasing global disease burden. Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the first-line therapeutic option for asthma, and addition of a long-acting beta 2-agonist (LABA) has been shown to improve asthma control. A combination of the two agents in a single inhaler is beneficial with regard to ease of administration and patient compliance. Various ICS-LABA formulations are available across various countries in the world, one among them being formoterol-fluticasone. Both formoterol and fluticasone have pharmacologic peculiarities which places the combination in a uniquely advantageous position when it comes to asthma therapy. The present review focuses on some of the, hitherto, less explored aspects of this combination inhaler such as real-world efficacy, impact on budget allocation, results of switch-over therapy, and potential to improve adherence to asthma treatment. It also provides practical recommendations on positioning it in real-world asthma management.

NMR-Based Metabolomics for the Assessment of Inhaled Pharmacotherapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients.

The aim of this proof-of-concept, pilot study was the evaluation of the effects of steroid administration and suspension of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) extrafine fixed dose combination (FDC) on metabolomic fingerprints in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We hypothesized that a comprehensive metabolomics approach discriminates across inhaled pharmacotherapies and that their effects on metabolomic signatures depend on the biological fluids analyzed. We performed metabolomics via nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy in exhaled breath condensate (EBC), sputum supernatants, serum, and urine. Fourteen patients suffering from COPD who were on regular inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol therapy (visit 1) were consecutively treated with 2-week beclomethasone dipropionate/formoterol (visit 2), 4-week formoterol alone (visit 3), and 4-week beclomethasone/formoterol (visit 4). The comprehensive NMR-based metabolomics approach showed differences across all pharmacotherapies and that different biofluids provided orthogonal information. Serum formate was lower at visits 1 versus 3 (P = 0.03), EBC formate was higher at visit 1 versus 4 (P = 0.03), and urinary 1-methyl-nicotinamide was lower at 3 versus 4 visit (P = 0.002). NMR-based metabolomics of different biofluids distinguishes across inhaled pharmacotherapies, provides complementary information on the effects of an extrafine ICS/LABA FDC on metabolic fingerprints in COPD patients, and might be useful for elucidating the ICS mechanism of action.