Psoriatic arthritis treatment patterns and costs among pharmacologic treatment-naïve patients.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacologic treatment for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) includes traditional oral small molecules (OSMs), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), and newer oral therapies such as a phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE4) inhibitor and a Janus kinase inhibitor. We aimed to describe treatment patterns and health care costs for treatment-naïve patients with active PsA initiating pharmacologic treatment. STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational, retrospective study. METHODS: We assessed treatment patterns and health care costs from the IBM MarketScan Research databases. We calculated costs during the 12-month follow-up period for inpatient and outpatient medical health care, including outpatient prescription costs. RESULTS: A total of 3491 patients were identified for the study. Incident therapies included OSMs methotrexate (58.3%), sulfasalazine (9.8%), hydroxychloroquine (2.3%), and other OSMs (1.9%); TNFis adalimumab (12.3%), etanercept (8.6%), infliximab (1.9%), and other TNFis (1.4%); and the PDE4 inhibitor apremilast (2.6%). Persistence ranged from 15.2% to 34.6% with OSM monotherapy and from 42.9% to 58.2% with TNFi monotherapy. Percentage of patients with a gap of at least 60 days in therapy ranged from 42.9% to 48.5% with OSMs and from 17.9% to 29.9% with TNFis. Mean first-line unadjusted per-patient per-month total health care costs for OSMs ranged from $1029 to $1456 and mean total health care costs ranged from $19,173 to $25,013. Mean unadjusted per-patient per-month total health care costs for TNFis ranged from $4203 to $7063 and mean total health care costs ranged from $45,635 to $60,933. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients using OSMs had generally lower total health care costs, they also had the highest rates of treatment modifications such as low persistence and medication gaps of at least 60 days.

Real-world switch patterns and healthcare costs in biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Aim: Treatment switching and healthcare costs were compared among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics with ≥12 months pre-/post-index continuous enrollment in Optum Clinformatics™ Data Mart. Methods: After propensity score matching, switch rates (new therapy post-index) and days between index and switch were assessed. Total and per-patient per-month costs by service type were assessed. Results: Apremilast initiators (n = 533) were matched and compared with biologic initiators (n = 955). Twelve-month cumulative switch rates and days to switch were similar. Apremilast initiators had significantly lower total healthcare costs than biologic initiators; apremilast switchers and nonswitchers had significantly lower per-patient per-month costs than biologic switchers and nonswitchers, driven mainly by reduced outpatient pharmacy costs. Conclusion: Apremilast initiators had lower healthcare costs even with treatment switching.

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12 months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a > 60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients' period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p = 0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12 months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p < 0.0001). Likewise, PPPM costs while persistent on therapy were significantly lower among patients initiating apremilast vs biologics, whether they switched treatments ($2,475 vs $4,422; p < 0.0001), remained persistent ($2,279 vs $3,883; p < 0.0001), or discontinued but did not switch treatments ($2,104 vs $6,294; p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.

Cost-Effectiveness of Targeted Pharmacotherapy for Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Newer classes of targeted drugs for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are more effective and more expensive than older classes, posing a difficult and potentially costly decision about whether to use them as initial targeted treatments. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of initial targeted treatment for the following drugs: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab (TNFα inhibitors); apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor); ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor); and ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab (IL-17 inhibitors). METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate patient outcomes as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health care costs over a 10-year period. We assumed that patients who fail initial targeted treatment either proceed to subsequent therapy or discontinue targeted treatment. Effectiveness estimates for initial treatment were defined as improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline and derived from a 2018 network meta-analysis. Wholesale acquisition drug costs were discounted by a class-specific, empirically derived rebate percentage off of 2016 costs. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty in results. RESULTS: The incremental benefits compared with no targeted treatment were, in descending order: ixekizumab 1.68 QALYs (95% credible range [CR] = 1.11-2.02), brodalumab 1.64 QALYs (95% CR = 1.08-1.98), secukinumab 1.51 QALYs (95% CR = 1.00-1.83), ustekinumab 1.43 QALYs (95% CR=0.94-1.74), infliximab 1.27 QALYs (95% CR = 0.89-1.55), adalimumab 1.15 QALYs (95% CR = 0.76-1.44), etanercept 0.97 QALYs (95% CR = 0.61-1.25), and apremilast 0.87 QALYs (95% CR = 0.52-1.17). Costs of care without targeted treatment totaled $66,451, and costs of targeted treatment ranged from $137,080 (apremilast) to $255,422 (ustekinumab). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicated that infliximab and apremilast are likely to be the most cost-effective initial treatments at willingness-to-pay thresholds around $100,000 per QALY, while IL-17 drugs are more likely to be cost-effective at thresholds approaching $150,000 per QALY. Acquisition cost of the initial targeted drug and utility of clinical response were the most influential parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that initial targeted treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is the most effective treatment strategy for plaque psoriasis patients who have failed methotrexate and phototherapy. Apremilast, brodalumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab are cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Additional research is needed on whether the effectiveness of targeted agents changes when used after previously targeted agents. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Pearson, and Kumar are current employees, and Loos and Liu are former employees, of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions and MedSavvy, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Spark Therapeutics. Linder owns stock in Amgen, Biogen, and Eli Lilly; has contingent value rights in Sanofi Genzyme (related to alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis); has received grant support from Astellas Pharma not related to this study and Clintrex, which was supported by AstraZeneca on an unrelated topic; and has received an honorarium from the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) as part of the SHEA Antimicrobial Stewardship Research Workshop Planning Committee, an educational activity supported by Merck. No other authors have potential conflicts of interest.

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.

Topical treatment utilization for patients with atopic dermatitis in the United States, and budget impact analysis of crisaborole ointment, 2.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD), a chronic inflammatory skin disease, is often treated with topical corticosteroids (TCS) and topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI). Crisaborole ointment is a non-steroidal, phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD. In December 2016, crisaborole was approved in the US for mild-to-moderate AD in patients ≥2 years of age. AIMS: To evaluate real-world utilization and cost of TCS and TCI in the US and estimate the budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: TCS and TCI prescriptions in 2015 for patients ≥2 years of age with ≥1 AD diagnosis in the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Research Databases were analyzed for patients receiving TCI or TCS alone or in combination (TCS/TCI population) and patients receiving TCI alone or in combination with TCS (TCI population). A budget impact model used TCS and TCI market shares, annual use, and cost per prescription. Crisaborole uptake rates of 4.7% (TCS) and 20.2% (TCI), with an annual increase of 1% in year 2, were assumed. Budget impact was calculated as total and per-member-per-month (PMPM) cost over 2 years for a health plan of 1 million members. RESULTS: Annual prescriptions/patient ranged from 1.36-6.41; annual cost/patient was $53-$1,465. The budget impact of crisaborole over 2 years in the TCS/TCI population was $350,946 (PMPM, $0.015), with increases of $162,106 in year 1 (PMPM, $0.014) and $188,841 in year 2 (PMPM, $0.016). The budget impact in the TCI population was -$22,871, with decreases of $11,160 in year 1 and $11,712 in year 2 (each PMPM, -$0.001). For both populations, one-way sensitivity analyses showed that budget impact was most sensitive to changes in crisaborole cost and annual use. CONCLUSIONS: From US payer perspectives, adoption of crisaborole results in modest pharmacy budget impact/savings.

Apremilast: A Novel Oral Treatment for Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Psoriasis is a chronic immune-mediated disease associated with several co-morbidities and negative impacts on a patient's quality of life. Despite the advances in biologic therapy, there are still unmet needs in the treatment of psoriasis, as current treatments are limited in terms of long-term efficacy, tolerability, safety, route of administration, and cost. Apremilast is an oral, small-molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor that works intracellularly by blocking the degradation of cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate, resulting in increased intracellular cyclic adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate levels in phosphodiesterase 4-expressing cells. This inhibition results in the reduced expression of proinflammatory mediators, and an increased expression of anti-inflammatory mediators, providing apremilast with an anti-inflammatory rather than immunosuppressive mode of action. Apremilast offers a novel therapeutic option for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and may fulfill some of the unmet needs in patients with psoriasis. Potential advantages of apremilast include moderate activity for both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and efficacy in difficult-to-treat forms of psoriasis, a good safety profile, no need of laboratory prescreening or ongoing monitoring for laboratory parameters, owing to the absence of organ toxicity, a potentially advantageous weight loss effect, and a convenient oral administration and dosing. Cost effectiveness and health economics considerations will be decisive in determining the ultimate place of apremilast in the therapeutic armamentarium for psoriasis.

Otezla, Warts and All, Racks Up Sales and Eyes Blockbuster Status.

Otezla-the generic name is apremilast-also exploited a new mechanism of action as the first inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) that results in increased expression of both anti-inflammatory proteins and reduced expression of their pro-inflammatory counterparts.

Trend of cost and utilization of COPD medication in Korea.

BACKGROUND: There are only a few longitudinal studies regarding medical utilization and costs for patients with COPD. The purpose of this study was to analyze the trend of medical utilization and costs on a long-term basis. METHODS: Using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) data from 2008 to 2013, COPD patients were identified. The trend of medical utilization and costs was also analyzed. RESULTS: The number of COPD patients increased by 13.9% from 2008 to 2013. During the same period, the cost of COPD medication increased by 78.2%. Methylxanthine and systemic beta agonists were most widely prescribed between 2008 and 2013. However, inhaled medications such as long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA), long-acting muscarinic agonist, and inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA were dispensed to a relatively low proportion of patients with COPD. The number of patients who were prescribed inhaled medications increased gradually from 2008 to 2013, while the number of patients prescribed systemic beta agonist and methylxanthine has decreased since 2010. CONCLUSION: This study shows that there is a large gap between the COPD guidelines and clinical practice in Korea. Training programs for primary care physicians on diagnosis and guideline-based treatment are needed to improve the management of COPD.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic lung disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Pharmacologic maintenance drugs (such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) play an important role in the treatment of COPD. The cost effectiveness of these treatments has been frequently assessed, but studies to date have largely neglected the impact of treatment sequence and the exact stage of disease in which the drugs are used in real life. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review recently published articles that reported the cost effectiveness of COPD maintenance treatments, with a focus on key findings, quality and methodological issues. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in Embase, PubMed, the UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) and EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases) and included all relevant articles published between 2011 and 2015 in either Dutch, English or German. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used as basis for quality assessment, but additional items were also addressed. RESULTS: The search identified 18 recent pharmacoeconomic analyses of COPD maintenance treatments. Papers reported the cost effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy (n = 6), phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors (n = 4), long-acting beta agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations (n = 4), LABA monotherapy (n = 2) and LABA/LAMA combinations (n = 2). All but two studies were funded by the manufacturer, and all studies indicated favourable cost effectiveness; however, the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was small. Less than half of the studies reported a COPD-specific outcome in addition to a generic outcome (mostly QALYs). Exacerbation and mortality rates were found to be the main drivers of cost effectiveness. According to the QHES, the quality of the studies was generally sufficient, but additional assessment revealed that most studies poorly represented the cost effectiveness of real-life medication use. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies showed that pharmacologic COPD maintenance treatment is cost effective, but most studies poorly reflected real-life drug use. Consistent and COPD-specific methodology is recommended.

A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study on the impact of roflumilast on exacerbations and economic burden among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in the real world.

BACKGROUND: Roflumilast is approved in the United States to reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations in patients with severe COPD. Exacerbation rates, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs were compared between roflumilast patients and those receiving other COPD maintenance drugs. METHODS: LifeLink™ Health Plan Claims Database was used to identify patients diagnosed with COPD who initiated roflumilast (roflumilast group) or ≥3 other COPD maintenance drugs (non-roflumilast group) from May 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012. Patients must have been enrolled for 12 months before (baseline) and 3 months after (postindex) the initiation date, ≥40 years old, not systemic corticosteroid dependent, and without asthma diagnosis at baseline. Difference-in-difference models compared change from baseline in exacerbations, HCRU (office, emergency visits, and hospitalizations), and total costs between groups, adjusting for baseline differences. RESULTS: A total of 14,211 patients (roflumilast, n=710; non-roflumilast, n=13,501) were included. During follow-up, the rate of overall exacerbations per patient per month decreased by 11.1% in the roflumilast group and increased by 15.9% in the non-roflumilast group (P<0.001). After controlling for baseline differences, roflumilast-treated patients experienced a greater reduction in exacerbations (0.0160 fewer exacerbations per month, P=0.01), numerically greater reductions in hospital admissions (0.003 fewer per month, P=0.57), office visits (0.46 fewer per month, P=0.26), and total costs from baseline compared with non-roflumilast patients ($116 less per month, P=0.62). CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, patients initiating roflumilast experienced reductions in exacerbations versus patients treated with other COPD medications.

Roflumilast: Who Is Using It and How It Affects Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: Compare baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and associated costs of COPD patients treated with add-on roflumilast with those of other combination medications. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODOLOGY: Patients aged 40 years with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) between March 1, 2011, and Nov. 30, 2012, were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database and classified as roflumilast or nonroflumilast combination-therapy cohorts. Baseline characteristics were compared for all patients. HCRU and costs were compared between matched (M) roflumilast and nonroflumilast cohorts, using propensity score as a partial balancing score and then complementing the score with exact matching on specifically important variables. Generalized linear model and Poisson regression were used to estimate the adjusted differences in total costs and hospitalization rates, respectively, between the 2 matched cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 695 roflumilast and 30,542 nonroflumilast combination therapy users were identified. At baseline, the roflumilast cohort had more complex COPD and a higher number of severe and moderate COPD exacerbations relative to the nonroflumilast cohort. After matching, the roflumilast (M) and nonroflumilast (M) cohorts (n = 328 in each) had similar mean age, gender distribution, and follow-up time. The roflumilast (M) cohort had significantly higher pharmacy-related, per-patient, per-month (PPPM) costs (P < .001) and similar total cost (P = .90). After adjusting for confounding variables, no difference was observed between the 2 cohorts in total costs (P = .86) and number of hospitalizations (P = .65). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that patients in the roflumilast cohort, relative to the nonroflumilast cohort, were more severely ill in the real-world setting. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the total cost for the roflumilast cohort was statistically similar to the nonroflumilast cohort. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the long-term economic impact of roflumilast use.

Impact of roflumilast on exacerbations of COPD, health care utilization, and costs in a predominantly elderly Medicare Advantage population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are associated with declining lung function and health-related quality of life, and increased hospitalization and mortality. Clinical trials often poorly represent the elderly and thus have only partial applicability to their clinical care. OBJECTIVE: To compare exacerbations, COPD-related health care utilization (HCU), and costs in a predominantly elderly Medicare COPD population initiated on roflumilast versus those not initiated on roflumilast. METHODS: Deidentified administrative claims data from a large, national payer were utilized. Medicare patients aged 40-89 years with at least one COPD diagnosis from May 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 were included. Members with at least one roflumilast pharmacy claim (index) were assigned to the roflumilast group and those without were assigned to the non-roflumilast group. Proxy index dates for the non-roflumilast group were randomly assigned for similar distribution of all patients' time at risk. Subjects with at least one pre-index COPD exacerbation had to be continuously enrolled for ≥365 days pre-index and post-index. Unadjusted and adjusted difference-in-difference (DID) analyses contrasted pre-index with post-index changes in exacerbations, HCU, and costs of roflumilast treatment compared with non-roflumilast treatment. RESULTS: A total of 500 roflumilast and 60,145 non-roflumilast patients were included (mean age 69.7 and 72.3 years, respectively; P<0.0001). Unadjusted DID favored roflumilast for all exacerbations, with greater pre-index to post-index reductions in mean per 30-day COPD-related hospitalizations (-0.0182 versus -0.0013, P=0.009), outpatient visits (-0.2500 versus -0.0606, P<0.0001), and COPD-related inpatient costs (-US$141 versus -US$11, P=0.0346) and outpatient costs (-US$31 versus -US$4, P<0.0001). Multivariate analyses identified significantly improved pre-index to post-index COPD-related total costs (P=0.0005) and total exacerbations (P<0.0001) for the roflumilast group versus non-roflumilast group. CONCLUSION: In a predominantly elderly Medicare COPD population, newly initiated roflumilast patients displayed similar or significantly better unadjusted reductions in all exacerbation-related, COPD-related HCU-related, and COPD-related costs outcomes compared with non-roflumilast patients. These analyses also suggest better adjusted COPD-related costs and total exacerbations for roflumilast-initiated patients.

Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on treatment to long-acting bronchodilators in the treatment of COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding a selective phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, to a long-acting bronchodilator therapy (LABA) for the treatment of patients with severe-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) associated with chronic bronchitis with a history of frequent exacerbations from the UK payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to predict the lifetime cost and outcomes [exacerbations rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] in patients treated with roflumilast, which showed a reduction in the exacerbation rates and lung function improvement in a pooled analysis from two clinical trials, M2-124 and M2-125. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The addition of roflumilast to concomitant LABA reduced the number of exacerbations from 15.6 to 12.7 [2.9 (95 % CI 0.88-4.92) exacerbations avoided] and increased QALYs from 5.45 to 5.61 [0.16 (95 % CI 0.02-0.31) QALYs gained], at an incremental cost of £3,197 (95 % CI £2,135-£4,253). Cost in LABA alone and LABA + roflumilast were £16,161 and £19,358 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the base case were £19,505 (95 % CI £364-£38,646) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and 18,219 (95 % CI £12,697-£49,135) per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses suggest that among the main determinants of cost-effectiveness are the reduction of exacerbations and the case fatality rate due to hospital-treated exacerbations. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the probability of roflumilast being cost-effective is 82 % at willingness-to-pay £30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of roflumilast to LABA in the treatment of patients with severe-to-very severe COPD reduces the rate of exacerbations and can be cost-effective in the UK setting.

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.