Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol and umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol in the management of moderate and severe COPD in China.

OBJECTIVE: A study has analyzed the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol combination therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol dual therapy (UMEC/VI) in the treatment of moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), providing evidence for decision-making in COPD treatment. METHODS: From the perspective of the whole society, a Markov model based on the severity of COPD was established, consisting of four states: moderate, severe, very severe, and death. The cycle of the model is three months, and the time frame of the study is 20 years. Data such as initial states, transition probabilities, costs, and utilities were collected from published literature, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) COPD economic report, Yaozh database, and the National Statistics Office. The discount rate is 5 %, and the willingness to pay threshold is set at three times the per capita GDP of China in 2022. TreeAge Pro 2011 was used to obtain the results of multiplication analyses, and one-way factor analysis and probability sensitivity analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The study findings demonstrate that for patients treated with FF/UMEC/VI and UMEC/VI, the 20-year treatment costs amount to $10,126.46 and $10,685.74, respectively. Similarly, the effectiveness is 32.94 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 32.19 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is $-745.70/QALY, which is lower than the willingness to pay threshold. The tornado plot from one-way factor analysis indicates that the first two factors impacting the results are the utility values for severe COPD of UMEC/VI and FF/UMEC/VI. Probability sensitivity analysis indicates that FF/UMEC/VI compared to UMEC/VI can be considered a more cost-effective treatment at the willingness to pay threshold of $35,806.96. CONCLUSION: The triple therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) is more affordable than dual therapy (UMEC/VI) when compared to China's three times GDP per capita criterion.

The impact of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol on healthcare resource utilisation in the Salford Lung Study in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

AIM: The Salford Lung Study (SLS) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was a randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness and safety of initiating fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 100/25 µg versus continuing usual care (UC) in patients with COPD and a history of exacerbations. Here, we investigate the impact of initiating FF/VI on healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) in SLS COPD. METHODS: HRU and interventions were determined from patients' electronic health records. Annual rates of on-treatment all-cause and COPD-related secondary care contacts (SCCs) and primary care contacts (PCCs) for FF/VI versus UC were analysed using a general linear model. Costs were derived from national data sources. RESULTS: Least-squares (LS) mean annual rates of all-cause (9.81 versus 9.36) and COPD-related (1.57 versus 1.48) SCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC, as were rates of all-cause hospitalisations (0.87 versus 0.82). Mean duration of hospital stay/patient was 4.5 and 4.2 days, respectively. COPD-related SCC mean total cost/patient was £484 FF/VI and £475 UC. LS mean annual rates of all-cause PCCs were significantly higher for FF/VI (21.20 versus 18.88 UC; p < 0.001). LS mean annual rates of COPD-related PCCs were similar for FF/VI and UC (2.42 versus 2.46). All-cause PCC mean total cost/patient was £900 FF/VI versus £811 UC, but COPD-related PCC costs were similar (£116 versus £114). Direct COPD-related total medical costs/patient were significantly lower for FF/VI (LS geometric mean £806 versus £963 UC; p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients with COPD and exacerbation history, FF/VI may represent a less costly alternative to current therapies.GlaxoSmithKline plc. study HZC115151; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01551758.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Cost analysis of COPD exacerbations and cardiovascular events in SUMMIT.

OBJECTIVES: The Study to Understand Mortality and Morbidity in COPD (SUMMIT) trial compared the efficacy of once-daily fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) with placebo, FF monotherapy, and VI monotherapy on mortality in patients with moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and a history/increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease. We conducted a post hoc economic analysis using data from SUMMIT to evaluate the economic benefits of treating these patients with COPD and CV risk. STUDY DESIGN: Patients (aged 40-80 years, with ≥10 pack-years' smoking history and a risk of CV events) were randomized (1:1:1:1) to receive placebo, FF 100 mcg, VI 25 mcg, or FF/VI 100 mcg/25 mcg. METHODS: This was a post hoc economic analysis to assess the rates and associated costs of the composite end point (acute COPD exacerbations and revascularization/CV composite events) in the SUMMIT trial from a US healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Overall, 16,485 patients were evaluated; of these, 5246 (31.8%) experienced an on-treatment composite end point event (28.5% experienced a COPD exacerbation, 4.2% experienced a CV event, and 2.0% underwent a revascularization procedure). The mean estimated 1-year on-treatment combined end point cost was highest for placebo and lowest for FF/VI ($4220 vs $3482, respectively). The reductions in cost versus placebo were significant for all active treatments (P <.0001). The likelihood of experiencing an on-treatment combined end point event was lower for patients treated with FF/VI versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.81; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: One-year combined end point event costs were significantly lower for all active treatments versus placebo. Clinicians and payers may be able decrease costs by effectively managing patients' COPD in those with CV risk.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

BACKGROUND: A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature. METHODS: This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting ß2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting ß2-agonists (LABAs) are central to the pharmacological management of COPD. Dual bronchodilation with umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5/25 µg) is a novel LAMA/LABA combination approved for maintenance treatment for patients with COPD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO) 18 µg, open dual LAMA + LABA treatment, or no long-acting bronchodilator treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes associated with UMEC/VI treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD (GSK study number: HO-13-13411). Clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, and mortality obtained from the published literature were used as the model inputs. Costs are presented in US dollars based on 2015 prices. The model outputs are total costs, drug costs, other medical costs, number of COPD exacerbations, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 3% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effects of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: UMEC/VI treatment for moderate to very severe COPD was associated with lower lifetime medical costs ($82,344) compared with TIO ($88,822), open dual LAMA + LABA treatment ($114,442), and no long-acting bronchodilator ($86,751). Fewer exacerbations were predicted to occur with UMEC/VI treatment compared with no long-acting bronchodilator treatment. UMEC/VI provided an 0.11 and 0.25 increase in QALYs compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and as such, dominated these cost-effectiveness analyses. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. CONCLUSION: The results from this model suggest that UMEC/VI treatment would be dominant compared with TIO and no long-acting bronchodilator treatment, and less costly than open dual LAMA + LABA treatment in patients with moderate to very severe COPD.

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.

Potential economic impact of using a proprietary willow bark extract in outpatient treatment of low back pain: an open non-randomized study.

An open, non-randomised, study (postmarketing surveillance) was carried out on three groups of patients aged 18 to 80 presenting over an 18 month period with acute exacerbations of low back pain. The objective was to assess the possible economic impact of including a regular dose of proprietary willow bark extract (Assalix) in the treatment provided. A first group of 115 patients, presenting to 3 general practitioners in the first 3 months, was prescribed a daily dose of extract containing 120 mg of salicin (group W120). They also had access, if necessary, to the range of conventional treatments allowed for in the general practitioners' budgets. A second group of 112 patients presenting to the same general practitioners over the next 15 months, was prescribed extract equivalent to 240 mg salicin per day (group W240). A third "control" or "comparator" group of 224 patients, presenting to 3 orthopedists (specialists in physical medicine) over the whole 18 month period, received only the conventional therapeutic options allowed in the orthopedists' budgets (Group C). In the group C patients, the exacerbations had been shorter but the pain had been more intense as judged by Arhus Index and Total Pain Index. After 4 weeks of treatment, about 40% of group W240 patients were free of pain whether or not they had to resort to supplementary treatments. In group W120 as a whole, about 19% of patients were pain-free at 4 weeks, but only 8% of those who did not resort to supplementary treatment. In group C, 18% of patients were painfree. These findings were reflected reasonably well in the changes in the Arhus Index and Total Pain Index, and the findings in group W240 were consistent with those in a previous randomised controlled trial. Multivariable modelling to examine for possible confounding effects tended to identify membership of group W240 as an independent explanator of better pain relief than membership of group C. Though the measures of effect tended to be similar in group W120 as a whole and group C, the avoidance of more expensive conventional treatments in group W120 meant that the average cost per patient of treatment was reduced by about 35-50% (health service and private costings respectively). The better pain relief in group W240 was accompanied by an even smaller reliance on supplementary conventional treatments than in group W120 but the extra savings on these were outweighed by the extra cost of the additional Assalix so that the average cost per patient was reduced by 14-40% of the costs in group C. The possibility is discussed that, if orthopedists had relied more on regular full dosing with NSAIDs, they might have increased the effectiveness and reduced the cost of their treatment, though with the possibility of more side effects. Substituting established NSAIDs with COX-2 inhibitors might reduce the side effects, but at greater cost than with the Assalix.