Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on to triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy in patients with severe and very severe COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the UK.

Purpose: Patients with severe COPD are at high risk of experiencing disease exacerbations, which require additional treatment and are associated with elevated mortality and increased risk of future exacerbations. Some patients continue to experience exacerbations despite receiving triple inhaled therapy (ICS plus LAMA plus LABA). Roflumilast is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease as add-on treatment to triple inhaled therapy for these patients. This cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years for roflumilast plus triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy alone, using data from the REACT and RE2SPOND trials. Patients and methods: Patients included in the analysis had severe to very severe COPD, FEV1 <50% predicted, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and ≥2 exacerbations per year. Our model was adapted from a previously published and validated model, and the analyses conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. A scenario analysis considered a subset of patients who had experienced at least one COPD-related hospitalization within the previous year. Results: Roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was associated with non-significant reductions in rates of both moderate and severe exacerbations compared with triple inhaled therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was £24,976. In patients who had experienced previous hospitalization, roflumilast was associated with a non-significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations, and a statistically significant reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. The ICER for roflumilast in this population was £7,087. Conclusions: Roflumilast is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe or very severe COPD, chronic bronchitis, and a history of exacerbations. The availability of roflumilast as add-on treatment addresses an important unmet need in this patient population.

Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Impact of Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor in the Treatment of Cystic Fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a chronic, progressive, genetic disease affecting more than 30,000 people in the United States and 70,000 people globally. The goals of treatment are to slow disease progression, reduce pulmonary exacerbations, relieve chronic symptoms, and improve the patient's quality of life. Lumacaftor/ivacaftor is a new therapy for CF that has demonstrated good clinical outcomes, including improved absolute percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%). However, given the high cost of therapy, there is a need to evaluate the overall value of lumacaftor/ivacaftor in CF management. OBJECTIVES: To (a) conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of lumacaftor/ivacaftor to understand the overall effectiveness of the drug compared with its costs and (b) conduct a budget impact analysis (BIA) to understand the potential financial effect of introducing a new drug in a health plan. METHODS: Two static decision models were developed using Microsoft Excel to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of lumacaftor/ivacaftor over a 1-year time frame from a payer perspective. Model inputs included drug costs (wholesale acquisition costs), drug monitoring schedules (package inserts), drug monitoring costs (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid physician fee schedule and published literature), FEV1% predicted and pulmonary exacerbation values (clinical trials), and cost to treat pulmonary exacerbations (published literature). The outcomes in the CEA included total cost of therapy; average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER), defined as cost per FEV1% predicted; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as the difference in the ratio of cost per FEV1% predicted of lumacaftor/ivacaftor and placebo. Outcomes in the BIA included total budget impact; cost per member per month (PMPM), defined as total budget impact per hypothetical plan population; and cost per treated member per month (PTMPM), defined as total budget impact per target CF population. All costs were adjusted to 2016 dollars, and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model robustness given uncertainty in model inputs and study assumptions. RESULTS: The annual cost of therapy per patient for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $379,780. The ACER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor was $151,912, while the ICER for lumacaftor/ivacaftor compared with placebo was $95,016 per FEV1% predicted. The annual total budget impact due to the inclusion of lumacaftor/ivacaftor on the health plan formulary was $266,046. The PMPM cost was $0.02 and the PTMPM cost was $6.21. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CF, lumacaftor/ivacaftor has demonstrated better clinical effectiveness compared with placebo alongside an increased drug acquisition cost. However, the therapy may be a viable alternative to existing standard therapy over a short time horizon. Health care payers, both private and public, need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the financial effect when considering expansion of new drug coverage in CF management. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Covvey and Kamal have received research funding from Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Covvey, Giannetti, and Kamal have received research funding from the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. Kamal serves as a consultant to the Lynx Group (Cranbury, NJ) and Manticore Consulting Group (Scottsdale, AZ). Mukherjee has nothing to disclose. A related poster abstract was presented at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 27-30, 2017; Denver, CO.

Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast in combination with bronchodilator therapies in patients with severe and very severe COPD in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents a burden on patients and health systems. Roflumilast, an oral, selective phosphodiesterase-4-inhibitor reduces exacerbations and improves lung function in severe/very severe COPD patients with a history of exacerbations. This study aimed to estimate the lifetime cost and outcomes of roflumilast added-on to commonly used COPD regimens in Switzerland. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to simulate COPD progression in patients with disease states of severe, very severe COPD, and death. The exacerbation rate was assumed to be two per year in severe COPD. COPD progression rates were drawn from the published literature. Efficacy was expressed as relative ratios of exacerbation rates associated with roflumilast, derived from a mixed-treatment comparison. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted for roflumilast added to long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA), long-acting ß2-agonist/ inhaled corticosteroids (LABA/ICS), and LAMA + LABA/ICS. The analysis was conducted from the Swiss payer perspective, with costs and outcomes discounted at 2.5% annually. Parameter uncertainties were explored in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In each of the comparator regimens mean life expectancy was 9.28 years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 6.19. Mean estimated lifetime costs per patient in the comparator arms were CHF 83,364 (LAMA), CHF 88,161 (LABA/ICS), and CHF 95,564 (LAMA + LABA/ICS) respectively. Adding roflumilast resulted in a mean cost per patient per lifetime of CHF 86,754 (LAMA + roflumilast), CHF 91,470 (LABA/ICS + roflumilast), and CHF 99,364 (LAMA + LABA/ICS + roflumilast), respectively. Life-expectancy and quality-adjusted life-expectancy were 9.63 years and 6.47 QALYs (LAMA + roflumilast), 9.64 years and 6.48 QALYs (LABA/ICS + roflumilast), and 9.63 years and 6.47 QALYs (LAMA + LABA/ ICS + roflumilast). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were CHF 12,313, CHF 11,456, and CHF 13,671 per QALY when roflumilast was added to the three regimens. CONCLUSION: Treatment with roflumilast is estimated to reduce the health and economic burden of COPD exacerbations and represent a cost-effective treatment option for patients with frequent exacerbations in Switzerland.

[Roflumilast in combination with long-acting bronchodilators in the management of patients with severe and very severe COPD. A cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany]. / Roflumilast in Kombination mit langwirksamen Bronchodilatatoren in der Versorgung von Patienten mit schwerer und sehr schwerer COPD. Eine Kosten-Effektivitäts-Analyse für Deutschland.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the cost-effectiveness of roflumilast in combination with a long-acting beta agonist (LABA) versus LABA as a monotherapy in patients with severe and very severe COPD in Germany. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of Roflumilast plus LABA vs. LABA as monotherapy was calculated by a long-term model (Markov). The effectiveness data are based on the clinical trials AURA and HERMES (M2-124 and M2-125). Roflumilast plus LABA compared to LABA monotherapy reduced the exacerbation rate by 20.7 % (95 % CI, -31,-9) and improved post-bronchodilator FEV1 by 46 ml (2). These data were used to calculate the mean life expectancy of the COPD cohort (start age: 64 years). Costs for the treatment of exacerbations in the inpatient setting and the outpatient setting were included in the model. Endpoints were incremental costs per avoided exacerbation and per quality adjusted life year (QALY). The input variables were addressed in sensitivity analyses. German data on epidemiology and management of COPD were to populate the model and the cost-effectiveness was analyzed from the perspective of German statutory health insurance (SHI). RESULTS: The model predicts a mean life expectancy of 8.1 years for patients with roflumilast plus LABA and 7.8 years for patients with LABA alone. This corresponds with a gain of 0.26 life years or 0.23 QALYs. Within this time span patients receiving roflumilast plus LABA experienced 2.43 exacerbations less than the comparator group. The incremental cost for roflumilast plus LABA is €1,852 per exacerbation avoided and €19,457 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: The model calculation indicates that the cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on to LABA in patients with severe and very severe COPD is comparable to the cost-effectiveness of established and reimbursed treatment options in Germany. Analogue consideration of the cost-effectiveness of the treatment options LAMA, LABA and ICS are advisable.

Cost-effectiveness of available treatment options for patients suffering from severe COPD in the UK: a fully incremental analysis.

PURPOSE: Frequent exacerbations which are both costly and potentially life-threatening are a major concern to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), despite the availability of several treatment options. This study aimed to assess the lifetime costs and outcomes associated with alternative treatment regimens for patients with severe COPD in the UK setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Markov cohort model was developed to predict lifetime costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of various combinations of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and roflumilast in a fully incremental analysis. Patients willing and able to take ICS, and those refusing or intolerant to ICS were analyzed separately. Efficacy was expressed as relative rate ratios of COPD exacerbation associated with alternative treatment regimens, taken from a mixed treatment comparison. The analysis was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Parameter uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Based on the results of the fully incremental analysis a cost-effectiveness frontier was determined, indicating those treatment regimens which represent the most cost-effective use of NHS resources. For ICS-tolerant patients the cost-effectiveness frontier suggested LAMA as initial treatment. Where patients continue to exacerbate and additional therapy is required, LAMA + LABA/ICS can be a cost-effective option, followed by LAMA + LABA/ICS + roflumilast (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] versus LAMA + LABA/ICS: £16,566 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The ICER in ICS-intolerant patients, comparing LAMA + LABA + roflumilast versus LAMA + LABA, was £13,764/QALY gained. The relative rate ratio of exacerbations was identified as the primary driver of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The treatment algorithm recommended in UK clinical practice represents a cost-effective approach for the management of COPD. The addition of roflumilast to the standard of care regimens is a clinical and cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe COPD, who continue to exacerbate despite existing bronchodilator therapy.