Burden of Disease Among Exacerbating Patients with COPD Treated with Triple Therapy in Spain.

Background: The cost of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Spain has been studied from different perspectives, but parameters such as the patient's phenotype have seldom been considered. Our aim was to describe the disease burden of COPD patients with frequent exacerbator phenotype, treated with triple therapy. Methods: An observational, multicenter study was carried out from December 2017 to November 2018 in pulmonology services among patients ≥40 years with COPD confirmed diagnosis receiving triple therapy (ICS/LAMA/LABA) and history of ≥2 moderate or ≥1 severe exacerbation in the 12 months prior to the inclusion visit. COPD-related healthcare resources were collected over a 12-months period prior to the inclusion visit: pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, medical and ER visits, hospitalizations, tests and productivity loss. Costs were updated to €2019. Patients were classified according to blood eosinophil levels: <150 cells/µL and ≥150 cells/µL. Results: A total of 306 patients were included (77.1% men), with mean age of 69.9 years. Mean COPD exacerbation rate was 2.5/patient/year and 51.3% of patients had ≥150 cells/µL eosinophil level. On average, for the total population, COPD-related visits/patients/year were 6.2. Resource use in moderate exacerbation was higher in patients with eosinophils ≥150 cells/µL, whereas in severe exacerbation was higher in patients with eosinophils <150cells/µL. According to eosinophil levels, total annual mean (SD) costs/patient accounted for €8382 (9863) and €5144 (5444) for patients with eosinophils <150 cells/µL and ≥150 cells/µL, respectively. Conclusion: The impact of exacerbating COPD patients treated with triple therapy in Spain is large, especially among those with eosinophils <150 cells/µL.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of anti-IL-5 therapies of severe eosinophilic asthma in Spain.

AIM: To analyse the cost-effectiveness of MEP with standard of care (SoC) versus other anti-IL-5 therapies approved for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma (SEA) patients, within the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with a 4-week cycle length was used to compare MEP with BEN and RES as therapies added to SoC in the management of SEA, in terms of cost per QALY gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Costs (€2019) were obtained from public sources, while utilities and transition probabilities were retrieved from literature, e.g. network meta-analysis. Continuation criteria for biological treatment and reduction of oral corticosteroids (OCS) was set at 50% minimum reduction of exacerbation rate. Adverse events related to chronic OCS use included diabetes, osteoporosis, cataracts, acute myocardial infarct, and peptic ulcer. The analysis was performed over a 5-year time horizon from the National Healthcare System (NHCS) perspective, with a yearly discount rate of 3% applied to both costs and QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and univariate deterministic sensitivity analysis were performed to address uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. RESULTS: On top of SoC, the model indicates that MEP is dominant (lower cost, higher benefit) compared to BEN and RES: For BEN and RES, respectively, treatment with MEP had a point estimate of 0.076 and 0.075 additional QALYs, and savings of €3,173.47 and €7,772.95 per patient. The findings were robust to variation as estimated using sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: MEP is a cost-effective treatment in comparison with BEN and RES added to SoC for patients with SEA in the Spanish setting.