Costs of switching to low global warming potential inhalers. An economic and carbon footprint analysis of NHS prescription data in England.

OBJECTIVES: Metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) contain propellants which are potent greenhouse gases. Many agencies propose a switch to alternative, low global warming potential (GWP) inhalers, such as dry powder inhalers (DPIs). We aimed to analyse the impact on greenhouse gas emissions and drug costs of making this switch. SETTING: We studied National Health Service prescription data from England in 2017 and collated carbon footprint data on inhalers commonly used in England. DESIGN: Inhalers were separated into different categories according to their mechanisms of action (eg, short-acting beta-agonist). Within each category we identified low and high GWP inhalers and calculated the cost and carbon impact of changing to low GWP inhalers. We modelled scenarios for swapping proportionally according to the current market share of each equivalent DPI (model 1) and switching to the lowest cost pharmaceutically equivalent DPI (model 2). We also reviewed available data on the carbon footprint of inhalers from scientific publications, independently certified reports and patents to provide more accurate carbon footprint information on different types of inhalers. RESULTS: If MDIs using HFA propellant are replaced with the cheapest equivalent DPI, then for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs decrease by £8.2M annually. However if the brands of DPIs stay the same as 2017 prescribing patterns, for every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, drug costs increase by £12.7M annually. Most potential savings are due to less expensive long-acting beta-agonist (LABA)/inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) inhalers. Some reliever inhalers (eg, Ventolin) have a carbon footprint over 25 kg CO2e per inhaler, while others use far less 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane (HFA134a) (eg, Salamol) with a carbon footprint of <10 kg CO2e per inhaler. 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane (HFA227ea) LABA/ICS inhalers (eg, Flutiform) have a carbon footprint over 36 kg CO2e, compared with an equivalent HFA134a combination inhaler (eg, Fostair) at <20 kg CO2e. For every 10% of MDIs changed to DPIs, 58 kt CO2e could be saved annually in England. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to DPIs would result in large carbon savings and can be achieved alongside reduced drug costs by using less expensive brands. Substantial carbon savings can be made by using small volume HFA134a MDIs, in preference to large volume HFA134a MDIs, or those containing HFA227ea as a propellant.

Does Changing Inhaler Device Impact Real-Life Asthma Outcomes? Clinical and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler usability and deposition differ between devices. Change of device may therefore have an impact on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize clinical and economic asthma outcomes surrounding the change from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for fixed-dose combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß agonist (FDC ICS/LABA) treatment. METHODS: Three retrospective cohort substudies using 2010 to 2015 data from the Korean Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service database were performed. Patients with asthma who received an FDC ICS/LABA pMDI for the first time after initially being on FDC ICS/LABA DPI were included. The following outcomes were assessed: (1) persistence of change to pMDI over 6 months, (2) clinical outcomes during the year after the change compared with the baseline year; and (3) noninferiority comparison of costs and effectiveness between patients changing to a pMDI and matched patients who continued their DPI. RESULTS: Patients who change inhalers seem to represent a more severe subpopulation. Fifty-eight percent of patients (95% CI, 56-60) persisted with the change. After the change in therapy, an increased proportion of patients (58.3%) remained free from severe exacerbations compared with the year before (47.4%; P < .001). Patients who changed to pMDIs had significantly less severe exacerbations, acute respiratory events, and lower short-acting ß agonist inhaler average daily dose, but higher average ICS daily dose (all P < .05), compared with matched patients remaining on a DPI. Total costs were similar between patients who changed to pMDI therapy compared with those remaining on a DPI. CONCLUSION: Changing from a DPI to a pMDI for FDC ICS/LABA asthma treatment can be as effective and cost-effective as remaining on a DPI.

Real-world effectiveness evaluation of budesonide/formoterol Spiromax for the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Budesonide/formoterol (BF) Spiromax ® is an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist fixed-dose combination (FDC) inhaler, designed to minimise common inhaler errors and provide reliable and consistent dose delivery in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We evaluated non-inferiority of BF Spiromax after changing from another FDC inhaler, compared with continuing the original inhaler. METHODS: Patients with asthma and/or COPD who switched to BF Spiromax were matched (1:3) with non-switchers. Data were obtained from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database and Clinical Practice Research Datalink in the UK. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving disease control (using the risk domain control (RDC) algorithm); secondary end points were: exacerbation rate, short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) use and treatment stability (achieved RDC; no maintenance treatment change). Non-inferiority was defined as having 95% CI lower bound above -10%, using conditional logistic regression and adjusted for relevant confounders. RESULTS: Comparing 385 matched patients (asthma 253; COPD 132) who switched to BF Spiromax with 1091 (asthma 743; COPD 348) non-switchers, non-inferiority of BF Spiromax in RDC was demonstrated (adjusted difference: +6.6%; 95% CI -0.3 to 13.5). Among patients with asthma, switchers to BF Spiromax versus BF Turbuhaler® reported fewer exacerbations (adjusted rate ratio (RR) 0.76;95% CI 0.60 to 0.99; p=0.044); were less likely to use high daily doses of SABA (adjusted OR 0.71;95% CI 0.52 to 0.98; p=0.034); used fewer SABA inhalers (adjusted RR 0.92;95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; p=0.019); and were more likely to achieve treatment stability (adjusted OR 1.44;95% CI 1.02 to 2.04; p=0.037). No significant differences in these end points were seen among patients with COPD. CONCLUSIONS: Among UK patients with asthma and COPD, real-world use of BF Spiromax was non-inferior to BF Turbuhaler in terms of disease control. Among patients with asthma, switching to BF Spiromax was associated with reduced exacerbations, reduced SABA use and improved treatment stability versus continuing on BF Turbuhaler.

Budesonide + formoterol delivered via Spiromax® for the management of asthma and COPD: The potential impact on unscheduled healthcare costs of improving inhalation technique compared with Turbuhaler®.

BACKGROUND: Fixed-dose combinations of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting ß2 agonists are commonly used for the treatment of asthma and COPD. However, the most frequently prescribed dry powder inhaler delivering this medicine - Symbicort® (budesonide and formoterol, BF) Turbuhaler® - is associated with poor inhalation technique, which can lead to poor disease control and high disease management costs. A recent study showed that patients make fewer inhaler errors when using the novel DuoResp® (BF) Spiromax® inhaler, compared with BF Turbuhaler®. Therefore switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® could improve inhalation technique, and potentially lead to better disease control and healthcare cost savings. METHODS: A model was developed to estimate the budget impact of reducing poor inhalation technique by switching asthma and COPD patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® over three years in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK. The model estimated changes to the number, and associated cost, of unscheduled healthcare events. The model considered two scenarios: in Scenario 1, all patients were immediately switched from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax®; in Scenario 2, 4%, 8% and 12% of patients were switched in years 1, 2 and 3 of the model, respectively. RESULTS: In Scenario 1, per patient cost savings amounted to €60.10, €49.67, €94.14 and €38.20 in Germany, Italy, Sweden and the UK, respectively. Total cost savings in each country were €100.86 million, €19.42 million, €36.65 million and €15.44 million over three years, respectively, with an estimated 597,754, 151,480, 228,986 and 122,368 healthcare events avoided. In Scenario 2, cost savings totalled €8.07 million, €1.55 million, €2.93 million and €1.23 million over three years, respectively, with 47,850, 12,118, 18,319, and 9789 healthcare events avoided. Savings per patient were €4.81, €3.97, €7.53 and €3.06. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated that reductions in poor inhalation technique by switching patients from BF Turbuhaler® to BF Spiromax® are likely to improve patients' disease control and generate considerable cost savings through healthcare events avoided.

Patient preferences for dry powder inhaler attributes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in France: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Dry powder inhalers (DPIs) are often used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies. Using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology, this study conducted in France was designed to assess patients' preferences for different attributes of DPIs. METHODS: Attributes of DPIs were defined based on a literature review, patient focus group discussions and interviews with healthcare professionals (qualitative phase of the study). An online survey was then conducted among French patients with asthma or COPD to elicit patient preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for these attributes using the DCE methodology (quantitative phase). A fractional factorial design including three blocks of 12 choice sets was created. Each choice set comprised three alternatives: two fictitious inhalers and the patient's current inhaler. Marginal utilities were estimated using a ranked ordered logit model. Interactions between attributes and disease (asthma or COPD) were tested. RESULTS: Six DPI attributes were defined based on the qualitative phase: ease of use/fool-proof priming; accurate and easy-to-read dose counter; dose confirmation; hygiene of the mouthpiece; flexibility of the device handling; ability to use the inhaler with breathing difficulties. Overall, 201 patients with asthma and 93 with COPD were included in the online survey. Patients with asthma placed most value on an inhaler that requires one step for dose preparation (WTP €4.83 [95% CI: €3.77-€5.90], relative to an inhaler requiring four steps) and one that could be used during episodes of breathing difficulties (WTP €4.49 [95% CI: €2.95-€6.02]). Patients with COPD placed most value on an inhaler that could be used during episodes of breathing difficulties (WTP €7.70 [95% CI: €5.65-€9.76]) and on the accuracy of the dose counter (WTP €5.87 [95% CI: €3.98-€ 7.77]). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that asthma and COPD patients would be willing to change their inhaler if they were offered the option of a new inhaler with improved characteristics and they place a high value on an inhaler with ease of use during breathing difficulty episodes.

The Delivery of High-Dose Dry Powder Antibiotics by a Low-Cost Generic Inhaler.

The routine of loading multiple capsules for delivery of high-dose antibiotics is time consuming, which may reduce patient adherence to inhaled treatment. To overcome this limitation, an investigation was carried out using four modified versions of the Aerolizer® that accommodate a size 0 capsule for delivery of high payload formulations. In some prototypes, four piercing pins of 0.6 mm each were replaced with a single centrally located 1.2-mm pin and one-third reduced air inlet of the original design. The performance of these inhalers was evaluated using spray-dried antibiotic powders with distinct morphologies: spherical particles with a highly corrugated surface (colistin and tobramycin) and needle-like particles (rifapentine). The inhalers were tested at capsule loadings of 50 mg (colistin), 30 mg (rifapentine) and 100 mg (tobramycin) using a multistage liquid impinger (MSLI) operating at 60 L/min. The device with a single pin and reduced air inlet showed a superior performance than the other prototypes in dispersing colistin and rifapentine powders, with a fine particle fraction (FPF wt% <5 µm in the aerosol) between 62 and 68%. Subsequently, an Aerolizer® with the same configuration (single pin and one-third air inlet) that accommodates a size 00 capsule was designed to increase the payload of colistin and rifapentine. The performance of the device at various inspiratory flow rates and air volumes achievable by most cystic fibrosis (CF) patients was examined at the maximum capsule loading of 100 mg. The device showed optimal performance at 45 L/min with an air volume of 1.5-2.0 L for colistin and 60 L/min with an air volume of 2.0 L for rifapentine. In conclusion, the modified size 00 Aerolizer® inhaler as a low-cost generic device demonstrated promising results for delivery of various high-dose formulations for treatment of lung infections.

Switching treatments in COPD: implications for costs and treatment adherence.

Inhaled therapy is key to the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). New drugs and inhalers have recently been launched or will soon become available, and the expiry of patent protection covering several currently used inhaled bronchodilators and corticosteroids will be accompanied by the development of bioequivalent, generic inhaled drugs. Consequently, a broader availability of branded and generic compounds will increase prescription opportunities. Given the time course of COPD, patients are likely to switch drugs and inhalers in daily practice. Switching from one device to another, if not accompanied by appropriate training for the patient, can be associated with poor clinical outcomes and increased use of health care resources. In fact, while it seems reasonable to prescribe generic inhaled drugs to reduce costs, inadequate use of inhaler devices, which is often associated with a poor patient-physician or patient-pharmacist relationship, is one of the most common reasons for failure to achieve COPD treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to quantify, as in asthma, the impact of inappropriate switching of inhalers in patients with COPD and show the outcomes related to the effect of using the same device for delivering inhaled medications.

The cost effectiveness of dry powder antibiotics for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) affects over 9,000 people in the UK and limits life expectancy. CF patients are susceptible to lung infections, most commonly Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Once infection is established, patients require lifetime treatment using nebulised antibiotics. Newer dry powder formulations of antibiotics may reduce treatment burden and improve compliance. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of (i) colistimethate sodium dry powder for inhalation (DPI) and (ii) tobramycin DPI versus nebulised tobramycin for the treatment of chronic P. aeruginosa lung infection in patients with CF from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS). METHODS: We developed a state transition model based on transitions between three strata of lung function measured in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) % predicted. Additional health states representing post-lung transplantation and dead are also modelled. The model structure was informed by systematic reviews of evidence concerning the plausibility of potential relationships between intermediate endpoints and final outcomes. The model assumes that treatment impacts on FEV1 trajectory, which manifest as changes in health-related quality of life. No survival benefit is assumed due to the absence of robust quantifiable evidence. Model parameters were informed by patient-level and aggregate data from two randomised controlled trials together with the best available evidence from the literature. Resource use and costs associated with drug acquisition, the management of exacerbations and reduced nebuliser maintenance were drawn from reference sources and expert opinion. Costs were valued at 2011/2012 prices. Costs and health outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3.5 %. Simple and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken, including additional analyses of Patient Access Scheme (PAS) price discounts offered by the manufacturers of both DPI products. RESULTS: Colistimethate sodium DPI is expected to produce fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than nebulised tobramycin. Based on its list price, colistimethate sodium DPI is expected to be dominated by nebulised tobramycin. When the PAS is incorporated, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for colistimethate sodium DPI versus nebulised tobramycin is expected to be approximately £288,600 saved per QALY lost. Based on its current list price, the ICER for tobramycin DPI versus nebulised tobramycin is expected to be approximately £124,000 per QALY gained. When the proposed PAS is included, tobramycin DPI is expected to dominate nebulised tobramycin. CONCLUSIONS: Under their list prices, neither DPI product is likely to represent good value for money for the NHS given current cost-effectiveness thresholds. The PAS discounts have a significant impact upon the economic attractiveness of both DPI products compared against nebulised tobramycin. The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the DPIs against other nebulised antibiotics, such as aztreonam and inhaled colistimethate sodium, remains unclear.

Developing and advancing dry powder inhalation towards enhanced therapeutics.

Enhanced therapeutics are drug products derived from existing generic drugs that provide additional benefits to the patients and the healthcare system. Enhanced therapeutics are considered to be an important and relatively low risk source of innovation. Pulmonary drug delivery is the major delivery route to treat chronic respiratory diseases and has been proven as a potential delivery route for complex drugs that cannot be delivered orally. Development of dry powder inhalation systems targets the delivery of fine drug particles to the deep lung surface by a combination of drug formulation, primary packaging and a device, whereby each contributes to the overall performance. Various methodologies for the non-clinical and clinical performance testing of orally inhaled products have been proposed and applied with variable success. Regulatory pathways have been developed and applied since. Considerable efforts have been made during the past decade to understand and optimize pulmonary drug delivery including their efficient commercial manufacturing. Pulmonary drug delivery remains an area of future innovation in the effective treatment of pulmonary diseases as well as the systemic delivery of systemically active complex drugs.

Rational design of a dry powder inhaler: device design and optimisation.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the development of a dry powder inhalation system for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, this work specifically aimed at the systematic, however, cost-effective and efficient development of an inhalation device. METHODS: Based on theoretical design considerations and an initial inhaler prototype, the concept of a modular inhaler was developed. The modular inhaler was used for the systematic evaluation of the influence of the inhaler's inner dimensions on the resistance to the air flow and the in-vitro deposition characteristics of the inhalation system by using statistical design of experiments and cascade impaction analysis. KEY FINDINGS: A reliable statistical model enabled the accurate prediction of the device resistance of any combination of inner dimensions of the inhaler. In conjunction with results from in-vitro deposition studies, this allowed for the definition of optimised inner dimensions of the inhaler to maximise the fine particle fraction and minimise oropharyngeal deposition within the desired range of the inhaler's resistance to air flow. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of the modular inhaler and statistical design and evaluation of experiments proved to be important tools for an efficient and successful product development. Eventually, the approaches described and the knowledge obtained enabled the cost-effective development and design of a technically feasible and competitive dry powder inhaler.

Inhaler device selection: special considerations in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: Special considerations in the selection of medication inhaler devices for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the ambulatory care setting are reviewed. SUMMARY: Substantial deficiencies in inhaler device technique and medication adherence are evident in patients with COPD, leading to suboptimal health outcomes. As the prevalence of COPD rises with age, elderly patients pose special challenges with regard to inhaler device selection. In elderly patients with sufficient cognitive function, manual dexterity, and hand strength, the most influential factors in inhaler selection are cost reimbursement, device availability, device convenience, and patient preference. Cost reimbursement may be a deciding factor in device selection, as nearly all elderly patients are Medicare beneficiaries. Nebulizers provide a cost-effective alternative to pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) devices. DPI device availability is limited to "controller" medications, while pMDI devices and nebulizers provide complete symptomatic coverage. Multiple-dose DPIs offer the convenience of rapid medication administration, ease of handling, and integral dose counters. Given the availability and expenses of medication devices, ambulatory patients may prefer combining the convenience of a hand-held inhaler (i.e., pMDI) as a rescue medication during the active hours of midday with the cost savings of a nebulized controller medication in the morning and at night. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with sufficient cognitive function, manual dexterity, and hand strength, the most important factors in inhaler device selection are cost reimbursement issues, device availability, device convenience, and patient preference. Pharmacist knowledge of appropriate inhaler technique, competent patient education and demonstration, and follow-up assessment are instrumental in optimizing device competency and medication adherence.