Cost-effectiveness of twice-daily indacaterol/glycopyrrolate inhalation powder for the treatment of moderate to severe COPD in the US.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol 27.5 µg/glycopyrrolate 15.6 µg (IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg) inhalation powder, a twice-daily, fixed-dose combination of a long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and a long-acting antimuscarinic antagonist (LAMA), is indicated in the US for long-term maintenance treatment of airflow obstruction in patients with COPD. The safety and efficacy of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg have been established, but cost-effectiveness is not yet known. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg with other long-acting COPD maintenance therapies. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective. Health states were defined as mild (post-bronchodilator FEV1 ≥80% of predicted), moderate (50% ≤FEV1 <80% of predicted), severe (30% ≤FEV1 <50% of predicted), and very severe (FEV1 <30% of predicted) COPD. Patients entering the model transitioned through health states based on placebo-adjusted change from baseline in trough FEV1 for each comparator at week 12. Comparators included other US Food and Drug Administration-approved LABA/LAMA fixed-dose combinations as well as commonly prescribed LAMA and LABA/inhaled corticosteroid agents. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the model assumptions and the overall robustness of the results. RESULTS: Using the model, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg treatment for 12 weeks resulted in total costs of US $23,375 vs US $9,365 for placebo. Compared with placebo, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 treatment resulted in the highest improvement in FEV1 across all comparators and the lowest cost per decline in 100 mL FEV1. IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg was also among the most cost-effective treatment option as measured by St George's Respiratory Questionnaire response rate, at US $3,518 per additional responder at 12 weeks compared with placebo. In addition, IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg had the lowest cost per severe exacerbation avoided vs placebo across all comparators (US $87,686). CONCLUSION: This model, developed from the US payer perspective with a 5-year time horizon, found IND/GLY 27.5/15.6 µg to be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with moderate to severe COPD.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a fixed-dose combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium as maintenance treatment for COPD.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) as a maintenance treatment for COPD patients from the perspective of health care payer in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We adopted a patient-level simulation model, which included a cohort of COPD patients aged ≥40 years. The intervention used in the study was the treatment using IND/GLY, and comparators were tiotropium or salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC). Data related to the efficacy of drugs, incidence of exacerbation, and utility were obtained from clinical studies. Direct costs were estimated from claims data based on the severity of COPD. The cycle length was 6 months (to match forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] data), and the time horizons included 1, 3, 5, 10 years, and lifetime. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model results. Costs were expressed in US dollars with a discount rate of 3.0%. RESULTS: Compared to tiotropium and SFC, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of patients treated with IND/GLY were US$5,987 and US$14,990, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the improvement in FEV1 provided by IND/GLY, the distribution of patients with regard to the severity of COPD, and acute exacerbation rate ratio were the key drivers behind cost-effectiveness. Adopting a willingness to pay of US$60,000 per QALY gained as the threshold, there was a 98.7% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to tiotropium. Similarly, there was a 99.9% probability that IND/GLY was cost-effective compared to SFC. CONCLUSION: As a maintenance treatment for COPD, we consider the dual bronchodilator IND/GLY as a cost-effective strategy when compared to either tiotropium or SFC.

Cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium in comparison with salmeterol/fluticasone combination for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a LANTERN population analysis from Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: In light of the growing evidence base for better clinical results with the use of the dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) over inhaled corticosteroid-containing salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC), this study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IND/GLY over SFC in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who are at low risk of exacerbations, in the Singapore healthcare setting. METHODS: A previously published patient-level simulation model was adapted for use in Singapore by applying local unit costs. The model was populated with clinical data from the LANTERN and ECLIPSE studies. Both costs and health outcomes were predicted for the lifetime horizon from a payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% per annum. Costs were expressed in 2015 USD exchange rates. Uncertainty was assessed through probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Compared to SFC, use of IND/GLY increased mean life expectancy by 0.316 years and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.246 years, and decreased mean total treatment costs (drug costs and management of associated events) by USD 1,474 over the entire lifetime horizon. IND/GLY was considered to be 100% cost-effective at a threshold of 1 × gross domestic product per capita. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that IND/GLY was 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of USD 0 (additional cost) when compared to SFC. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY was estimated to be highly cost-effective compared to SFC in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD who are not at high risk of exacerbations in the Singapore healthcare setting.

Indacaterol/glycopyrronium is cost-effective compared to salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD: FLAME-based modelling in a Swedish population.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with moderate to very severe airflow limitation and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year. METHODS: A previously published and validated patient-level simulation model was adapted using clinical data from the FLAME trial and real-world cost data from the ARCTIC study. Costs (total monetary costs comprising drug, maintenance, exacerbation, and pneumonia costs) and health outcomes (life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)) were projected over various time horizons (1, 5, 10 years, and lifetime) from the Swedish payer's perspective and were discounted at 3% annually. Uncertainty in model input values was studied through one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: IND/GLY was associated with lower costs and better outcomes compared with SFC over all the analysed time horizons. Use of IND/GLY resulted in additional 0.192 LYs and 0.134 QALYs with cost savings of €1211 compared with SFC over lifetime. The net monetary benefit (NMB) was estimated to be €8560 based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of €55,000/QALY. The NMB was higher in the following subgroups: severe (GOLD 3), high risk and more symptoms (GOLD D), females, and current smokers. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment compared with SFC in COPD patients with mMRC dyspnea grade ≥ 2, moderate to very severe airflow limitation, and ≥1 exacerbation in the preceding year.

Cost Effectiveness of the Long-Acting ß2-Adrenergic Agonist (LABA)/Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Dual Bronchodilator Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium Versus the LABA/Inhaled Corticosteroid Combination Salmeterol/Fluticasone in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Analyses Conducted for Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of the dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who had a history of one or no exacerbations in the previous year, in Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal. METHODS: A patient-level simulation was developed to compare the costs and outcomes of IND/GLY versus SFC based on data from the LANTERN trial (NCT01709903). Monte-Carlo simulation methods were employed to follow individual patients over various time horizons. Population and efficacy inputs were derived from the LANTERN trial. Considering the payers' perspective, only direct costs were included. Costs and health outcomes were discounted annually at 3.0 % for all countries. Unit costs were taken from publically available sources with all costs converted to euros (€). The cost base year was 2015. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were undertaken to test the robustness of the model results. RESULTS: IND/GLY was found to be the dominant (more effective and less costly) treatment option compared with SFC in all four countries. The use of IND/GLY was associated with mean total cost savings per patient over a lifetime of €6202, €1974, €1611, and €220 in Canada, France, Italy, and Portugal, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that exacerbation rates had the largest impact on incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The probability of IND/GLY being cost effective was estimated to be >95 % for thresholds above €5000/QALY. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate to severe COPD, IND/GLY is likely to be a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with SFC.

Cost-Effectiveness of Glycopyrronium Bromide Compared with Tiotropium in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of once-daily Seebri Breezhaler(®) (glycopyrronium bromide) 50 µg with Spiriva(®) (tiotropium bromide) 18 µg in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the Swedish setting. METHODS: A previously published COPD Markov model accounting for disease progression and treatment discontinuation was used. Disease progression included the annual decline in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) and occurrence of any exacerbations. Efficacy in the model consisted of FEV1 improvement between baseline and 12 weeks and the annual risk ratio of having an exacerbation compared to placebo. These clinical efficacy inputs were derived from a 1-year head-to-head trial comparing glycopyrronium 50 µg to tiotropium 18 µg. Utility values and cost estimates were obtained from the literature. The base-case analysis was performed for a 3-year time horizon. Cost and effects were discounted with 3% in accordance to Swedish guidelines. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Glycopyrronium was found to be less costly and more effective than tiotropium in moderate to severe COPD patients with cost savings of 5197 Swedish kronor (€570, US$725) per patient over a 3-year time horizon. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that over 99% of the iterations produced dominant results for glycopyrronium. CONCLUSION: Glycopyrronium bromide 50 µg once daily can be considered a cost effective alternative to tiotropium bromide 18 µg once daily in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden.

Cost-effectiveness of the LABA/LAMA dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium in a Swedish healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is a once-daily inhaled fixed-dose combination of indacaterol (IND), a long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium (GLY), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for use as maintenance treatment to relieve symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic benefits of IND/GLY compared with the free combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium (IND + GLY), and with the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in a moderate-to-severe COPD population with low-exacerbation risk. The model-based analysis extrapolated results up to lifetime time horizon and calculated costs per quality-adjusted life year. METHODS: Assuming equal efficacy, a cost-minimisation analysis compared IND/GLY vs IND + GLY using model inputs from the double-blind, randomised SHINE trial. The double-blind, randomised ILLUMINATE and TORCH trials were used to analyse cost-effectiveness versus SFC. To consider ICS-related pneumonia events, published odds ratio comparing an ICS-exposed group to a control group of COPD patients was used. Direct and indirect drug costs as well as drug acquisition costs (in Swedish Krona [SEK]) were derived from published Swedish sources. Cost and effects were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: IND/GLY was cost-saving vs IND + GLY with incremental savings of SEK (EUR) 768 (85), and 3309 (368) per patient over one and five years. IND/GLY was found to be less costly and more effective compared to SFC with cost savings of SEK (EUR) 2744 (303), 8854 (976), 13,938 (1536), 27,495 (3031) and 43,033 (4744) over one, three, five, ten years and lifetime. The PSA indicated that all iterations produced dominant results for IND/GLY. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is cost-minimising vs IND + GLY and dominates SFC in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden. Encouraging dual bronchodilator therapy over an ICS-containing combination results in lower total costs and better outcomes compared to combination therapy including fluticasone in moderate-to-severe COPD patients with low exacerbation risk.

A study comparing hyoscine hydrobromide and glycopyrrolate in the treatment of death rattle.

This study looked at the efficacy of drug treatment in managing death rattle in a 30-bedded specialist palliative care unit. The study was conducted in two phases. In the first, patients received hyoscine hydrobromide as the antimuscarinic; glycopyrrolate was used in the second phase. The patients in the two phases were well matched for diagnosis, age, sex and duration of death rattle. A noise score scale of 0-3 was used, which was separately validated using a verbal rating scale and noise-meter readings. Noise scores were taken at the start; 30 min after an antimuscarinic drug was administered; an hour after the initial injection if a repeat dose was given at 30 min; and 4-hourly thereafter. Drug charts of all patients with death rattle were analysed to ascertain the amount of each drug given and the cost. The incidence of death rattle was 44% in phase I, and 36% in phase II. The percentage of patients with reduced noise scores 30 min after one injection of hyoscine was significantly greater than after one dose of glycopyrrolate (56% vs 27%, P = 0.002). The need for a second injection after 30 min was less using hyoscine (33% vs 50%, P = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in improvement at 1 h, or at the last recorded score before death. A comparison of the cost of drug treatment using hyoscine or glycopyrrolate was made, and the potential reduction in cost per patient in the glycopyrrolate group was largely offset by increased expenditure on other drugs, especially diamorphine, midazolam and levomepromazine. The results of this study suggest that: (1) glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg is less effective at reducing death rattle than hyoscine hydrobromide 0.4 mg when assessed at 30 min, (2) the use of glycopyrrolate may lead to an increased need for other sedative or anti-emetic medication such as diamorphine, midazolam or levomepromazine, and (3) the cost benefit of using glycopyrrolate over hyoscine hydrobromide is a small part of the total drug budget, and may be less than anticipated due to the increased need of these other drugs.