Economic impact of severe asthma exacerbations in Spain: multicentre observational study.

Objective: To describe resource use and costs of severe exacerbations in patients with severe asthma.Method: Secondary analysis of an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study that estimated the economic impact of severe asthma. The study was carried out in severe asthma units of the pulmonology and allergy services of 20 public hospitals (inclusion period: June to November 2016). The study included adult patients diagnosed with severe asthma according to the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus in the stable phase (no exacerbation during the last 2 months), and with at least one severe exacerbation during the study period (12 months). Healthcare resource use due to severe exacerbations (emergency visits, hospitalizations and pharmacological treatment) was recorded. The direct health costs associated with severe exacerbations were calculated by multiplying the resources used by the corresponding unit cost (in 2018 euros).Results: 134 patients with ≥1 severe exacerbation were included: 63% were female and the mean age was 54 years. 249 severe exacerbations were registered. There were 1.5 physician visits at primary care, hospital care and/or emergency room per episode, 13% of episodes required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 7.2 days. Systemic corticosteroids were prescribed in 92% of exacerbations. The mean direct cost was €758.7/exacerbation (95% confidence interval: 556.8-1,011.1), of which 82% was due to hospitalizations (€623.3/episode). Considering only episodes requiring hospital admission, the mean cost increased by €4,997/exacerbation.Conclusions: It was estimated that the economic impact of a severe exacerbation in Spanish patients with severe asthma was €758.7/exacerbation.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Estimation of the Clinical and Economic Impact of an Improvement in Adherence Based on the Use of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD.

Background: Adherence to treatment is key to achieve desired outcomes. In COPD, adherence is generally suboptimal and is impaired by treatment complexity. Objective: To estimate the clinical and economic impact of an improvement in treatment adherence due to an increased use of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) in patients with COPD. Patients and Methods: A 7-state Markov model with monthly cycles was developed. Patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, for whom triple therapy is indicated, were included. Outcomes and costs were estimated and compared for two scenarios: current distribution of adherent patients treated with multiple inhaler triple therapies (MITT) vs a potential scenario where patients shifted to once-daily SITT. In the potential scenario, adherence improvement due to once-daily SITT attributes was estimated. Costing was based on the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective (€2019). A 3-year time horizon was defined considering a 3% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. Results: A target population of 185,111 patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD currently treated with MITT was estimated. A 20% increase in the use of once-daily SITT in the potential scenario raised adherence up to 52%. This resulted in 6835 exacerbations and 532 deaths avoided, with 775 LYs and 594 QALYs gained. Total savings reached €7,082,105. Exacerbation reduction accounted for 61.8% (€4,378,201) of savings. Conclusion: Increasing the use of once-daily SITT in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD treated with triple therapy would be associated with an improvement in adherence, a reduction of exacerbations and deaths, and cost savings for the Spanish NHS.

Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

OBJECTIVES: The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain. METHODS: A 1-year cost-consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448. CONCLUSIONS: The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.

Correction to: Cost-consequence analysis of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol for asthma management in Spain: an analysis based on the Salford Lung Study in asthma.

In the published article, the Table 1 was published incorrectly.

Economic impact of delaying initiation with multiple-inhaler maintenance triple therapy in Spanish patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Purpose: Guidelines recommend the use of triple therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), a long-acting ß2 agonist (LABA) and a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) to reduce the risk of future exacerbations in symptomatic COPD patients with a history of exacerbations. This study aimed to estimate COPD-related healthcare resource use and costs, and subsequent exacerbation rates, for patients initiating multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) early (≤30 days) versus late (31-180 days) following an exacerbation, in a real-world clinical setting. Patients and methods: This was an observational, longitudinal, retrospective study using electronic medical records from the Spanish database of the Red de Investigación en Servicios Sanitarios Foundation. Patients ≥40 years old with a confirmed COPD diagnosis who were newly prescribed MITT up to 180 days after an exacerbation between January 2013 and December 2015 were included. Patients were followed from the date of MITT initiation for up to 12 months to assess COPD-related health care resource use (routine and emergency visits, hospitalizations, pharmacologic treatment), exacerbation rate, and costs (€2017); these endpoints were compared between early versus late groups. Results: The study included 1280 patients who met selection criteria: mean age 73 years, 78% male, and 41% had severe/very severe lung function impairment. The proportion of patients initiating MITT early versus late was 61.6% versus 38.4%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. During follow-up, health care resource consumption was lower in the early versus late group, especially primary care and ED visits, leading to lower total costs (€1861 versus €1935; P<0.05). In the follow-up period, 28.0% of the patients in the early group experienced ≥1 exacerbation versus 36.4% in the late group (P=0.002), with an exacerbation rate of 0.5 versus 0.6 per person per year (P=0.022), respectively. Conclusion: Initiating MITT early (≤30 days after an exacerbation) may reduce health care costs and exacerbation rate compared with late MITT initiation.

Economic impact of severe asthma in Spain: multicentre observational longitudinal study.

Objective: Estimate the economic impact of severe asthma from the Spanish social perspective through the estimation of the associated annual direct and indirect costs. Methods: Observational, longitudinal, retrospective study carried out in 20 Spanish secondary settings (Pulmonology and Allergy Services) among patients aged ≥18, diagnosed with severe asthma according to European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society consensus and who have not experienced an exacerbation in the previous 2 months. Asthma-related healthcare resource utilization as well as asthma-related days off work were collected over a retrospective 12-month period from medical records review (inclusion period: June to November 2016). Total costs were calculated by multiplying the natural resource units used within 1 year by the corresponding unit cost. Costs were expressed in Euros for 2018. Results: A total of 303 patients were included, mean age was 54 years old and 67% were women. There were 5.7 physician visits per patient (3.3 in secondary care). The most common pharmacologic treatment was fixed dose combination of inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonists (96.7%), followed by leukotriene receptor antagonists (57.1%). 134 patients (44.2%) had at least one severe asthma exacerbation (mean: 1.9 exacerbation/patient), of whom 22 patients required hospitalization, with a mean hospital stay of 10.9 days/patient. Mean sick leave due to severe asthma was 9.1 days per patient per year. Mean annual direct cost (confidence interval 95%) was €7472/patient (€6578-8612). The cost per exacerbation was €1410/patient. When indirect costs were added (€1082/patient [€564-1987]), the total annual mean cost rose to €8554/patient (€7411-10199). Conclusions: Taking the social perspective, the economic impact of severe asthma in Spain was estimated to be €8554/patient/year.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.

PURPOSE: Umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. RESULTS: UMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.

Clinical variables impacting on the estimation of utilities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: Health utilities are widely used in health economics as a measurement of an individual's preference and show the value placed on different health states over a specific period. Thus, health utilities are used as a measure of the benefits of health interventions in terms of quality-adjusted life years. This study aimed to determine the demographic and clinical variables significantly associated with health utilities for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, observational, cross-sectional study conducted between October 2012 and April 2013. Patients were aged ≥40 years, with spirometrically confirmed COPD. Utility values were derived from the preference-based generic questionnaire EQ-5D-3L applying weighted Spanish societal preferences. Demographic and clinical variables associated with utilities were assessed by univariate and multivariate linear regression models. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-six patients were included, of whom 85.5% were male. The mean age was 67.9 (standard deviation [SD] =9.7) years and the mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second (%) was 46.2% (SD =15.5%); 80.3% were former smokers, and the mean smoking history was 54.2 (SD =33.2) pack-years. Median utilities (interquartile range) were 0.81 (0.26) with a mean value of 0.73 (SD =0.29); 22% of patients had a utility value of 1 (ceiling effect) and 3.2% had a utility value lower than 0. The factors associated with utilities in the multivariate analysis were sex (beta =-0.084, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.154; -0.013 for females), number of exacerbations the previous year (-0.027, 95% CI: -0.044; -0.010), and modified Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale (mMRC) score (-0.123 [95% CI: -0.185; -0.061], -0.231 [95% CI: -0.301; -0.161], and -0.559 [95% CI: -0.660; -0.458] for mMRC scores 2, 3, and 4 versus 1), all P<0.05. CONCLUSION: Multivariate analysis showed that female sex, frequent exacerbations, and an increased level of dyspnea were the main factors associated with reduced utility values in patients with COPD.

Generic utilities in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients stratified according to different staging systems.

BACKGROUND: To determine generic utilities for Spanish chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients stratified by different classifications: GOLD 2007, GOLD 2013, GesEPOC 2012 and BODEx index. METHODS: Multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study. Patients were aged ≥40 years, with spirometrically confirmed COPD. Utility values were derived from EQ-5D-3 L. Means, standard deviations (SD), medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) were computed based on the different classifications. Differences in median utilities between groups were assessed by non-parametric tests. RESULTS: 346 patients were included, of which 85.5% were male with a mean age of 67.9 (SD = 9.7) years and a mean duration of COPD of 7.6 (SD = 5.8) years; 80.3% were ex-smokers and the mean smoking history was 54.2 (SD = 33.2) pack-years. Median utilities (IQR) by GOLD 2007 were 0.87 (0.22) for moderate; 0.80 (0.26) for severe and 0.67 (0.42) for very-severe patients (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Median utilities by GOLD 2013 were group A: 1.0 (0.09); group B: 0.87 (0.13); group C: 1.0 (0.16); group D: 0.74 (0.29); comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.001) except A vs C. Median utilities by GesEPOC phenotypes were 0.84 (0.33) for non exacerbator; 0.80 (0.26) for COPD-asthma overlap; 0.71 (0.62) for exacerbator with emphysema; 0.72 (0.57) for exacerbator with chronic bronchitis (p < 0.001). Comparisons between patients with or without exacerbations and between patients with COPD-asthma overlap and exacerbator with chronic bronchitis were statistically-significant (p < 0.001). Median utilities by BODEx index were: group 0-2: 0.89 (0.20); group 3-4: 0.80 (0.27); group 5-6: 0.67 (0.29); group 7-9: 0.41 (0.31). All comparisons were significant (p < 0.001) except between groups 3-4 and 5-6. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the classification used utilities were associated to disease severity. Some clinical phenotypes were associated with worse utilities, probably related to a higher frequency of exacerbations. GOLD 2007 guidelines and BODEx index better discriminated patients with a worse health status than GOLD 2013 guidelines, while GOLD 2013 guidelines were better able to identify a smaller group of patients with the best health.

The association between asthma control, health care costs, and quality of life in France and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Current asthma management guidelines are based on the level of asthma control. The impact of asthma control on health care resources and quality of life (QoL) is insufficiently studied. EUCOAST study was designed to describe costs and QoL in adult patients according to level of asthma control in France and Spain. METHODS: An observational cost of illness study was conducted simultaneously in both countries among patients age greater or equal to 18 with a diagnosis of asthma for at least 12 months. Patients were recruited prospectively by GPs in 2010 in four waves to avoid a seasonal bias. Health care resources utilization of the three months before the inclusion was collected through physician questionnaires. Asthma control was evaluated using 2009 GINA criteria over a 3-month period. QoL was assessed using EQ-5D-3L®. RESULTS: 2,671 patients (France: 1,154; Spain: 1,517) were enrolled. Asthma was controlled in 40.6% [95% CI: 37.7%-43.4%] and 29.9% [95% CI: 27.6%-32.3%] of French and Spanish patients respectively.For all types of costs, the percentage of patients using health care resources varied significantly according to the level of asthma control. The average cost (euros/3-months/patient) of controlled asthma was €85.4 (SD: 153.5) in France compared with €314.0 (SD: 2,160.4) for partially controlled asthma and €537.9 (SD: 2,355.7) for uncontrolled asthma (p<0.0001). In Spain, the corresponding figures were €152.6 (SD: 162.1), €241.2 (SD: 266.8), and €556.8 (SD: 762.4). EQ-5D-3L® score was higher (p<0.0001) in patients with controlled asthma compared to partially controlled and uncontrolled asthma in both countries (respectively 0.88; 0.78; 0.63 in France and 0.89; 0.82; 0.69 in Spain). CONCLUSIONS: In both countries, patients presenting with uncontrolled asthma had a significantly higher asthma costs and lower scores of Qol compared to the others.