Frequency and economic burden of exacerbations in inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist-treated patients with asthma: A retrospective US claims study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite adherence to inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA) therapy, many patients with asthma experience moderate exacerbations. Data on the impact of moderate exacerbations on the healthcare system are limited. This study assessed the frequency and economic burden of moderate exacerbations in patients receiving ICS/LABA. METHODS: Retrospective, longitudinal study analyzed data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database recorded between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019. Eligibility criteria included patients ≥18 years of age with ≥1 ICS/LABA claim and ≥1 medical claim for asthma in the 12 months pre-index (first ICS/LABA claim). Primary objectives included describing moderate exacerbation frequency, and associated healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs. A secondary objective was assessing the relationship between moderate exacerbations and subsequent risk of severe exacerbations. Patients were stratified by moderate exacerbation frequency in the 12 months post index. Moderate exacerbations were identified using a newly developed algorithm. RESULTS: In the first 12 months post index 61.6% of patients experienced ≥1 moderate exacerbation. Mean number of asthma-related visits was 4.1 per person/year and median total asthma-related costs was $3544. HRU and costs increased with increasing exacerbation frequency. Outpatient and inpatient visits accounted for a similar proportion of these costs. Moderate exacerbations were associated with an increased rate and risk of future severe exacerbations (incidence rate ratio, 1.56; hazard ratio, 1.51 [both p < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted that a high proportion of patients continue to experience moderate exacerbations despite ICS/LABA therapy and subsequently experience increased economic burden and risk of future severe exacerbations.

Cost-utility of triple versus dual inhaler therapy in moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: An important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Clinical guidelines recommend, in these patients, using add-on long-acting muscarinic antagonists (triple therapy) to treatment with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids-long-acting beta2-agonist (dual therapy). The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of triple therapy versus dual therapy for patients with severe asthma. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of dual and triple therapy were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 1.55 QALYs per patient per year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. We observed a difference of US$304 in discounted cost per person-year on triple therapy with respect to dual therapy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was US$196 in the probabilistic model. In the sensitivity analysis, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, triple therapy in patients with moderate-severe asthma was cost-effective. Using triple therapy emerges with our results as an alternative before using oral corticosteroids or biologics, especially in resource-limited settings.

Comparison of COPD health care utilization and associated costs across patients treated with LAMA+LABA fixed-dose therapies.

BACKGROUND: There is limited clinical trial and/or real-world evidence comparing differences among currently approved fixed-dose combination (FDC) long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)/long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) treatments. OBJECTIVE: To compare chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related and all-cause health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs between COPD patients initiating tiotropium (TIO) + olodaterol (OLO) versus (a) other LAMA + LABA FDCs and (b) umeclidinium (UMEC) + vilanterol (VI), specifically. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, patients initiating fixed-dose LAMA + LABA therapy (earliest fill date = index date) between January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2018, were identified using administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Patients were followed post-index for 1-12 months. Follow-up was censored at the earliest occurrence of index therapy discontinuation or switch, health plan disenrollment, study end date, or reaching the maximum 12-month allowed duration. Propensity score matching of 1:2 was used to balance differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts for each of the 2 comparisons. Annualized population averages of HCRU and costs were calculated for each cohort as [sum of visits (or costs) for all individuals during the follow-up period] ÷ [sum of follow-up on-treatment time for all individuals] × 365 days. RESULTS: After matching, compared with patients who initiated other LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI, patients who initiated TIO + OLO had 14.29% and 16.95% fewer mean annualized per-patient COPD-related emergency department (ED) visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 0.49 vs. 0.59, P = 0.005; vs. UMEC + VI: 0.48 vs. 0.56, P = 0.026) and 3.07% and 3.14% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 12.66 vs. 13.07, P = 0.016; vs. UMEC + VI: 12.62 vs. 13.02, P = 0.022), leading to 17.39% and 21.47% lower mean annualized per-patient COPD-related ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $289 vs. $368, P = 0.003; vs. UMEC + VI: $285 vs. $345, P = 0.027) and 4.56% and 5.67% lower mean annualized per-patient pharmacy spending (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $3,570 vs. $3,741, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $3,556 vs. $3,770, P < 0.001) in the follow-up period. Similarly, patients in the TIO + OLO cohort had 15.63% and 21.17% fewer mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED visits (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 1.08 vs. 1.37, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: 1.08 vs. 1.28, P = 0.001), 8.29% fewer mean annualized per-patient outpatient visits (vs. UMEC + VI: 13.28 vs. 14.48, P = 0.031), 3.41% fewer mean annualized per-patient pharmacy fills (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: 56.92 vs. 58.93, P = 0.028), 19.48% and 22.28% lower mean annualized per-patient all-cause ED costs (vs. other LAMA + LABAs: $755 vs. $971, P < 0.001; vs. UMEC + VI: $749 vs. $930, P < 0.001), and 10.86% lower mean annualized per-patient outpatient setting costs (vs. UMEC + VI: $3,348 vs. $3,756, P = 0.050). There were no statistically significant differences for the other outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, differences in HCRU and costs were observed between FDC LAMA + LABAs, with patients initiating TIO + OLO having lower ED visits/costs, COPD-related pharmacy fills/costs, and all-cause pharmacy use and outpatient visits/costs than those initiating other FDC LAMA + LABAs or UMEC + VI specifically. The remaining HCRU and cost measures were not significantly different. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (BIPI; Ridgefield, CT). BIPI was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy, as well as intellectual property considerations. Palli is an employee of BIPI. Xie, Chastek, Elliott, and Bengtson are employees of Optum, which was contracted by BIPI to conduct this study. The authors received no direct compensation related to the development of the manuscript. Part of the results of this study were accepted and presented at the 30th European Respiratory Society (ERS) International Congress (September 7-9, 2020; virtual).

Health and cost impact of stepping down asthma medication for UK patients, 2001-2017: A population-based observational study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend stepping down asthma treatment to the minimum effective dose to achieve symptom control, prevent adverse side effects, and reduce costs. Limited data exist on asthma prescription patterns in a real-world setting. We aimed to evaluate the appropriateness of doses prescribed to a UK general asthma population and assess whether stepping down medication increased exacerbations or reliever use, as well as its impact on costs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used nationwide UK primary care medical records, 2001-2017, to identify 508,459 adult asthma patients managed with preventer medication. Prescriptions of higher-level medication: medium/high-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ICSs + add-on medication (long-acting ß2-agonist [LABA], leukotriene receptor antagonist [LTRA], theophylline, or long-acting muscarinic antagonist [LAMA]) steadily increased over time (2001 = 49.8%, 2017 = 68.3%). Of those prescribed their first preventer, one-third were prescribed a higher-level medication, of whom half had no reliever prescription or exacerbation in the year prior. Of patients first prescribed ICSs + 1 add-on, 70.4% remained on the same medication during a mean follow-up of 6.6 years. Of those prescribed medium/high-dose ICSs as their first preventer, 13.0% already had documented diabetes, cataracts, glaucoma, or osteopenia/osteoporosis. A cohort of 125,341 patients were drawn to assess the impact of stepping down medication: mean age 50.4 years, 39.4% males, 39,881 stepped down. Exposed patients were stepped down by dropping their LABAs or another add-on or by halving their ICS dose (halving their mean-daily dose or their inhaler dose). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, exacerbations and an increase in reliever prescriptions. Multivariable regression was used to assess outcomes and determine the prognostic factors for initiating stepdown. There was no increased exacerbation risk for each possible medication stepdown (adjusted hazard ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.86, 0.77-0.93, p < 0.001; ICS mean daily = 0.80, 0.74-0.87, p < 0.001; LABA = 1.01, 0.92-1.11, p = 0.87, other add-on = 1.00, 0.91-1.09, p = 0.79) and no increase in reliever prescriptions (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI, p-value: ICS inhaler dose = 0.99, 0.98-1.00, p = 0.59; ICS mean daily = 0.78, 0.76-0.79, p < 0.001; LABA = 0.83, 0.82-0.85, p < 0.001; other add-on = 0.86, 0.85-0.87, p < 0.001). Prognostic factors to initiate stepdown included medication burden, but not medication side effects. National Health Service (NHS) indicative prices were used for cost estimates. Stepping down medication, either LABAs or ICSs, could save annually around £17,000,000 or £8,600,000, respectively. Study limitations include the possibility that prescribed medication may not have been dispensed or adhered to and the reason for stepdown was not documented. CONCLUSION: In this UK study, we observed that asthma patients were increasingly prescribed higher levels of treatment, often without clear clinical indication for such high doses. Stepping down medication did not adversely affect outcomes and was associated with substantial cost savings.

The cost-saving switch from inhaled corticosteroid-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation: a two-country projection of epidemiological and economic burden in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2018 recommendations support maintenance treatment with long-acting bronchodilators in most symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While restricting the overuse of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) may influence healthcare utilization required to treat inadvertent respiratory (exacerbations and pneumonia) and diabetes-related events, it may also change the total medication cost. This analysis was performed to estimate the 5-year budget impact of switching from ICS-containing treatment combinations to dual bronchodilation, in line with the recommendations. METHODS: The model quantified the budget impact of treatment and healthcare resource utilization when COPD patients were anticipated to switch from ICS-containing treatments to dual bronchodilation. Three switch scenarios were calculated with increasing proportions of patients on dual long-acting bronchodilators, to the detriment of ICS-containing double and triple combinations. Clinical and cost input data were based on results from clinical trials and Greek and Portuguese healthcare cost databases. RESULTS: Healthcare resource use to manage exacerbations, pneumonia and diabetes-related events were projected to increase between 2019 and 2023 in parallel with the growing COPD patient population and associated costs were estimated at 52-57% of the total disease cost in the Greek and Portuguese base case scenarios. Total cost savings between 21 and 112 million EUR were projected when the proportion of patients on double and triple ICS-containing treatments was gradually reduced to 50% in scenario A, 20% in scenario B and 7% in scenario C. Sensitivity analyses showed that none of the model assumptions had a major impact on the projected savings. CONCLUSION: The alignment of COPD treatment with current recommendations may bring clinical benefits to patients, without substantial cost increases and even cost savings for payers. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Dual versus triple therapy in patients hospitalized for COPD in France: a claims data study.

Purposes: Following a hospitalization for COPD, dual and triple therapies were compared in terms of persistence and relations with outcomes (exacerbations, health care resource use and costs). Methods: This was a historical observational database study. All patients aged ≥45 hospitalized for COPD between 2007 and 2015 were identified in a 1/97th random sample of French claims data. Patients receiving dual therapy within 60 days after hospitalization were compared to patients receiving triple therapy, after propensity score matching on disease severity. Results: Of the 3,089 patients hospitalized for COPD, 1,538 (49.8%) received either dual or triple therapy in the 2 months following inclusion, and 1,500 (48.6%) had at least 30 days of follow-up available; 846 (27.4%) received dual therapy, and 654 (21.2%) received triple therapy. After matching, the number of exacerbations was 2.4 per year in the dual vs 2.3 in the triple group (p=0.45). Among newly treated patients (n=206), persistence at 12 months was similar in the dual and triple groups (48% vs 41%, respectively, p=0.37). As compared to patients on dual therapy, more patients on triple therapy received oral corticosteroids (49.1 vs 40.4%, p=0.003) or were hospitalized for any reason (67% vs 55.8%, p=0.0001) or for COPD (35.3 vs 25.1%, p=0.0002) during follow-up. Cost of care was higher for patients on triple than for those on dual therapy (€11,877.1 vs €9,825.1, p=0.01). Conclusion: Following hospitalizations for COPD, patients on dual and triple therapy experienced recurrent exacerbations, limited adherence to therapies and high cost of care. Patients on triple therapy appeared more severe than those on dual therapy, as reflected by exacerbations and health care resource use.

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.

Trends in prescriptions and costs of inhaled medications in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a 19-year population-based study from Canada.

Background: The patterns of medication use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may change over time due to the availability of new medications, updates in guideline-based recommendations, and changes in patient and care provider preferences. Objectives: To document population-level trends of filled prescriptions and costs for major classes of inhaled COPD therapies. Method: We used administrative health databases of the province of British Columbia, Canada, from 1997 to 2015, to create a retrospective cohort of COPD patients. We documented the percentage of patients receiving major inhaled COPD-related medications, including short-acting beta-2 adrenoreceptor agonists (SABA), long-acting beta-2 adrenoreceptor agonists (LABA), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), short-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (SAMA), and long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA). We quantified the average, and relative annual change in, dispensed quantities and costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars [$]) of medications. Combination therapy was assessed as the proportion of time covered by two or more long-acting medications of different classes. Results: A total of 176,338 patients were included in the final cohort (mean age at entry 68.7, 48.5% female). In 2015, the most common medication was ICS (45.7% of the patients), followed by LABA (36.5%). LAMA was the least used medication (18.9%). The number of filled prescriptions per patient per year for LAMA (+7.8% per year) and LABA (+4.9%) increased, while they decreased for SAMA (-6.3%) and SABA (-3.8%), and remained relatively constant for ICS. The average annual per-patient costs of inhaled medications were $570.8 in 2015, which was double the costs from 1997. Single-inhaler ICS/LABA had the highest rate of increase (11.6% per year), and comprised 53.7% of the total costs of inhalers in 2015. In 2015, 28.5% of the patient time was on combination therapies, with 7.1% on triple ICS/LABA/LAMA therapy. Conclusion: Utilization of inhaled therapies for COPD has changed significantly over time. The low utilization of LAMA and high utilization of combination therapies (particularly those containing ICS) do not seem to be aligned with COPD treatment guidelines.

Costs, exacerbations and pneumonia after initiating combination tiotropium olodaterol versus triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Aim: To compare health plan-paid costs, exacerbations and pneumonia outcomes for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating combination tiotropium olodaterol (TIO + OLO) versus triple therapy (TT: long-acting muscarinic antagonist + long-acting ß2 agonists + inhaled corticosteroid). Patients & methods: COPD patients initiating TIO + OLO or TT between 1 January 2014 and 30 June 2016 were identified from a managed care Medicare database and balanced for baseline characteristics using inverse probability of treatment weighting before assessment of outcomes. Results: Annual COPD-related and all-cause costs were US$4118 (35%) and US$5384 (23%) lower for TIO + OLO versus TT (both p ≤ 0.001). TIO + OLO patients had nearly half the severe exacerbations (8.3 vs 15.5%; p = 0.014) and pneumonia was also less common (18.9 vs 30.9%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: TIO + OLO was associated with improved economic and COPD health outcomes versus TT.

Evaluating direct costs and productivity losses of patients with asthma receiving GINA 4/5 therapy in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the low prevalence for all patients with asthma, those with severe disease account for a disproportionately large economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate current direct health care and productivity loss costs associated with patients with asthma receiving Global Initiative for Asthma Step 4/5 therapy ("G4/5 asthma") in the United States. METHODS: Asthma patients aged 12 years or older were identified in the IBM MarketScan Research Databases between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2015. Patients were indexed on their earliest medical claim for asthma and were required to have at last 2 years of continuous eligibility. The G4/5 asthma classification required 1 or more medium- or high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) claims, 1 or more omalizumab claims, or systemic corticosteroids covering at least 50% of the 12-month baseline period. The European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society criteria for severe uncontrolled asthma were modified for claims data and used to identify patients with exacerbations or high rescue medication use ("Ex/R″). Direct health care costs and productivity loss costs attributable to workplace absence or short-term or long-term disability were measured during the 12-month post-index period. RESULTS: A total of 605,614 patients with asthma were identified. Annual health care costs were $4,384 greater for G4/5 asthma vs non-G4/5 patients with asthma; asthma-related costs contributed $2,183 of this difference (P < .001). Differences were primarily driven by G4/5 patients with asthma with Ex/R, whose costs were $5,019 greater than G4/5 patients without Ex/R (P < .001). For patients with 1 or more absences or short-term disability claims, G4/5 patients missed 7.2 more work hours for absence and had 3.9 more days of work lost for short-term disability than non-G4/5 patients with asthma, respectively (P < .05). CONCLUSION: G4/5 patients with asthma incurred significantly greater direct and indirect costs than non-G4/5 patients with asthma. Differences were largely driven by those with Ex/R.

Differences in health care outcomes between postdischarge COPD patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist via dry-powder inhalers and pressurized metered-dose inhalers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine real-world differences in health care resource use (HRU) and costs among COPD patients in the USA treated with a dry powder inhaler (DPI) or pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) following a COPD-related hospitalization. METHODS: This retrospective analysis used the Truven MarketScan® databases. Eligibility criteria included 1) age ≥40 years, 2) COPD diagnosis, 3) inpatient admission with a diagnosis of COPD exacerbation, 4) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) prescription within 10 days of hospital discharge (index date), and 5) continuous enrollment for 12 months preindex and 90 days postindex. Outcomes included pre- and postindex HRU and costs. DPI and pMDI groups were compared on postindex outcomes via multivariate models controlling for demographic and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The sample included 1,960 DPI and 1,086 pMDI ICS/LABA patients. During the preindex period, pMDI patients were significantly more likely to be prescribed a short-acting ß-agonist, experienced more COPD exacerbation-related hospital days, and had a greater number of pulmonologist visits compared to DPI patients (P<0.05), all suggestive of greater disease severity. However, multivariate models revealed that pMDI patients incurred 10% lower all-cause postindex costs (predicted mean costs [2016 US dollars]: $2,673 vs $2,956) and 19% lower COPD-related costs (predicted mean costs: $138 vs $169; P<0.05). Additionally, pMDI patients were 28% less likely to experience a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission within 60 days postdischarge compared to the DPI patients (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.52-0.99, P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Despite greater COPD-related HRU and costs preceding index hospitalization, US patients using a pMDI after hospital discharge incurred significantly lower all-cause and COPD-related health care costs compared with those using a DPI, in addition to a decreased likelihood of a COPD exacerbation-related hospital readmission. Results suggest that inhaler device type may influence COPD outcomes and that COPD patients may derive greater clinical benefit from treatment delivered via pMDI vs DPI.

Does Changing Inhaler Device Impact Real-Life Asthma Outcomes? Clinical and Economic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Inhaler usability and deposition differ between devices. Change of device may therefore have an impact on clinical and economic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize clinical and economic asthma outcomes surrounding the change from a dry powder inhaler (DPI) to a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for fixed-dose combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß agonist (FDC ICS/LABA) treatment. METHODS: Three retrospective cohort substudies using 2010 to 2015 data from the Korean Health Insurance and Review Assessment Service database were performed. Patients with asthma who received an FDC ICS/LABA pMDI for the first time after initially being on FDC ICS/LABA DPI were included. The following outcomes were assessed: (1) persistence of change to pMDI over 6 months, (2) clinical outcomes during the year after the change compared with the baseline year; and (3) noninferiority comparison of costs and effectiveness between patients changing to a pMDI and matched patients who continued their DPI. RESULTS: Patients who change inhalers seem to represent a more severe subpopulation. Fifty-eight percent of patients (95% CI, 56-60) persisted with the change. After the change in therapy, an increased proportion of patients (58.3%) remained free from severe exacerbations compared with the year before (47.4%; P < .001). Patients who changed to pMDIs had significantly less severe exacerbations, acute respiratory events, and lower short-acting ß agonist inhaler average daily dose, but higher average ICS daily dose (all P < .05), compared with matched patients remaining on a DPI. Total costs were similar between patients who changed to pMDI therapy compared with those remaining on a DPI. CONCLUSION: Changing from a DPI to a pMDI for FDC ICS/LABA asthma treatment can be as effective and cost-effective as remaining on a DPI.

Does a Patient-Directed Financial Incentive Affect Patient Choices About Controller Medicines for Asthma? A Discrete Choice Experiment and Financial Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, many patients who are initiated on asthma controller inhalers receive combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA) despite having asthma of sufficiently low severity that ICS-alone would be equally effective and less costly for the government. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in a nationally representative sample of adults (n = 792) and parents of children (n = 609) with asthma. Mixed multinomial models were estimated and calibrated to reflect the estimated market shares of ICS-alone, ICS/LABA and no controller. We then simulated the impact of varying patient co-payment on demand and the financial impact on government pharmaceutical expenditure. RESULTS: Preference for inhaler decreased with increasing costs to the patient or government, increasing chance of a repeat visit to the doctor, and if fewer symptoms were present. Adults preferred high-strength controllers, but parents preferred low-strength inhalers for children (general beneficiaries only). The DCE predicted a higher proportion choosing controller treatment (89%) compared to current levels (57%) at the current co-payment level, with proportionately higher uptake of ICS-alone and a lower average cost per patient [32.73 Australian dollars (AU$) c.f. AU$38.54]. Reducing the co-payment on ICS-alone by 50% would increase its market share to 50%, whilst completely removing the co-payment would only have a small marginal impact on market share, but increased average cost of treatment to the government to AU$41.04 per person. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-directed financial incentives are unlikely to encourage much switching of medicines, and current levels of under-treatment are not explained by patient preferences. Interventions directed at prescribers are more likely to promote better use of asthma medicines.

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.

Economic Burden Associated with Receiving Inhaled Corticosteroids with Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists or Long-Acting Beta Agonists as Combination Therapy in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature on the health care expenditures associated with different pharmacologic treatments in older adults with asthma that is not well controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma-related and all-cause health care expenditures associated with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) versus long-acting beta agonists (LABA) when added to ICS in older adults with asthma. METHODS: A retrospective cohort was constructed using 2009-2010 Medicare fee-for-service medical and pharmacy claims from a 10% random sample of beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2009. The sample comprised patients who were aged 65 years and older, diagnosed with asthma, and treated exclusively with ICS + LABA or ICS + LTRA. Outcomes assessed were asthma-related expenditures (medical, pharmacy, and total) and all-cause health care expenditures (medical, pharmacy, and total). Outcomes were measured from the date of the first prescription for the add-on treatment (LABA or LTRA in combination with ICS) after having at least a 4-month "wash-in" period in which patients were receiving no controller, ICS alone, or ICS plus the add-on treatment of the follow-up period. Patients were followed until death, switching to or adding the other add-on treatment, or the end of the study (December 31, 2010). Multivariable regression models with nonparametric bootstrapped standard errors were used to compare all-cause and asthma-related expenditures per patient per month (PPPM) between ICS + LABA and ICS + LTRA users. All models were adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and county-level health care access variables. RESULTS: The primary analysis included 14,702 patients, of whom 12,940 were treated with ICS + LABA and 1,762 were treated with ICS + LTRA. The mean (SD) follow-up periods were 12.3 (± 5.7) months for the ICS + LABA group and 15.3 (± 5.1) months for the ICS + LTRA group. Adjusted asthma-related expenditures PPPM were $400 for the ICS + LTRA group compared with $286 for the ICS + LABA group (P < 0.001). However, adjusted total all-cause expenditure PPPM was significantly lower for patients treated with ICS + LTRA ($6,087 for ICS + LTRA compared with $6,975 for ICS + LABA, P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with asthma often experience economic burden from asthma and other chronic illnesses. Compared with ICS + LTRA, ICS + LABA was associated with lower asthma-related expenditures but with higher all-cause expenditures in older adults. DISCLOSURES: Support for this study was provided by the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy and the Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (NIA P30 AGAG024827). C. Thorpe reports grants from the National Institute of Aging during the conduct of this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed-Dose Combinations Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a progressive lung disorder associated with decline of respiratory function, affects 10.2% of Spanish adults (40-80 years of age). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting ß2-agonist therapies for COPD, with Spanish National Health System perspective. METHODS: A Markov model with five health states based on severity levels defined by GOLD 2010 criteria was used to simulate in monthly cycles the evolution along a 5-year period of a cohort of moderate-to-severe COPD patients, treated with aclidinium-formoterol (ACL/FF) 400/12 µg or tiotropium-olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 µg fixed-dose combinations. Clinical data on lung-function improvement were obtained from a network meta-analysis and applied to mean baseline forced-expiratory-volume in 1 s (FEV1) for the first 24-weeks period. Natural history for lung-function decline (41 ml/year) was applied until the end of simulation. Risk of exacerbation and pneumonia occurrence were considered. Pharmaceutical costs were calculated with dosages according to indication and public ex-factory prices. The health state-specific disease management and event costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. Total costs (€ 2016) and benefits [life-year-gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY)] were discounted (3.0% yearly). Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Both therapies provided the same outcomes (4.073 LYG and 2.928 QALY) at 5-year period. ACL/FF 400/12 µg provided marginally lower costs (€ - 332) compared to TIO/OLO 5/5 µg. CONCLUSION: ACL/FF 400/12 µg was a cost-saving therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD in Spain, and provided equivalent effects compared to TIO/OLO 5/5 µg.

Burden of asthma and COPD overlap (ACO) in Taiwan: a nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with symptoms of both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may be classified with the term asthma-COPD overlap (ACO). ACO is of considerable interest as it is currently poorly characterised and has been associated with worse health outcomes and higher healthcare costs compared with COPD or asthma alone. Patients with ACO in Asia remain poorly described, and there is limited information regarding their resource utilisation compared with patients with asthma or COPD only. This study investigated the characteristics, disease burden and medical resource utilisation of patients with ACO in Taiwan. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients identified from National Health Insurance (NHI) claims data in Taiwan in 2009-2011. Patients were classified into incident ACO, COPD or asthma cohorts according to International Classification of Disease, ninth revision, clinical modification codes in claims. Eligible patients were ≥40 years of age with 12 months' continuous enrolment in the NHI programme pre- and post-index date (date of the first relevant medical claim). RESULTS: Patients with ACO (N = 22,328) and COPD (N = 69,648) were older and more likely to be male than those with asthma (N = 50,293). Patients with ACO had more comorbidities and exacerbations, with higher medication use: short-acting ß2-agonist prescriptions ranged from 30.4% of patients (asthma cohort) to 43.6% (ACO cohort), and inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination prescriptions ranged from 11.1% (COPD cohort) to 35.0% (ACO cohort) in the 12 months following index. Patients with ACO generally had the highest medication costs of any cohort (long-acting muscarinic antagonist costs ranged from $227/patient [asthma cohort] to $349/patient [ACO cohort]); they also experienced more respiratory-related hospital visits than patients with asthma or COPD (mean outpatient/inpatient visits per patient post-index: 9.1/1.9 [ACO cohort] vs 5.7/1.4 [asthma cohort] and 6.4/1.7 [COPD cohort]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACO in Taiwan experience a greater disease burden with greater healthcare resource utilisation, and higher costs, than patients with asthma or COPD alone.

Evaluation and quantification of treatment preferences for patients with asthma or COPD using discrete choice experiment surveys.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate treatment preferences of patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), previously identified influential treatment factors were used to develop a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted with UK-resident adults (recruited using a commercial panel) who were currently receiving asthma/COPD treatment and had not taken part in the previous phase of this study (qualitative interviews to understand patient burden, life impact and treatment preferences). Participants ranked treatment attributes from 0 (extremely important) to 8 (not at all important) and chose between hypothetical treatments for asthma/COPD with differing attributes. Preferences for each condition were assessed separately using a mixed logit regression model. RESULTS: Most of the 302 participants had not well-controlled asthma (Asthma Control Test™ scores ≤19/25) or experienced a high impact of COPD (COPD Assessment Test™ scores >20/40). Participant views were generally similar for both conditions; having well-controlled symptoms all day was considered most important. All treatment attributes significantly influenced preferences; the most preferred were no sleep disturbance (versus waking up often) and low cost. Subsequent preferences (with some variation between asthma/COPD) were for treatments with easy/convenient use, no flare ups/exacerbations, that enabled desired physical activities, well-controlled symptoms all day, that enabled desired social activities, and low medication frequency. CONCLUSIONS: These eight treatment attributes, valued by patients with asthma or COPD, are important for healthcare professionals to consider regarding treatment options and for future therapy development. Our DCE results broadly reinforce the findings from qualitative interviews in the first study phase.

Comparative study on medical utilization and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with good lung function.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are underdiagnosed and undertreated due to the asymptomatic nature of the disease. Previous studies on patients with mild COPD have focused on symptomatic patients. Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the treatment status of patients with early COPD in Korea. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We compared hospital visits, medical costs per person, and COPD medication use by patients with COPD screened from the general population and COPD cohort patients. Patients with COPD aged ≥40 years with the value of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) ≥60% were selected from the 2007 to 2012 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) data. Data including the number of outpatient clinic visits, admission to hospitals, COPD-related medications, and medical costs were obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service and were compared with the data of patients with COPD with FEV1 ≥60% from the Korean COPD Subtype Study (KOCOSS) cohort. RESULTS: Based on EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire index scores of 0.9±0.14, we found that patients with COPD from the KNHANES group showed few symptoms compared to those from the KOCOSS cohort. In 2007, among the patients with COPD with an FEV1 value of ≥60%, only 3.6% from the KNHANES group and 30% from the KOCOSS cohort visited medical facilities. Total medical cost per person per year increased from 264.37±663.41 US Dollars (USD) in 2007 to 797.00±2,724.21 USD in 2012 for the KNHANES group. In 2012, only 20.7% of the patients from KNHANES database received long-acting muscarinic agonists (LAMA), whereas 78.7% of the patients from KOCOSS database received LAMA. CONCLUSION: Medical resource utilization and medical costs per person for patients with early COPD in Korea increased. However, asymptomatic patients with COPD represented by the KNHANES group do not receive adequate long-term treatment compared to relatively symptomatic patients, and require more clinical attention from physicians.