Reducing carbon footprint by switching to reusable soft-mist inhalers.

Objective: Inhalation therapy is the cornerstone of COPD, together with non-pharmacological treatments. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs), alone or in combination with long-acting ß-agonists (LABAs), are commonly used. Pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft-mist inhalers (SMIs) are used, each with different carbon footprints. This study aimed to assess the carbon footprint of hypothetically replacing LAMA or LAMA/LABA inhalers with an SMI, Respimat Reusable, within the same therapeutic class. Methods: An environmental impact model was established to assess the change in carbon footprint of replacing pMDIs/DPIs with Respimat Reusable within the same therapeutic class (LAMA or LAMA/LABA) across 12 European countries and the USA over 5 years. Inhaler use for country and disease-specific populations was derived from international prescribing data and the associated carbon footprint (CO2 equivalents (CO2e)) was identified from published sources. Results: Over 5 years and across all countries, replacing LAMA inhalers with Spiriva Respimat Reusable reduced CO2e emissions by 13.3-50.9%, saving 93-6228 tonnes of CO2e in the different countries studied. Replacing LAMA/LABA inhalers with Spiolto Respimat Reusable reduced CO2e emissions by 9.5-92.6%, saving 31-50 843 tonnes of CO2e. In scenario analyses, which included total replacement of DPIs/pMDIs, consistent CO2e savings were estimated. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were sensitive to changes in several parameters including varying assumptions around reusability of inhalers and potential CO2e impact. Conclusion: Replacement of pMDIs and DPIs with Respimat Reusable within the same therapeutic class would result in substantial reductions in CO2e emissions.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 6: How Will Market Access and Value Demonstration Evolve? (Future Outlook) [Podcast].

How will market access and value demonstration evolve? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Ass. Prof. Panos Kanavos about the future of value assessments in healthcare. Dr Kanavos is Associate Professor of the International Health Policy in the Department of Health Policy at London School of Economics and Political Science as well as Deputy Director at LSE Health and Program Director of the Medical Technology Research Group (MTRG), and advisor to prominent organizations including the European Commission, the European Parliament, the World Bank, the WHO and OECD. Discussing key changes, Dr Kanavos outlines which opportunities and challenges will alter the way we value healthcare interventions.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 5: What Other Aspects of Value May Be Relevant? (Societal Impact) [Podcast].

What other aspects of value may be relevant? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Lou Garrison about the societal perspective on value of healthcare interventions. Prof. Garrison is Professor Emeritus in The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics institute (CHOICE) in the School of Pharmacy at the University of Washington. Lou is past president of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and he is currently co-chair of its Policy Outlook Committee. Going beyond the "conventional" elements of value assessment, Prof. Garrison highlights which additional impacts may be at play. He shares his concept of the "Value Flower", explaining elements such as insurance value and scientific spill-over.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 3: How Does Budget Impact and Affordability in Healthcare Work? (BI and Affordability) [Podcast].

How does budget impact and affordability in healthcare work? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Sean Sullivan about affordability and budget impact for the "payers" of healthcare interventions. Prof. Sullivan is Dean of the University of Washington School of Pharmacy. He is past president of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) and served as chair of the health technology assessment (HTA) committee of US Health Insurer Premera Blue Cross, was part of the US Governmental Medicare coverage evidence committee and led the ISPOR Task Force on Methods for Conducting and Reporting Budget Impact Assessments. Prof. Sullivan explains how budget impact and affordability are intertwined and how this plays a role in decisions in the US, but also the rest of the world.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 4: How are Costs Measured, and How are CEAs Constructed and Used? (CEA) [Podcast].

How is a cost-effectiveness analysis constructed and used? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Maureen Rutten-van Mölken about economic evaluations in healthcare and how value is considered in these evaluations. Prof. Rutten-van Mölken is professor of Economic Evaluation of Innovations for Health at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands. She leads the Erasmus HTA department and is Scientific Director of the Institute for Medical Technology Assessment (iMTA). Prof Rutten-van Mölken explains how comparative assessments can help us understand which treatments offer the best value-for-money as reimbursement can only be allocated to a selection of all possible treatments.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 1: The Importance of Payers and HTA: How Did We End Up Here? (Introduction to Value) [Podcast].

The importance of payers and HTA: How did we end up here? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Mike Drummond about Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and how value is defined. Prof. Drummond is professor of Health Economics of York University, former president of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), and author of two major textbooks in the field, as well as over 700 publications, and has acted as consultant to the WHO as well as European Union with regards to value assessment. Starting from the very beginning, Prof. Drummond explains in a simple yet engaging way why demonstrating value of new interventions has become so important.

Value Insider Season 1 Episode 2: How to Measure Quality of Life and Utility? (QoL) [Podcast].

How do we measure quality of life and utility of interventions? In this episode of the Value Insider podcast, host Mike Chambers speaks with Prof. Nancy Devlin about incorporating quality of life in value assessment. Prof. Devlin is professor of health economics at the University of Melbourne. Her past roles include Director of Research at the Office of Health Economics (OHE) London, Professor of Health Economics at City University of London, and she has been director of the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). She is the Chair of the Board of the EuroQol Research Foundation, the international research organization which has developed and maintains the EQ-5D patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument. Prof Devlin explains the value of the patient voice and how it can be measured and taken into account when considering the value of healthcare interventions.

Suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow and Critical Inhalation Errors are Associated with Higher COPD-Related Healthcare Costs.

Purpose: To assess the relationship between suboptimal Peak Inspiratory Flow (sPIF), inhalation technique errors, and non-adherence, with Healthcare Resource Utilisation (HCRU) in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients receiving maintenance therapy via a Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI). Patients and methods: The cross-sectional, multi-country PIFotal study included 1434 COPD patients (≥40 years) using a DPI for maintenance therapy. PIF was measured with the In-Check DIAL G16, and sPIF was defined as a typical PIF lower than required for the device. Inhalation technique was assessed by standardised evaluation of video recordings and grouped into 10 steps. Patients completed the "Test of Adherence to Inhalers" questionnaire. HCRU was operationalised as COPD-related costs for primary healthcare, secondary healthcare, medication, and total COPD-related costs in a 1-year period. Results: Participants with sPIF had higher medication costs compared with those with optimal PIF (cost ratio [CR]: 1.07, 95% CI [1.01, 1.14]). Multiple inhalation technique errors were associated with increased HCRU. Specifically, "insufficient inspiratory effort" with higher secondary healthcare costs (CR: 2.20, 95% CI [1.37, 3.54]) and higher total COPD-related costs (CR: 1.16, 95% CI 1.03-1.31). "no breath-hold following the inhalation manoeuvre (<6 s)" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.08, 95% CI [1.02, 1.15]) and total COPD-related costs (CR 1.17, 95% CI [1.07, 1.28]), and "not breathing out calmly after inhalation" with higher medication costs (CR: 1.19, 95% CI [1.04, 1.37]). Non-adherence was not significantly associated with HCRU. Conclusion: sPIF and inhalation technique errors were associated with higher COPD-related healthcare utilisation and costs in COPD patients on DPI maintenance therapy.

Costs and Clinical Consequences of Compliance with COPD GOLD Recommendations or National Guidelines Compared with Current Clinical Practice in Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the United States.

Purpose: The objective of this study was to assess the clinical and cost benefits of treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) according to global and national guidelines compared to real-life clinical practice in the United States and three European countries (Belgium, Germany, Sweden). Patients and Methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to compare current prescribing patterns with two alternative scenarios, the first aligned with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD 2022) recommendations and the second with national guidelines. Costs and clinical outcomes were modeled for these alternative scenarios over a time horizon of one year, based on real-world evidence and health insurance data. Results: Current clinical practice in each of the countries was inconsistent with published recommendations. A redistribution to prescribing patterns according to global and national recommendations led to a substantial decrease in the use of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) containing therapies of more than 80% and 44%, respectively. There was a reduced incidence of up to 16% of mild-to-moderate pneumonia and up to 29% of severe pneumonia. Exacerbations decreased across all countries apart from Sweden, where a small increase in the rate of exacerbations was due to the redistribution of some patients currently undergoing inhaled triple therapy to non-ICS-containing therapies. Adapting treatment to recommendations could provide potential cost savings of up to 13% in estimated annual direct costs, resulting predominantly from the reduction in cost of healthcare resource use, including hospitalization associated with treating incident pneumonia, particularly severe pneumonia. Cost savings for prevalent adult patients with COPD on long-acting inhaler therapy ranged from €31 to €675 per patient per year. Conclusion: Redistribution of COPD patients from current clinical practice to treatment according to published recommendations would provide clinical benefits and substantial cost savings.