Cost-effectiveness analysis of roflumilast/tiotropium therapy versus tiotropium monotherapy for treating severe-to-very severe COPD

Abstract

Objective:

To conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy in patients with severe-to-very severe COPD.

Methods:

The economic evaluation applied a disease-based Markov cohort model with five health states: (1) severe COPD, (2) severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, (3) very severe COPD, (4) very severe COPD with a history of severe exacerbation, and (5) death. Within a given health state, a patient may have a mild/moderate or severe exacerbation or die. Data from roflumilast clinical trials and published literature were used to populate model parameters. The model calculated health outcomes and costs for roflumilast/tiotropium therapy vs tiotropium monotherapy over a 5-year horizon. Incremental cost and benefits were then calculated as cost-effectiveness ratios, including cost per exacerbation avoided and cost per quality adjusted life year ($/QALY).

Results:

Over a 5-year horizon, the estimated incremental costs per exacerbation and per severe exacerbation avoided were $589 and $5869, respectively, and the incremental cost per QALY was $15,815. One-way sensitivity analyses varying key parameters produced an incremental cost per QALY ranging from $1963–$32,773.

Limitations:

A number of key parameters used in the model were obtained from studies in the literature that were conducted under different contexts. Specifically, the relative risk estimate for severe COPD patients originates from a small trial not designed to demonstrate the impact of roflumilast on frequency of exacerbations. In addition, the model extrapolates the relative risk estimates over periods of 5–30 years, even though the estimates were only observed in trials that spanned less than a year.

Conclusions:

The addition of roflumilast to tiotropium is cost-effective for the treatment of severe to very severe COPD patients.     

Respiratory-related medical expenditure and inpatient utilisation among COPD patients receiving long-acting bronchodilator therapy

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-related expenditure and hospitalisation in COPD patients treated with tiotropium versus alternative long-acting bronchodilators (LABDs).

Methods:

Data were from the Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases. COPD patients ≥35 years with at least one LABD claim between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2006 were classified into five cohorts based on index LABD: monotherapy with tiotropium, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, formoterol fumarate, or salmeterol or combination therapy. Demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated for a 6-month pre-period and COPD-related utilisation and total costs were evaluated for a 12-month follow-up period. LABD relationship to COPD-related costs and hospitalisations were estimated by multivariate generalised linear modelling (GLM) and multivariate logistic regression, respectively.

Results:

Of 52,274 patients, 53% (n?=?27,457) were male, 71% (n?=?37,271) were ≥65?years, and three LABD cohorts accounted for over 90% of the sample [53% (n?=?27,654) salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, 23% (n?=?11,762) tiotropium, and 15% (n?=?7755) combination therapy]. Patients treated with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (p?<?0.001), formoterol fumarate (p?=?0.032), salmeterol (p?=?0.004), or with combination therapy (p?<?0.001) had higher COPD-related costs and a greater risk of inpatient admission (p?<?0.01 for all) versus tiotropium.

Limitations:

These data are based on administrative claims and as such do not include clinical information or information on risk factors, like smoking status, that are relevant to this population.

Conclusions:

Patients treated with tiotropim had lower COPD-related expenditures and risk of hospitalisation than patients treated with other LABDs     

Seretide: a pharmacoeconomic analysis

Abstract

Background: The costs of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the two most common chronic respiratory illnesses, are substantial and rising. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone and salmeterol has been a safe and effective therapy for these diseases.

Objectives: To review the pharmacoeconomic impact of the fixed-dose combination of inhaled fluticasone and salmeterol in asthma and COPD.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was carried out to identify pharmacoeconomic studies with fixed-dose salmeterol and fluticasone (Seretide, Advair, Viani). In addition, abstracts from recent respiratory meetings were sought, and any unpublished data were requested from the manufacturer.

Results: For asthma, when compared to treatment with inhaled corticosteroid monotherapy and antileukotrienes, alone or combined, salmeterol/fluticasone inhalation produced a higher proportion of successfully treated weeks, improvement in lung function and quality of life, and fewer treatment failures. The costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for fluticasone/salmeterol have been favourable not only in patients with moderate to severe disease but also in patients with mild disease or patients not previously treated with a maintenance therapy. The excess cost per QALY varied from US$2,670 to US$26,445. For COPD, a clear reduction in exacerbation rates and improvement in quality of life has been demonstrated with salmeterol/fluticasone along with a likely improvement in survival rates. The incremental cost per QALY ratio for fluticasone/salmeterol against placebo ranged from US$9,512 to US$64,038.

Conclusions: The data currently available suggest that the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with fluticasone and salmeterol is favourable for asthma and COPD in a variety of clinical settings.     

Cost-effectiveness of omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in the Netherlands

Abstract

Background:

Omalizumab, licensed for patients with uncontrolled persistent allergic (IgE mediated) asthma, was found to be cost-effective based upon its clinical trial data. Observational studies have been undertaken to determine the real life outcomes of using omalizumab in the community.

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of omalizumab based upon observational data from the Netherlands and compare to its cost-effectiveness using clinical trial data.

Methods:

An observational study (eXpeRience) recruited allergic asthma patients eligible for Omalizumab therapy and followed them while on treatment. At 1 year, data from the Dutch patients enrolled in eXpeRience were examined to estimate the number of exacerbations and resource use while on omalizumab therapy compared to the year prior to omalizumab use. Observational data were used in a Markov model to calculate the lifetime cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results:

In the 1 year prior to omalizumab therapy the per-person rate of exacerbations was 3.39 compared to 1.07 in the year taking omalizumab. The discounted incremental lifetime additional costs for omalizumab were €55,865 for 1.46 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALY), resulting in €38,371/QALY. Using the INNOVATE clinical trial outcomes and current resource use, the prior ratio was €34,911/QALY, similar to the observational ratio. As in all observational studies, the main limitation is obtaining complete and accurate data. Patients with missing exacerbation or response data were excluded from this analysis.

Conclusion:

Non-clinical trial experience with omalizumab supported the finding of fewer exacerbations in the allergic asthma population while treated with omalizumab, and therapy was found to continue to have an attractive cost-effectiveness ratio.     

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO).

Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3?years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3?years of budesonide/formoterol entry.

Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.     

Symbicort: a pharmacoeconomic review

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review examines the published evidence on the pharmacoecomonics of Symbicort®. Symbicort is a combination inhaler used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that contains budesonide and formoterol. In asthma, Symbicort can be used as fixed or adjustable dose maintenance therapy as well as for both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART).

Method: A literature search of PubMed was carried out to find all publications on the pharmacoeconomics of Symbicort. Additional studies were searched for in the reference lists of the papers retrieved and by searching tables of contents of relevant journals. A total of 13 studies on Symbicort in asthma and 2 studies on Symbicort in COPD were found.

Results: Total costs were lower with Symbicort than with separate inhalers containing budesonide and formoterol. Adjustable dosing maintained control of asthma using less medication and was associated with lower treatment costs than fixed dosing with Symbicort or the combination of fluticasone/salmeterol. SMART improves asthma control, reduces exacerbations and reduces direct and indirect costs compared to fixed maintenance therapy with either Symbicort or fluticasone/salmeterol. In COPD, Symbicort offers clinical advantages over therapy with the monocomponents and these are achieved at little or no extra cost.     

Incremental third-party costs associated with COPD exacerbations: a retrospective claims analysis

Abstract

Background:

Exacerbations are a major contributor to the large burden of treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Estimates of exacerbation costs in the United States are limited.

Objective:

To estimate incremental costs associated with COPD exacerbation, particularly severe exacerbation, in the United States.

Methods:

COPD patients with at least one exacerbation were identified in the Thomson Reuters MarketScan administrative claims database. A COPD exacerbation was defined as patient use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids on the same day or within 7 days following a claim with a COPD diagnosis. Severe exacerbation was further defined if the exacerbation was associated with hospitalization or death. Healthcare costs and exacerbations were evaluated at quarterly intervals starting from patients’ first observed claim with COPD diagnostic code in the database. Incremental costs associated with exacerbation were estimated as cost differences between quarters with exacerbation and quarters without exacerbation.

Results:

A total of 2644,174 patient-quarters, derived from 228,978 COPD patients, were included in the analysis. The average patient was followed an average of 2.9 years. The mean total cost was $17,016 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $6628 per patient-quarter with non-severe exacerbation, an average of $8726 per patient-quarters with any exacerbation compared to $4762 per patient-quarter with no exacerbation. After adjusting for patient demographics, the mean incremental total cost was $11,261 per patient-quarter with severe exacerbation, $1509 per patient-quarter for non-severe exacerbation, and $3439 per patient-quarter with any exacerbation compared with patient-quarters with no exacerbation.

Limitations:

The method used for defining exacerbations does not capture mild exacerbations. Additional limitations exist due to the nature of claims data.

Conclusions:

Exacerbations, especially severe ones, result in a significant economic burden for third-party payers. Effective management of COPD and prevention of exacerbations may lead to improved patient outcomes and reduction in total healthcare costs for long-term management of COPD.     

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

Objective:

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

Methods:

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2?mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4?mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2?mg) vs sitagliptin (100?mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ～20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

Limitations:

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

Conclusions:

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2?mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.     

Feasibility of using administrative claims data for cost-effectiveness analysis of a clinical trial

Objective: This study was performed retrospectively to determine if Medicare claims data could be used to evaluate the cost effectiveness, from a payer perspective, of different radiation treatment schedules evaluated in a national clinical trial.

Methods: Medicare costs from all providers and all places of service were obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for patients treated in the period 1992–1996 on Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 90-03, and combined with data on outcomes from the trial.

Results: Of the 1,113 patients entered, Medicare cost data and clinical outcomes were available for 187 patients. Significant differences in tolerance of treatment and outcome were noted between patients with Medicare data included in the study and patients without Medicare data, and non-Medicare patients excluded from it. Ninety-five percent confidence ellipses on the incremental cost-effectiveness scatterplots crossed both axes, indicating non-significant differences in cost effectiveness between radiation treatment schedules.

Conclusions: Claims data permit estimation of cost effectiveness, but Medicare data provide inadequate representation of results applicable to patients from the general population.

Keywords:     

The cost implications of the use of telmisartan or ramipril in patients at high risk for vascular events: the ONTARGET study

Abstract

Background:

The recently published ONTARGET trial found that telmisartan was non-inferior to ramipril in reducing CV death, MI, stroke, or heart failure in patients with vascular disease or high-risk diabetes. The cost implications of ramipril and telmisartan monotherapy use based on the ONTARGET study are reported here.

Methods and Results:

Only healthcare system costs were considered. Healthcare resource utilization was collected for each patient during the trial. The authors obtained country-specific unit costs to the different healthcare care resources consumed (i.e., hospitalizations events, procedures, non-study, and study drugs) for all enrolled patients. Purchasing power parities were used to convert country-specific costs into US dollars (US$ 2008). The total undiscounted costs of the study for the telmisartan group was $12,762 per patient and is higher than the ramipril group at $12,007 per patient, an un-discounted difference of $755 (95% confidence interval [CI], $218–$1292); The discounted costs for the telmisartan group was $11,722 compared with $11,019 for the ramipril group; a difference of $703 (95% CI, $209–$1197). The difference in costs is exclusively related to the acquisition cost of telmisartan over generic ramipril.

Limitations:

This analysis only considered direct healthcare system costs. Costs accrued outside the hospital were not collected. Combination therapy was excluded since it would likely be more expensive than ramipril alone, with no additional benefit and a risk of some harm.

Conclusions:

Based on these results, it is suggested that for the ONTARGET patients, the use of telmisartan instead of ramipril increases costs by 6.3%. These findings suggest that the choice to put patients on telmisartan should be justified based on the patient’s susceptibility to specific adverse events to minimize the cost implications.     

Economic burden of healthcare-associated infection in US acute care hospitals: societal perspective

Abstract

Background:

Assessing the costs of healthcare-associated infection (HAI) is challenging. Methodological issues abound. Previous estimates have been derived in diverse ways from varied perspectives in different settings with dissimilar data. Results can be confusing. Full societal costs, which are more inclusive than commonly reported direct hospital costs, have never been fully measured or reported.

Objective:

To update, combine, and expand previous cost estimates to determine the annual societal burden of illness (direct medical, non-medical, and indirect costs) arising from HAIs in US acute-care hospitals.

Methods:

The research approach encompassed literature and internet searches; reference identification, selection, and review; then data abstraction, compilation, and analyses to estimate full societal costs. Previously published systemic reviews, surveillance reports, and individual clinical studies, along with newly computed component costs, all contributed to final estimates.

Results:

HAIs in US acute-care hospitals lead to direct and indirect costs totaling $96–$147 billion annually. These results are subject to the same limitations as previous studies from which contributing data were derived.

Conclusion:

The enormous clinical and economic burden of infection places HAIs high on the list of devastating and costly illnesses, such as cancer, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes, thereby mandating further research and greater efforts to contain a pressing healthcare problem.     

Cost-effectiveness of subdermal implantable buprenorphine versus sublingual buprenorphine to treat opioid use disorder

Aims: Subdermal implantable buprenorphine (BSI) was recently approved to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) in clinically-stable adults. In the pivotal clinical trial, BSI was associated with a higher proportion of completely-abstinent patients (85.7% vs 71.9%; p?=?.03) vs sublingual buprenorphine (SL-BPN). Elsewhere, relapse to illicit drug use is associated with diminished treatment outcomes and increased costs. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BSI vs SL-BPN from a US societal perspective.

Methods: A Markov model simulated BSI and SL-BPN cohorts (clinically-stable adults) transiting through four mutually-exclusive health states for 12 months. Cohorts accumulated direct medical costs from drug acquisition/administration; treatment-diversion/abuse; newly-acquired hepatitis-C; emergency room, hospital, and rehabilitation services; and pediatric poisonings. Non-medical costs of criminality, lost wages/work-productivity, and out-of-pocket expenses were also included. Transition probabilities to a relapsed state were derived from the aforementioned trial. Other transition probabilities, costs, and health-state utilities were derived from observational studies and adjusted for trial characteristics. Outcomes included incremental cost per quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) gained and incremental net-monetary-benefit (INMB). Uncertainty was assessed by univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

Results: BSI was associated with lower total costs (?$4,386), more QALYs (+0.031), and favorable INMB at all willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds considered. Higher drug acquisition costs for BSI (+$6,492) were outpaced, primarily by reductions in emergency room/hospital utilization (?$8,040) and criminality (?$1,212). BSI was cost-effective in 89% of PSA model replicates, and had a significantly higher NMB at $50,000/QALY ($20,783 vs $15,007; p?Conclusions: BSI was preferred over SL-BPN from a health-economic perspective for treatment of OUD in clinically-stable adults. These findings should be interpreted carefully, due to some relationships having been modeled from inputs derived from multiple sources, and would benefit from comparison with outcomes from studies that employ administrative claims data or a naturalistic comparative design.     

Clinical and economic benefit of enzymatic debridement of pressure ulcers compared to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of enzymatic debridement using collagenase relative to autolytic debridement with a hydrogel dressing for the treatment of pressure ulcers.

Methods:

A 3-stage Markov model was used to determine the expected costs and outcomes of wound care for collagenase and hydrogel dressings. Outcome data used in the analysis were taken from a randomized clinical trial that directly compared collagenase and hydrogel dressings. The primary outcome in the clinical trial was the proportion of patients achieving a closed epithelialized wound. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical trial. A 1-year time horizon was used to determine the expected number of closed wound days and the expected costs for the two alternative debridement therapies. Resource utilization was based on the wound care treatment regimen used in the clinical trial. Resource costs were derived from standard cost references and medical supply wholesalers. The economic perspective taken was that of the long-term care facility. No cost discounting was performed due to the short time horizon of the analysis. A deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyze economic uncertainty.

Results:

The number of expected wound days for the collagenase and hydrogel cohorts are estimated at 48 and 147, respectively. The expected direct cost per patient for pressure ulcer care was $2003 for collagenase and $5480 for hydrogel debridement. The number of closed wound days was 1.5-times higher for collagenase (317 vs 218 days) than with the hydrogel. The estimated cost/closed wound day was 4-times higher for the hydrogel ($25) vs collagenase ($6).

Conclusions:

In this Markov model based on a randomized trial of pressure ulcer care in a long-term care setting collagenase debridement was economically dominant over autolytic debridement, yielding better outcomes at a lower total cost. Since it was a single institution study with a small sample size, the results should be interpreted with caution. Specifically, the findings may not necessarily be generalized to other hydrogel dressings, healthcare settings, age groups, or to wounds of other etiologies.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of using azacitidine vs. decitabine in treating patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

Abstract

Objective:

Azacitidine and decitabine are used to treat patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) in the United States (US). This study sought to assess their relative cost-effectiveness.

Design and methods:

The authors developed a cost-effectiveness Markov model (1-month cycles) tracking hypothetical cohorts of MDS patients treated with azacitidine or decitabine over 2 years. The model used a US payer perspective and 2009 costs. Health states modeled included MDS with Transfusion Dependence, MDS with Transfusion Independence, Progression to Acute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML), and Death. Incremental cost-effectiveness outcomes included cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), cost per life year (LY), cost per patient-month of transfusion independence, and cost per case of AML progression avoided. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key model parameters.

Results:

Compared to decitabine, azacitidine was associated with better survival (1.512 LYs vs 1.292), more QALYs gained (1.041 vs 0.870), more patient-months with transfusion independence (8.328 vs 6.224), and a greater proportion of patients avoiding progression to AML (50.9% vs 28.5%). Total per-patient costs over 2 years for azacitidine were lower than for decitabine ($150,322 vs $166, 212).

Limitations:

To inform and update the model over time, it will be important that randomized or observational clinical studies be conducted to directly compare azacitidine and decitabine, provide new information on how these medicines are used, and on their relative clinical effectiveness.

Conclusion:

Results demonstrate that azacitidine provides greater clinical benefit and costs less than decitabine across all key outcomes. These results accentuate the positive role of azacitidine in providing cost-effective care for MDS.     

A review of international pharmacoeconomic models assessing the use of aspirin in primary prevention

Abstract

Purpose:

The aim of this narrative review was to summarise the cost analyses and supporting trial data for aspirin prophylaxis in primary prevention.

Methods:

A PubMed search using the term ‘aspirin and cost-effective and primary prevention’ was performed. Professional meetings (2009) were also searched for any relevant abstracts contacting the terms ‘aspirin’ and ‘cost effectiveness’. Where possible, outcomes were discussed in terms of cost implications (expressed as quality-adjusted life-year [QALY], disability-adjusted life-year or incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) in relation to the annual risk of cardiovascular disease. Aspirin was included in cost-effectiveness models that determined direct cost savings.

Results:

A total of 67 papers were identified using PubMed, and 17 cost-effectiveness studies, which assessed aspirin in primary prevention (largely based on the key primary prevention studies), and two abstracts were included in the review. These analyses showed that low-dose aspirin was cost effective in a variety of scenarios. In the UK, Germany, Spain, Italy and Japan, the mean 10-year direct cost saving (including follow-up costs and aspirin costs) per patient was €201, €281, €797, €427 and €889 with aspirin use in patients with an annual coronary heart disease risk of 1.5%. Cost-effectiveness analyses were affected by age, risk level for stroke and myocardial infarction (MI), risk of bleeds and adherence to aspirin. Underutilisation is a major limiting factor, as the appropriate use of aspirin in an eligible population (n?=?301,658) based on the NHANES database would prevent 1273 MIs, 2184 angina episodes and 565 ischaemic strokes in patients without previous events; this would result in a direct cost saving of $79.6?million (€54.7?million; 2010 values), which includes aspirin costs.

Conclusions:

Most analyses in primary prevention have shown that low-dose aspirin is a cost-effective option, and is likely to meet the willingness of a healthcare system to pay for any additional QALY gained in the majority of healthcare systems.