Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV1 <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV1 <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV1 <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV1 for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results. RESULTS: Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV1 across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV1. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686). CONCLUSION: This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

The economic burden of dry eye: a conceptual framework and preliminary assessment.

PURPOSE: To develop a conceptual framework for analyzing the economic burden of dry eye and a preliminary assessment of key factors that contribute to that burden. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched from 1966 to May 2003 combining the term "dry eye" with various economic terms. In addition, individual interviews with a panel of clinicians were conducted to provide additional insight on resource use. RESULTS: Direct resource utilization among dry eye sufferers includes healthcare professional visits, nonpharmacological therapies, pharmacological treatments, and surgical procedures, with the latter 2 categories being the major cost drivers. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are a newly recognized component of the dry eye economic burden. There is wide variation in patterns of diagnosis and treatment, but current therapies are not universally effective. Given the prevalence of the condition, indirect costs may be large. Utilization of pharmacological therapies, especially those other than tear replacements, the extent of CAM use, cost of complications of surgical procedures, and indirect costs are unknown. The natural history and probability that patients will transition between therapies, based on underlying disease severity, need to be elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Dry eye is a prevalent condition with the potential for a high economic burden; additional studies are needed to further characterize the economic impact.