Cost effectiveness of tiotropium in patients with asthma poorly controlled on inhaled glucocorticosteroids and long-acting β-agonists

Development of an asthma health-care burden score as a measure of severity and predictor of remission in SARP III and U-BIOPRED: results from two major longitudinal asthma cohorts

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines, including those of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and American Thoracic Society (ATS), suboptimally predict asthma remission, disease severity, and health-care utilisation. We aimed to establish a novel approach to assess asthma severity based on asthma health-care burden data.

METHODS

We analysed prospectively collected data from the Severe Asthma Research Program III (SARP III; USA) and the European Unbiased Biomarkers for the Prediction of Respiratory Disease Outcomes (U-BIOPRED; 11 European countries) to calculate a composite burden score based on asthma exacerbations and health-care utilisation, which was modified to include the use of short-acting beta agonists (SABAs) to reflect asthma symptom burden.

FINDINGS

In SARP III, 528 adult participants with asthma were followed up for a mean of 4·4 (SD 1·6) years, and 312 (59%) had severe asthma according to the ERS-ATS definition. Among the 205 participants with asthma who used rescue SABAs daily, 90 used these two or more times a day. In U-BIOPRED, 509 adult participants with asthma were followed up for 1 year, and 421 (83%) had severe asthma. The burden score was less than 1·29 per patient-year in 106 (34%) of 312 SARP III participants and in 80 (19%) of 421 U-BIOPRED participants with severe asthma. By contrast, the burden score was above the median value in 58 (28%) SARP III and 24 (27%) U-BIOPRED participants with non-severe asthma. In both cohorts, the burden score negatively correlated with lung function, asthma control, and quality of life. A burden score of 0·15 or lower predicted asthma remission with a sensitivity greater than 91% and a specificity of 99%.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings highlight considerable discrepancies between the current definition of asthma severity and our burden score. Although the definition of severe asthma proposed by the ERS-ATS and the and Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) is based on prescribed asthma medications, our personalised health-care burden score includes patient-centred data that reflect disease severity and accurately predicts asthma remission. Subject to prospective validation, the burden score could help to optimise the management of high-risk individuals with asthma.

FUNDING

SARP III: US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; AstraZeneca; Boehringer Ingelheim; Genentech; GlaxoSmithKline; Sanofi Genzyme/Regeneron; and Teva Pharmaceuticals.

U-BIOPRED

Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (EU's Seventh Framework Programme and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) and eTRIKS project.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dupilumab among patients with uncontrolled severe asthma using LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST Korean data

BACKGROUND

A sub-analysis of the Korean population in the LIBERTY ASTHMA QUEST trial (NCT02414854) revealed that dupilumab effectively treated severe uncontrolled asthma. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of add-on therapy with dupilumab to background therapy in patients ≥ 12 years of age with uncontrolled severe asthma compared to that of background therapy in South Korea.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a Markov model over a lifetime from the Korean healthcare system perspective. Clinical efficacy and utility weights were obtained from post-hoc analyses of the Korean population in the QUEST trial. Data on the costs and treatment setting of exacerbation in a real-world setting were retrospectively collected using the administrative medical database from a single tertiary hospital.

RESULTS

The base-case results indicated that add-on dupilumab therapy increases costs ($112,924 for add-on dupilumab versus $29,545 for background therapy alone). However, add-on dupilumab increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 8.03 versus 3.93, respectively), with fewer events of severe exacerbations per patient compared to using the background therapy alone (17.920 versus 19.911, respectively). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $20,325 per QALY. Various sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the base-case results. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of add-on dupilumab being cost-effective was 87% at a threshold willingness-to-pay of $26,718 (KRW 35 million) per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Dupilumab is cost-effective for adolescents and adults with uncontrolled severe asthma in South Korea. Our study provides evidence to support clinicians and policymakers in making informed decisions for severe asthma management.

Cost-utility of tiotropium in patients with severe asthma

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA in a middle-income country.

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, such as tiotropium bromide, have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as an add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting b2 agonists 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 two interventions include standard therapy with inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators versus add-on therapy with tiotropium. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $5180.

RESULTS

The expected incremental cost per QALY (ICER) is estimated at US$-2637.59. There is a probability of 0.77 that tiotropium + ICS + LABA is more cost-effective than ICS + LABA at a threshold of US$5180 per QALY. The strategy with the highest expected net benefit is Tiotropium, with an expected net benefit of US$800. Our base-case results were robust to parameter variations in the deterministic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in patients who remain uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting bronchodilators. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Real-world patient-level cost-effectiveness analysis of omalizumab in patients with severe allergic asthma treated in four major medical centers in Turkey

Aims. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of standard-of-care treatment (SoC) to SoC in combination with omalizumab (OML + Soc) in patients with severe asthma using real-world prospective clinical data from 4 major medical centers in Turkey.Materials and methods. Between February 2018 and November 2019, a total of 206 patients with severe astma, including 126 of whom were in the OML + SoC group and 80 in the SoC group, were followed for 12 months to evaluate their asthma status and quality of life. Cost data for this patient-level economic evaluation were sourced from the MEDULA database of the hospitals and expressed in Turkish Lira (₺). Efficacy data were obtained by means of Turkish versions of the Asthma Control Test for asthma status, and the 5-level EQ-5D-5L version (EQ-5D-5L) and the Asthma Quality of Life Scale for quality of life. A Markov model with 2-week cycles was specified, comparing costs and treatment effects of SoC versus OML + SoC over a lifetime from the Turkish payer perspective.Results. Per-patient costs were ₺23,607.08 in the SoC arm and ₺425,329.81 in the OML + Soc arm, for a difference of ₺401,722.74. Life years (LY) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were 13.60 and 10.08, respectively, in the SoC group; and 21.26 and 13.35, respectively, in the OML + SoC group, for differences of 7.66 LYs and 3.27 QALYs. This yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an additional ₺52,427.04 to gain 1 LY and an incremental cost-utility ratio of an incremental ₺122,675.57 to gain 1 QALY; the latter being below the ₺156,948 willingness-to-pay threshold for Turkey referenced by WHO. One-way and multivariate sensitivity analyses confirmed that base-case results.Conclusion. Whereas most economic evaluations are based on aggregate data, this independent cost-effectiveness analysis using prospective real-world patient-level data suggests that omalizumab in combination with standard-of-care is cost-effective for severe asthma from the Turkish public payer perspective.

Health-related quality of life in adult patients with asthma according to asthma control and severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The utility values are increasingly being used in economic evaluations and health policy decision making. This study aims to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of the utility values for asthma, particularly with respect to severity and asthma control. Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for studies published until July, 2020, reporting the utilities of adult asthma. We extracted utility values derived by nine indirect and four direct utility instruments. Meta-analyses were performed for each utility instrument according to health states based on the level of asthma control and severity. Results: Fifty-two eligible studies were included in our systematic review, of which forty studies were used in the meta-analyses. Among the 13 utility instruments, the most used was EQ-5D-3L, whereas EQ-5D-5L showed the narrowest 95% confidence interval (95% CI, 0.83-0.86) of pooled utility. The pooled utility of asthma declined with worsening control levels and severity. The pooled utility value of EQ-5D-3L was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.63-0.80) for uncontrolled, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88) for partly controlled, and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.84-0.90) for well-controlled asthma. Conclusion: Our study shows that EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L are appropriate for economic evaluations in terms of availability and variability of information, respectively. Asthma patients had poorer utility values with worsened severity and level of asthma control. This study will be useful for health economists conducting economic evaluations of asthma treatments.

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns and adherence in patients with asthma on multiple inhaler triple therapy: a review of findings

INTRODUCTION

The value of treating asthma with the triple regimen of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) delivered using multiple inhalers (MITT), or a single inhaler (SITT) is supported by a growing body of evidence, although research is still limited regarding the use of MITT.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, disease burden, and persistence/adherence associated with MITT use in asthma. The MEDLINE database was searched to identify references from inception until October 2022.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of MITT is not very frequent in asthma patients, although it improves lung function and reduces the incidence of severe exacerbations. This may be due to existing concerns about using different devices on adherence and persistence to treatment, with a negative influence on outcomes, and to the fear that the patient will discontinue ICS/LABA but not LAMA. Nevertheless, although the current trend favors the SITT approach, some physicians may be induced to prescribe MITT over SITT because it allows the titration of individual components of triple therapy to be increased or decreased. Therefore, there is an evident need for pragmatic real-life studies to document when to prefer SITT and when MITT should be used.

Tiotropium for children and adolescents with severe asthma

IntroductionAn important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, such as tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma.MethodsA 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 two interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), and add-on therapy with tiotropium, were calculated over a time horizon from 6 to 18 years. Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor a patient with severe asthma, our markov model showed that compared to standard therapy, add-on therapy with tiotropium was associated with higher treatment costs and QALY . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated was US$2,017 in the probabilistic model after Monte-Carlo simulation. Our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. The incremental net monetary benefit of US$327 with a 95% credible interval of US$396 to US425.ConclusionAdd-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in children and adolescents with severe asthma who remained uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Optimizing asthma management: Role of long-acting muscarinic antagonists

Patients with asthma who are suboptimally responsive to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) are frequently exposed to oral corticosteroids and high-dose ICS, which can lead to significant side effects. Long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) have demonstrated efficacy and safety in a subset of these patients. This review summarizes the results of key studies using LAMAs in patients with asthma aged 12 years or older. LAMA as an add-on treatment improved lung function and asthma control in patients with uncontrolled asthma across studies. The efficacy of LAMAs as an add-on to ICS was superior to that of placebo and ICS dose escalation and comparable with that of LABAs. LAMA plus ICS plus LABA provided modest improvements in bronchodilation and increased the time to first severe exacerbation versus ICS plus LABA. Single-inhaler triple therapy was associated with decreased health care resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness versus multiple inhalers. LAMAs were generally well tolerated; asthma exacerbations, bronchitis, and nasopharyngitis were common adverse events with LAMA in combination with ICS alone or ICS plus LABA. Thus, the overall evidence presented in this review supports the use of add-on LAMA treatment as a reasonable option in patients with asthma uncontrolled with ICS plus LABA or ICS alone.

Cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler extrafine beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium in patients with uncontrolled asthma in England

BACKGROUND

In patients with asthma that is uncontrolled by a medium- or high-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β₂-agonist (LABA), a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic agonist, either via multiple inhalers, or single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). One SITT is the extrafine formulation of beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrronium (BDP/FF/G). We used data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER), both conducted in adults with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA, to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FF/G.

METHODS

A Markov cohort state transition model (focusing on exacerbations) was used to investigate the cost-effectiveness of medium- or high-dose BDP/FF/G vs medium- or high-dose BDP/FF, and high-dose BDP/FF/G vs high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium. The model analysed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and was developed from the England National Health Service perspective (2020 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs BDP/FF, with ICERs of £12,224 and £15,587 per QALY gained. High-dose BDP/FF/G was dominant vs BDP/FF + tiotropium, as it was both cheaper and gained QALYs. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base model: medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G had 94.3% and 88.3% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs BDP/FF; high-dose BDP/FF/G had 100% likelihood to be a dominant strategy vs BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

Both medium- and high-dose BDP/FF/G were cost-effective vs medium- and high-dose BDP/FF in adults with asthma that was uncontrolled by ICS/LABA. In addition, high-dose BDP/FF/G was a dominating strategy to high-dose BDP/FF + tiotropium.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV: NCT02676076 and NCT02676089.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily, Single-Inhaler Indacaterol Acetate/ Glycopyrronium Bromide/ Mometasone Furoate in Patients with Uncontrolled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma in Canada

Purpose

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of high-dose indacaterol acetate (IND)/glycopyrronium bromide (GLY)/mometasone furoate (MF) (150/50/160 μg, once daily) compared with high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (SAL/FLU; 50/500 µg, twice daily)+tiotropium (TIO; 5 µg, once daily) (SAL/FLU+TIO) and with high-dose SAL/FLU (50/500 µg, twice daily) for the treatment of inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma.

Patients and Methods

A Markov model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of treatment with high-dose IND/GLY/MF compared with SAL/FLU+TIO and high-dose IND/GLY/MF compared with SAL/FLU. The model included three health states (day-to-day symptoms without exacerbations, day-to-day symptoms with exacerbations, and death) with a 4-week cycle length. A lifetime time horizon was used. Exacerbation rates and utility values were derived from ARGON and IRIDIUM clinical trials. Canadian dollars (CAD$, 2020) were applied.

Results

IND/GLY/MF was the less costly and more effective treatment strategy compared with SAL/FLU+TIO and SAL/FLU in the base-case analyses. IND/GLY/MF had lower costs (CAD $33,501 versus CAD $50,907) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (18.37 versus 18.06 QALYs) compared with SAL/FLU+TIO. Compared with SAL/FLU, IND/GLY/MF had lower costs (CAD $33,408 versus CAD $36,577) and higher QALYs (19.33 versus 19.04 QALYs). IND/GLY/MF was the most cost-effective option in all scenarios tested.

Conclusion

IND/GLY/MF was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50,000/QALY in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma versus SAL/FLU+TIO and SAL/FLU in the base case and all scenarios tested.

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.

Cost‑effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma

OBJECTIVE

In patients with uncontrolled asthma, despite management with high doses of inhaled corticosteroids, the additional use of omalizumab and tiotropium is recommended. Omalizumab is an expensive medication and doubts arise as to whether the benefit of this drug outweighs the additional expense of the drug. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

The model showed that tiotropium was associated with lower cost than standard therapy and omalizumab (US$5590 vs. US$5693 vs. U$18,154 average annual cost per patient), and higher QALYs (11.8 vs. 11.3 vs. 11.9) average per patient), showing dominance respect to standard therapy. The probability that tiotropium provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Efficacy and safety of add-on tiotropium in the management of uncontrolled asthma: a patient case series

OBJECTIVE

Despite the availability of various treatment options, a large proportion of patients with asthma have uncontrolled asthma in the United States. Consequently, the economic burden of suboptimal asthma control is anticipated to substantially grow in the next 20 years, adversely impacting patients' quality of life. Therefore, there is an urgent need for effective treatments to achieve and maintain asthma control. The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends tiotropium as a controller medication for patients with asthma aged ≥6 years, based on evidence from several randomized controlled trials. However, more real-world data on the effectiveness of tiotropium are required to establish a broad picture of its use in everyday clinical practice.

METHODS

Herein, we present 3 case reports of patients diagnosed with uncontrolled or fixed obstructive asthma not responding to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) or ICS + long-acting β₂-agonists (LABAs) and/or leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs).

RESULTS

All 3 patients were prescribed tiotropium, irrespective of their age. Tiotropium improved lung function and quality of life, as indicated by the forced expiratory volume in 1 s/forced vital capacity ratio and the Asthma Control Test score. Furthermore, the addition of tiotropium reduced the use of rescue medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Hence, the results from these case reports highlight that tiotropium could be an effective and safe add-on treatment option for patients across a range of age groups with uncontrolled or fixed obstructive asthma receiving prior ICS or ICS + LABA and/or LTRA therapy.

The cost-effectiveness of azithromycin in reducing exacerbations in uncontrolled asthma

Add-on azithromycin (AZM) results in a significant reduction in exacerbations among adults with persistent uncontrolled asthma. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of add-on AZM in terms of healthcare and societal costs.The AMAZES trial randomly assigned 420 participants to AZM or placebo. Healthcare use and asthma exacerbations were measured during the treatment period. Healthcare use included all prescribed medicine and healthcare contacts. Costs of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were estimated based on overall consumption and published estimates of costs. The value of an avoided exacerbation was based on published references. Differences in cost between the two groups were related to differences in exacerbations in a series of net monetary benefit estimates. Societal costs included lost productivity, over the counter medicines, steroid induced morbidity and AMR costs.Add-on AZM resulted in a reduction in healthcare costs (mean (95% CI)) including nights in hospital (AUD 433.70 (AUD 48.59-818.81) or EUR 260.22 (EUR 29.15-491.29)), unplanned healthcare visits (AUD 20.25 (AUD 5.23-35.27) or EUR 12.15 (EUR 3.14-21.16)), antibiotic costs (AUD 14.88 (AUD 7.55-22.21) or EUR 8.93 (EUR 4.53-13.33)) and oral corticosteroid costs (AUD 4.73 (AUD 0.82-8.64) or EUR 2.84 (EUR 0.49-5.18)); all p<0.05. Overall healthcare and societal costs were lower (AUD 77.30 (EUR 46.38) and AUD 256.22 (EUR 153.73) respectively) albeit not statistically significant. The net monetary benefit of add-on AZM was estimated to be AUD 2072.30 (95% CI AUD 1348.55-2805.23) or (EUR 1243.38 (EUR 809.13-1683.14) assuming a willingness to pay per exacerbation avoided of AUD 2651 (EUR 1590.60). Irrespective of the sensitivity analysis applied, the net monetary benefit for total, moderate and severe exacerbations remained positive and significant.Add-on AZM therapy in poorly controlled asthma was a cost-effective therapy. Costs associated with AMR did not influence estimated cost-effectiveness.

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by significant morbidities and mortality, with a large impact on socio-economic resources and a considerable burden on health-care systems. In the standard care of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are a reliable and often cost-effective choice, especially if based on the single inhaler therapy (SIT) strategy; however, in a subset of patients it is not possible to reach an adequate asthma control. In these cases, it is possible to resort to other pharmacologic options, including corticosteroids (OCS) or biologics. Unfortunately, OCS are associated with important side effects, whilst monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) allow excellent results, even if far more expensive. Up to now, the economic impact of asthma has not been compared with equivalent indicators in several studies. In fact, a significant heterogeneity of the cost analysis is evident in literature, for which the assessment of the real cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies is remarkably complex. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of asthma strategies, especially of biologics, attention must be paid on phenotyping and identification of predictors of response. Several studies were included, involving comparative analysis of drug treatments for asthma, comparative analysis of the costs and consequences of therapies, measurement and evaluation of direct drug costs, and the reduction of health service use. The initial research identified 389 articles, classified by titles and abstracts. A total of 311 articles were excluded as irrelevant and 78 articles were selected. Pharmacoeconomic studies on asthma therapies often report conflicting data also due to heterogeneous indicators and different populations examined. A careful evaluation of the existing literature is extremely important, because the scenario is remarkably complex, with an attempt to homogenize and interpret available data. Based on these studies, the improvement of prescriptive appropriateness and the reduction of the use of healthcare resources thanks to controller medications and to innovative therapies such as biologics partially reduce the economic burden of these treatments. A multidisciplinary stakeholder approach can also be extremely helpful in deciding between the available options and thus optimizing healthcare resources.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tiotropium in Elderly Patients with Severe Asthma Using Real-World Data

BACKGROUND

Tiotropium has the potential to alleviate asthmatic symptoms caused by the aging of lungs. However, few studies have focused on specific treatments for elderly patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding tiotropium to inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists in elderly patients with severe asthma using real-world data.

METHODS

Phase I was a retrospective cohort study using the National Health Insurance claims data to measure clinical and economic outcomes. In phase II, a Markov model was constructed to evaluate cost-effectiveness from Korean health care system perspective, based on phase I, including 2 health states, and an asthma exacerbation event. We estimated cost given in 2018 US dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Subgroup analyses for patients with poorly controlled symptoms (frequent short-acting beta-agonist users; frequent exacerbators) were performed.

RESULTS

In elderly patients with severe asthma, the incremental cost and effectiveness in the tiotropium group compared with the inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist group were $2281 and 0.038 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $60,074/QALY, indicating that the addition of tiotropium is not a cost-effective alternative. Meanwhile, 2 subgroups with poorly controlled symptoms showed that adding tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative (frequent short-acting beta-agonist users $4078/QALY; frequent exacerbators $8332/QALY).

CONCLUSIONS

Tiotropium shows a higher cost-effectiveness profile when applied to elderly patients with uncontrolled symptoms. These results using real-world evidence provide information beyond the clinical outcomes reported by randomized controlled trials, providing a complementary ground in establishing the reimbursement criteria of tiotropium for elderly patients with severe asthma.

Tiotropium in asthma - perspectives for the primary care physician

Asthma is a heterogeneous disease characterized by airway inflammation resulting from complex interactions between multiple hosts as well as environmental factors. As a chronic respiratory condition, asthma exerts a significant impact on patients and the healthcare system. Per the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with/without long-acting beta₂-agonists (LABAs) should be used as the preferred controllers for the management of asthma. Despite a range of therapeutic options, many patients with asthma remain uncontrolled, resulting in an increased risk of hospitalization and emergency room visits and a worsened quality of life. Tiotropium (Spiriva®, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 1.25 µg, two puffs, once daily), delivered via the Respimat® inhaler (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), was the first long-acting muscarinic antagonist to be approved as an add-on maintenance treatment option for patients with asthma aged ≥6 years at GINA steps 4 and 5. By binding to the muscarinic receptors M1 and M3 in the bronchial airways, tiotropium antagonizes the action of acetylcholine, leading to smooth muscle relaxation and reduced mucus secretion.The efficacy and safety of tiotropium add-on to ICS±LABA maintenance treatment have been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with a range of asthma severities (mild, moderate, and severe) and across age groups (children, adolescents, and adults). Add-on tiotropium was found to be well tolerated and efficacious in all RCTs. Moreover, the findings from real-world studies complement results from RCTs, showing beneficial effects of tiotropium in reducing exacerbations, hospitalization, emergency room visits, and asthma worsening.In this review article, we discuss the pathophysiology of asthma and the role of tiotropium in the management of asthma from the perspective of a primary care physician.

Emerging muscarinic receptor antagonists for the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

The increased acetylcholine signaling in asthma pathophysiology offers the rationale for the use of LAMAs in the treatment of asthmatic patients. Tiotropium is still the only LAMA approved for use in asthma but there is a real interest in developing novel LAMAs for the treatment of asthma, or at least to extend this indication to other LAMAs already on the market.

AREAS COVERED

We examined and discussed trials and research that have studied or are evaluating the role of LAMAs already on the market in asthma and possible novel muscarinic acetylcholine receptor antagonists.

EXPERT OPINION

Glycopyrronium and umeclidinium will soon be included in the GINA strategy with the same current indications of tiotropium. It is likely that the choice of the LAMA will be influenced not so much by its pharmacological profile as by the type of triple therapy chosen. It is extremely difficult to identify a new LAMA that is more effective than tiotropium, but is it plausible that new technologies that will allow delivering the drug in a more targeted way and with a lower risk of adverse effects may represent the real progress in the use of LAMAs in asthma in the coming years.

Correlation study between the pharmacokinetics of seven main active ingredients of Mahuang decoction and its pharmacodynamics in asthmatic rats

The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of seven main active components of Mahuang decoction (MHD) and its time-concentration-effect relationship. The asthmatic rat model was established by the method of ovalbumin (OVA) sensttization. The plasma concentrations of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, methylephedrine, amygdalin, liquiritin, cinnamic acid, glycyrrhizic acid in asthmatic model rat were investigated by a selective and rapid HPLC/MS-MS method. Simultaneously, the asthma-involved cytokines including leukotrienes B₄ (LTB₄), thromboxane B₂ (TXB₂), 6-Keto-Prostaglandin F_1α (6-K-PGF_1α) and histamine (HIS) levels in rat plasma were determined by using ELISA. A mathematics method was applied to assess the trend of percentage rate of change among different time intervals of the seven components. The sigmoid E max function was used to establish the PK-PD modeling of MHD. The results indicated that MHD could control or ameliorate asthma. There was a hysteresis between the peaked drug concentration and maximum therapeutic effect of MHD. The PK-PD curves of MHD showed clockwise or counter-clockwise hysteresis loop. In addition, amygdalin might exert a more significant influence on regulating cytokines levels in asthmatic rats among the seven components of MHD.

Single inhaler extrafine triple therapy in uncontrolled asthma (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER): two double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, controlled phase 3 trials

BACKGROUND

To date, no studies have assessed the efficacy of single-inhaler triple therapy in asthma. Here we report on two studies that compared the single-inhaler extrafine combination of beclometasone dipropionate (BDP; inhaled corticosteroid), formoterol fumarate (FF; long-acting β₂ agonist), and glycopyrronium (G; long-acting muscarinic antagonist) with the combination of BDP with FF.

METHODS

Two parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trials (Triple in Asthma With Uncontrolled Patients on Medium Strength of ICS + LABA [TRIMARAN] and Triple in Asthma High Strength Versus ICS/LABA HS and Tiotropium [TRIGGER]) recruited patients from 171 sites across 16 countries (TRIMARAN), and from 221 sites across 17 countries (TRIGGER). The sites were a mixture of secondary and tertiary care centres and specialised investigation units. Eligible patients were adults (aged 18-75 years) with uncontrolled asthma, a history of one or more exacerbations in the previous year, and previously treated with inhaled corticosteroid (TRIMARAN: medium dose; TRIGGER: high dose) plus a long-acting β₂ agonist. Enrolled patients were initially treated with BDP/FF (TRIMARAN: 100 μg BDP and 6 μg FF; TRIGGER: 200 μg BDP and 6 μg FF) for 2 weeks, then randomly assigned to treatment using an interactive response technology system with a balanced block randomisation scheme stratified by country. Patients, investigators, site staff, and sponsor staff were masked to BDP/FF/G and BDP/FF assignment. In TRIMARAN, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of BDP/FF/G (100 μg BDP, 6 μg FF, and 10 μg G) or BDP/FF (100 μg BDP and 6 μg FF), two inhalations twice daily. In TRIGGER, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to 52 weeks of BDP/FF/G (200 μg BDP, 6 μg FF, and 10 μg G) or BDP/FF (200 BDP and 6 μg FF), both two inhalations twice daily, or open-label BDP/FF (200 μg BDP and 6 μg FF) two inhalations twice daily plus tiotropium 2·5 μg two inhalations once daily. Coprimary endpoints for both trials (BDP/FF/G vs BDP/FF) were pre-dose forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV₁) at week 26 and rate of moderate and severe exacerbations over 52 weeks. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. These trials were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02676076 (TRIMARAN), NCT02676089 (TRIGGER).

FINDINGS

Between Feb 17, 2016, and May 17, 2018, 1155 patients in TRIMARAN were given BDP/FF/G (n=579) or BDP/FF (n=576). Between April 6, 2016, and May 28, 2018, 1437 patients in TRIGGER were given BDP/FF/G (n=573), BDP/FF (n=576), or BDP/FF plus tiotropium (n=288). Compared with the BDP/FF group, week 26 predose FEV₁ improved in the BDP/FF/G group by 57 mL (95% CI 15-99; p=0·0080) in TRIMARAN and by 73 mL (26-120; p=0·0025) in TRIGGER, with reductions in the rate of moderate and severe exacerbations of 15% (rate ratio 0·85, 95% CI 0·73-0·99; p=0·033) in TRIMARAN and 12% (0·88, 0·75-1·03; p=0·11) in TRIGGER. Four patients had treatment-related serious adverse events, one in TRIMARAN in the BDP/FF/G group and three in TRIGGER-one in the BDP/FF/G and two in the BDP/FF group. Three patients in the BDP/FF/G group in TRIMARAN and two patients in TRIGGER-one in the BDP/FF/G group and one in the BDP/FF group-had adverse events leading to death. None of the deaths were considered as related to treatment.

INTERPRETATION

In uncontrolled asthma, addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist to inhaled corticosteroid plus long-acting β₂-agonist therapy improves lung function and reduces exacerbations.

FUNDING

Chiesi Farmaceutici.

A Systematic Review of Decision-Analytic Models for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Asthma Interventions

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the landscape of model-based economic studies in asthma and highlight where there is room for improvement in the design and reporting of studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the methodologies of model-based, cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma-related interventions was conducted. Models were evaluated for adherence to best-practice modeling and reporting guidelines and assumptions about the natural history of asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated based on their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). We also studied the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity in disease course, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-five models of asthma were included (33 Markov models, 10 decision trees, 2 closed-form equations). Novel biological treatments were evaluated in 12 studies. Some of the CHEERS' reporting recommendations were not satisfied, especially for models published in clinical journals. This was particularly the case for the choice of the modeling framework and reporting on heterogeneity. Only 13 studies considered any subgroups, and 2 explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Adherence to CHEERS requirements and the quality of models generally improved over time.

CONCLUSION

It would be difficult to replicate the findings of contemporary model-based evaluations of asthma-related interventions given that only a minority of studies reported the essential parameters of their studies. Current asthma models generally lack consideration of disease heterogeneity and do not seem to be ready for evaluation of precision medicine technologies.

Cost-utility analysis of reslizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonists in South Korea

Objectives: We aimed to assess the cost-utility of reslizumab for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β₂-agonists (ICS/LABAs) in Korea.Methods: A Markov model with limited societal perspective was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of reslizumab add-on therapy with standard-of-care (high-dose ICS/LABA) and standard-of-care alone. The model adopted a 4 week cycle with the following six health states over a lifetime (60 years): controlled asthma, uncontrolled asthma, moderate exacerbation, severe exacerbation, all-cause death and asthma-related death. The population comprised adult patients (age ≥18 years) with severe eosinophilic asthma (eosinophils ≥400 cells/μL) at Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) step 4 or 5 who had experienced at least three exacerbations in the preceding year. Model inputs were sourced from individual patient-level data from two 52 week randomized controlled trials of reslizumab (NCT01287039, NCT01285323). The model included discontinuation rules where patients uncontrolled with reslizumab add-on therapy were transitioned to the standard-of-care arm. Costs and QALYs were annually discounted at 5%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Reslizumab add-on therapy was associated with increased cost (US$119,394) and improved QALYs (5.17) compared with standard-of-care alone, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$23,081 per QALY gained. Body weight, time horizon and discount rate were influential factors in the model.Conclusions: The addition of reslizumab to high-dose ICS/LABA was cost-effective in Korean patients with severe eosinophilic asthma uncontrolled with high-dose ICS/LABA, based on the threshold of 1 gross domestic product in Korea.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01285323.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01287039.

Future perspectives of anticholinergics for the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Despite major advances in therapeutic interventions and the availability of detailed treatment guidelines, a high proportion of patients with symptomatic asthma remain uncontrolled. Asthma management is largely guided by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy and is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy with the use of additional therapies to achieve disease control. Inhaled long-acting bronchodilators alone and in combination are the preferred add-on treatment options. Although long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) are a relatively recent addition to disease management recommendations for asthma, tiotropium has been extensively studied in a large clinical trial program. In Europe and the United States, tiotropium is approved for patients aged ≥6 years and uncontrolled on medium- to high-dose ICS/long-acting β2-agonists at GINA Steps 4 and 5 with a history of exacerbations. Evidence supports the efficacy of tiotropium Respimat® in adults in terms of lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo across a range of asthma severities. Similarly, clinical trials in patients aged 1-17 years have shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Furthermore, its efficacy makes tiotropium relatively easy to incorporate into routine clinical practice, irrespective of allergic status and without the need for patient phenotyping. Tiotropium is a cost-effective treatment that may offer an important alternative to other, more expensive add-on therapies. This review discusses the potential future position of LAMAs in clinical practice by considering the continuously evolving evidence. Prominence is given to tiotropium, the only LAMA supported by a structured clinical trial program in asthma to date, while also considering other recommended treatment options for patients with uncontrolled asthma. The importance of effective patient/caregiver-clinician communication and shared decision-making in enhancing treatment adherence is also highlighted.

Barriers to achieving asthma control in adults: evidence for the role of tiotropium in current management strategies

Despite the availability of a range of treatment options and management guidelines, a high proportion of adults with asthma remain uncontrolled. The challenge of managing uncontrolled asthma includes providing efficacious treatment while limiting side effects, recognizing situations when a change in asthma therapy is required, and considering patient preferences and satisfaction. In line with the Global Initiative for Asthma report, asthma management is based on a backbone of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy and use of add-on therapies to achieve disease control. This review considers whether add-on options could be better utilized in clinical practice. A number of long-acting muscarinic antagonists are in development, but tiotropium is the most widely studied for use in asthma. Evidence demonstrating the efficacy of tiotropium as an add-on therapy to at least ICS in adults with symptomatic mild, moderate, and severe asthma is presented from randomized controlled trials and real-world evidence. In addition, the benefit of tiotropium therapy in a wide range of patient phenotypes and disease severities without the need for biomarker assessment is discussed. Additional strategies that complement this approach, such as recognizing and overcoming barriers to adherence, ensuring optimal device use, and education and support to enhance patient–physician communication, are discussed. Physician education can also help raise awareness that additional management options are available for patients with moderate-to-severe asthma who remain uncontrolled on ICS/long-acting β₂-agonist treatment.

Managing Severe Asthma: A Role for the Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonist Tiotropium

Severe asthma is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Therapies must be maximized to gain control of a patient's severe asthma; however, avoiding overtreatment is also important. The mainstays of asthma maintenance treatment are inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β 2-agonsits (LABAs), with the option of supplementary add-on treatments. New add-on treatments for severe asthma have emerged over the past two decades, including personalized biological therapies that are guided by a patient's asthma phenotype. In addition, the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium has been recommended as an add-on treatment for severe asthma. Phase III clinical trials have shown tiotropium in combination with ICS/LABA to be efficacious in patients with severe asthma. Further analyses of clinical trial data have indicated that there is no benefit in stratifying patients by phenotype to predict tiotropium efficacy. Furthermore, health economic studies suggest tiotropium to be a cost-effective treatment in patients with severe asthma. This review will present the evidence surrounding the role of tiotropium in severe asthma and will discuss the use of tiotropium add-on therapy before personalized medicine strategies in the stepwise process of gaining asthma control.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.

Reslizumab for Treating Asthma with Elevated Blood Eosinophils Inadequately Controlled by Inhaled Corticosteroids: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, the manufacturer of reslizumab (Teva) submitted evidence for its clinical and cost effectiveness for the treatment of eosinophilic asthma inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroids. NICE commissioned Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC) as an independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) to provide a critique of the manufacturer's submitted evidence. Reslizumab is compared with best standard of care and omalizumab, for a small 'overlap' population of patients who have both eosinophilic and IgE-mediated severe asthma. This paper provides a summary of the ERG's review of the manufacturer's submission, and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in August 2017). The ERG considered that there were limitations in the approach proposed by the manufacturer for the exacerbation rate and the utility for severe exacerbation. The company amended their initial analysis, following comments from the ERG and the NICE committee, whereby the incremental cost effectiveness ratio was £29,870 per QALY gained for reslizumab compared with best standard care. The NICE Appraisal Committee (AC) concluded that reslizumab was recommended as an option for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma that is inadequately controlled in adults despite maintenance therapy with high-dose inhaled corticosteroids plus another drug, only if (1) the blood eosinophil count has been recorded as 400 cells per microlitre or more and (2) the patient has had three or more asthma exacerbations in the past 12 months, and (3) the company provides reslizumab with the discount agreed in the patient access scheme.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab for uncontrolled allergic asthma in US

BACKGROUND

A significant minority of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite the use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta-agonists (LABA). A number of add-on therapies, including monoclonal antibodies (namely omalizumab) and more recently tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus omalizumab as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for patients with uncontrolled allergic asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model of asthma was created. Total costs (in 2013 US $) and health outcomes of three interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), add-on therapy with tiotropium, and add-on therapy with omalizumab, were calculated over a 10-year time horizon. Future costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at the rate of 3%. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at willingness-to-pay value of $50,000.

RESULTS

The 10-year discounted costs and QALYs for standard therapy were $38,432 and 6.79, respectively. The corresponding values for add-on therapy with tiotropium and with omalizumab were $41,535 and 6.88, and $217,847 and 7.17, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of add-on therapy with tiotropium versus standard therapy, and omalizumab versus tiotropium were $34,478/QALY, and $593,643/QALY, respectively. The model outcomes were most sensitive to the costs of omalizumab but were robust against other assumptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Although omalizumab had the best health outcomes, add-on therapy with tiotropium was a cost-effective alternative to omalizumab and standard therapy for uncontrolled allergic asthma at willingness-to-pay of $50,000/QALY.

Tiotropium for the Treatment of Asthma: Patient Selection and Perspectives

Asthma is a chronic disease of airway inflammation with a large global burden. Despite established, guideline-based stepwise therapy, a significant proportion of patients remain symptomatic and poorly controlled. As such, there is a need for additional safe, effective, convenient, and cost-effective therapies that can be broadly applied across a range of asthma phenotypes. Tiotropium is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that leads to bronchodilation by blocking endogenous acetylcholine receptors in the airways. Tiotropium has long been approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and it has recently been recognized for its safety and efficacy in improving lung function and controlling asthma. Evidence from several Phase III trials in the adult and paediatric population has shown that tiotropium is well tolerated and significantly improves a range of endpoints as an add-on treatment to ICS therapy, regardless of baseline characteristics and clinical phenotypes. Consequently, regulatory authorities worldwide have recently licensed tiotropium as the only LAMA approved for the treatment of asthma. This review provides an overview of safety and efficacy data and discusses the use of tiotropium in patients across the range of asthma severities, ages, and phenotypes.

Tiotropium in asthma: back to the future of anticholinergic treatment

Asthma is among the most common chronic diseases worldwide; however, despite progresses in the understanding of the patho-physiological mechanisms and advances in the development of new therapeutic options and strategies, the disease remains uncontrolled in a not trivial proportion of subjects. Thus, the need of new molecules to treat the underlying biological and functional abnormalities and to control symptoms is strongly advocated by clinicians. In this scenario, the most recent GINA guidelines have included the use of tiotropium bromide in the most severe and uncontrolled forms of the disease, in addition to treatment with inhaled corticosteroid plus long acting beta adrenergic agents. Indeed, a large body of evidence has accumulated to support the use of tiotropium bromide in asthma. The current review paper provides a state of the art systematic revision of findings on the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in the adult and paediatric asthma population. To this aim, electronic searches were undertaken in the most common scientific databases from the date of inception to March 2017. Robust and high quality evidence showed that tiotropium is effective and safe in both adults and children/adolescents. Predictive markers of response have been also suggested, as well as cost–benefit analyses reported. The tiotropium bronchodilator effect seems to be not solely related to the reduction of the smooth muscle tone. However, the observations on anti-inflammatory properties or reduction in mucus production, despite highly interesting, have been only demonstrated in in vitro studies and animal models, therefore advocating for further specifically designed investigations.

Asthma Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Are We Using the Recommended Outcomes in Estimating Value?

BACKGROUND

Asthma medication cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) lack the qualitative assessment regarding whether they capture the National Institutes for Health (NIH) 2012 recommended outcomes necessary to allow robust cross-study comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the current asthma outcomes used in CEAs and recommend a direction for improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane, and NHSEED from January 2010 through December 2015. Key words included (1) cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, economic evaluation, health economics, or cost-benefit AND (2) asthma. All CEA studies evaluating 1 or more asthma medication were included. Authors assessed each CEA study with respect to asthma-specific NIH outcome recommendations including core (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, medication, interventions costs), supplemental (visit categories and work/school absence), and emerging (academic/job-related) asthma outcomes. Besides outcomes of each CEA, issues that could prevent robust cross-study comparison were identified and thematically summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 12 pre-NIH and 14 post-NIH recommendation CEAs were included. Eleven (91.7%) and 14 (100%) of the pre-/post-NIH studies included at least 1 core outcome, respectively. Of the 26 total studies, 7 (26.9%) included asthma-specific outpatient visit categories, 6 (23.1%) included asthma school or work absences, 5 (19.2%) included respiratory health care use, and none of the studies included emerging outcomes. Other issues that hamper cross-study comparison include lack of standardized cost data, time frames, quality-of-life measures, and incorporation of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of NIH-recommended asthma core outcomes has improved, there is still room for improvement in using supplemental and emerging outcomes. To allow robust cross-study comparisons, future work should focus on further standardizing of data sources and methods.

The evolving role of tiotropium in asthma

Tiotropium is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) that exerts its bronchodilatory effect by blocking endogenous acetylcholine receptors in the airways. Its safety and efficacy are well established for the treatment of COPD, and it is now being recognized for its role in improving lung function and control in asthma. This review discusses the evolving role of tiotropium delivered by the Respimat® in patients across the range of asthma severities and ages, and provides an overview of safety and efficacy data. Tiotropium is the only LAMA currently approved for the treatment of asthma, and evidence from a large-scale clinical trial program, including several Phase III studies in adults, has demonstrated that tiotropium improves lung function and asthma control, with a safety profile comparable with that of placebo. Clinical trials in adolescent patients (aged 12-17 years) have also shown improvements in lung function and trends toward improved asthma control. Of note, the efficacy and safety profiles are consistent regardless of baseline characteristics and phenotype. Given the large and growing body of evidence, it is likely that as clinical experience with tiotropium increases, this treatment may possibly emerge as the key choice for add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists, and in patients who do not tolerate long-acting bronchodilators or other medications, in the future.

Why choose tiotropium for my patient? A comprehensive review of actions and outcomes versus other bronchodilators

PURPOSE

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are leading causes of morbidity and mortality. This narrative review provides an appraisal of the pharmacological and clinical characteristics of tiotropium in COPD and asthma, and examines how these compare with other long-acting bronchodilators. The evidence base is placed into context by relating it to factors affecting clinicians' choice of therapy.

MAIN FINDINGS

Desirable attributes of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) maintenance therapy include effective pharmacological bronchodilation, improved lung function, exacerbation efficacy, and positive effects on symptom control, exercise capacity and quality of life across a broad patient population. Tolerability and convenience of use are also important for patient well-being and treatment adherence. Tiotropium shows higher affinity for muscarinic receptors than ipratropium, and prolonged binding to the M₃ receptor compared with other LAMAs. In COPD, tiotropium has demonstrated improved lung function and exacerbation prevention compared with placebo or long-acting β₂-agonists, similar exacerbation efficacy to other LAMAs, and enhanced symptom control and health status versus placebo. UniTinA-asthma^® showed the benefits of add-on tiotropium in patients with uncontrolled mild to moderate and severe asthma. Tiotropium is well tolerated, with an incidence of adverse events similar to placebo, except for known infrequent side effects of anticholinergics. Tiotropium HandiHaler^® and Respimat^® augment inhaler choice in COPD.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS

With over 10 years' prescribing history and 50 million patient-years of use, tiotropium has the benefit of a more extensive clinical evidence base than other long-acting bronchodilators, with demonstrated efficacy and safety in COPD and symptomatic asthma.

Positioning of Long-Acting Muscarinic Antagonists in the Management of Asthma

Despite a range of efficacious therapies for asthma, including inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting β₂-agonists (LABA), a significant proportion of patients have poor asthma control and retain a risk of future worsening of their symptoms. Long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) bronchodilators offer a well-tolerated, efficacious, and cost-effective add-on to a patient's treatment. Of the LAMAs currently under investigation or available for the treatment of asthma, evidence from a comprehensive clinical trial program in adults and children shows that once-daily treatment with tiotropium provides benefits for patients with uncontrolled asthma despite the use of ICS and LABAs. Tiotropium is included in the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) strategy document as an add-on therapy option for patients at Step 4 or 5 with a history of asthma exacerbations. Tiotropium Respimat® has demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with a range of disease severities, ages, and phenotypes. This review describes the evidence for the use of LAMA as add-on therapy for patients with asthma who remain uncontrolled despite the use of ICS and LABA treatments.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonists: a potential add-on therapy in the treatment of asthma?

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that is a major global burden on both individuals and healthcare systems. Despite guideline-directed treatment, a significant proportion of patients with asthma do not achieve control. This review focuses on the potential use of long-acting anticholinergics as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma, with results published from clinical trials of glycopyrrolate, umeclidinium and tiotropium. The tiotropium clinical trial programme is the most advanced, with data available from a number of phase II and III studies of tiotropium as an add-on to inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy, with or without a long-acting β2-agonist, in patients across asthma severities. Recent studies using the Respimat Soft Mist inhaler have identified 5 µg once daily as the preferred dosing regimen, which has shown promising results in adults, adolescents and children with asthma. Tiotropium Respimat has recently been incorporated into the Global Initiative for Asthma 2015 treatment strategy as a recommended alternative therapy at steps 4 and 5 in adult patients with a history of exacerbations. The increasing availability of evidence from ongoing and future clinical trials will be beneficial in determining where long-acting anticholinergic agents fit in future treatment guidelines across a variety of patient populations and disease severities.

Tiotropium in asthma: what is the evidence and how does it fit in?

Despite current therapeutic approaches asthma remains uncontrolled in a significant proportion of patients. Short-acting anticholinergic bronchodilators have a very long history of use in asthma, and recent data confirms the importance of acetylcholine as both a bronchoconstrictor and as a regulator of inflammation and remodeling in the lungs. Data from a comprehensive clinical trial programme, as well as use in primary care, show the efficacy and safety of tiotropium in adults with mild to moderate asthma when it is added to ICS and in severe asthma when it is added to high doses of ICS plus LABA, as well as in adolescents. Tiotropium is cost effective and its benefits are not restricted to particular phenotypes, making it a useful addition to the therapeutic options recommended by the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) for people with poorly controlled asthma at steps 4 & 5.

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

OBJECTIVE

To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based ("E"), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.

Tiotropium Respimat®: A Review of Its Use in Asthma Poorly Controlled with Inhaled Corticosteroids and Long-Acting β2-Adrenergic Agonists

Tiotropium bromide (Spiriva®) solution for inhalation via the Respimat® Soft Mist™ inhaler is a long-acting anticholinergic agent approved in the EU for the add-on maintenance treatment of asthma in adults currently receiving maintenance therapy with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) (≥800 µg budesonide per day or equivalent) and a long-acting β2-adrenergic agonist (LABA) and who have experienced at least one severe exacerbation in the previous year. Tiotropium Respimat® added to maintenance ICS/LABA treatment significantly improved lung function after 6 months' treatment and extended the time to the first asthma exacerbation in two well-designed, replicate, phase III trials in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite treatment with an ICS (≥800 µg budesonide/day or equivalent) and a LABA. Tiotropium Respimat® was also associated with a reduced incidence of severe asthma exacerbations and an increase in the median time to asthma worsening. The drug was well tolerated in asthma patients throughout 48 weeks' treatment, with a generally similar incidence of serious adverse events in tiotropium Respimat® and placebo treatment groups. Thus, in patients with poorly controlled asthma despite receiving high-dose ICS and a LABA, tiotropium Respimat® provides a valuable treatment option.

Emerging therapeutic options for the treatment of patients with symptomatic asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways with increasing worldwide prevalence. Despite treatment according to guidelines, a considerable proportion of patients with asthma remain symptomatic. Different potential therapeutic options for the treatment of these patients are currently in development and undergoing clinical trials, and it is important to regularly review their status.

DATA SOURCES

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed and supported by a PubMed literature search and restricted to the previous 10 years to ensure currency of data. The results were manually filtered to identify relevant articles.

STUDY SELECTIONS

Emerging therapies that are currently in phase 2 and 3 development include anti-interleukin agents (benralizumab, reslizumab, dupilumab, brodalumab, lebrikizumab, and mepolizumab), a chemoattractant receptor-homologous molecule expressed on a T-helper type 2 lymphocyte antagonist (OC000459), a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor (roflumilast), and long-acting muscarinic antagonists (glycopyrronium bromide, umeclidinium bromide, and tiotropium bromide).

RESULTS

The clinical trial program of the long-acting muscarinic antagonist tiotropium is currently the most advanced, with data available from different phase 2 and 3 studies. Results demonstrate that it is an efficacious add-on to at least inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy across severities of symptomatic asthma.

CONCLUSION

The results of ongoing and future studies will help to determine whether these emerging therapeutic options will help address the unmet need for improvement in asthma management.

Cost-effectiveness of asthma therapy: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Asthma has an important impact in terms of both direct and indirect costs. In Europe, the disease costs € 19 000 million a year. Moreover, the cost is greater among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and is even higher when the work productivity is also taken into account. Improved control of the disease results in cost savings. In this context, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies offer important information for clinicians in deciding the best treatment options for asthmatic patients and contribute to ensure an efficient use of the available healthcare resources.

METHODS

An English and Spanish literature search using electronic search engines (PubMed and EMBASE) was conducted in peer-review journals, from 2009 to June 2014. In order to perform the search for the most suitable and representative articles, key words were selected ("asthma", "cost-effectiveness", "cost-utility", "QALY", "cost-benefit", "economic impact of asthma" "healthcare cost", "asthma treatment" and "work productivity with asthma").

RESULTS

Two-hundred forty-three titles and abstracts were identified by the primary literature search. The full text of the potentially 76 eligible papers was reviewed, and 22 articles were qualified to be finally included.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides a comprehensive review on the evidence of cost-effectiveness of asthma treatments derived from the published literature and offers an overall summary of the socioeconomic burden of asthma and its relationship with the degree of disease control. Management alternatives, such as the use of combination therapy with ICS/LABA or omalizumab, when administered according to their current therapeutic indications, have been shown to be cost-effective.

Long-acting muscarinic antagonist use in adults with asthma: real-life prescribing and outcomes of add-on therapy with tiotropium bromide

Background

Randomized controlled trials indicate that addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) such as tiotropium may improve asthma control and reduce exacerbation risk in patients with poorly controlled asthma, but broader clinical studies are needed to investigate the effectiveness of LAMA in real-life asthma care.

Methods

Medical records of adults with asthma (aged ≥18 years) prescribed tiotropium were obtained from the UK Optimum Patient Care Research Database for the period 2001–2013. Patients diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were excluded, but no other clinical exclusions were applied. Two primary outcomes were compared in the year before (baseline) and the year after (outcome) addition of tiotropium: exacerbations (asthma-related hospital emergency department attendance or inpatient admission, or acute oral corticosteroid course) and acute respiratory events (exacerbation or antibiotic prescription with lower respiratory consultation). Secondary outcomes included lung function test results and short-acting β₂ agonist usage. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for variables measured on the interval scale, the marginal homogeneity test for categorized variables, and the paired t-test for lung function indices.

Results

Of the 2,042 study patients, 83% were prescribed an inhaled corticosteroid and 68% a long-acting β₂ agonist during the baseline year; 67% were prescribed both. Comparing baseline and outcome years, the percentage of patients having at least one exacerbation decreased from 37% to 27% (P<0.001) and the percentage having at least one acute respiratory event decreased from 58% to 47% (P<0.001). There were no significant changes in lung function, and usage of short-acting β₂ agonists (in salbutamol/albuterol equivalents) increased from a median (interquartile range) of 274 (110, 548) to 329 (110, 603) μg/day (P=0.01).

Conclusion

In this real-life asthma population, addition of LAMA therapy was associated with significant decreases in the incidence of exacerbations and antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections in the following year.

Utilities for asthma and COPD according to category of severity: a comprehensive literature review

BACKGROUND

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are incurable diseases that impact quality-of-life.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize original research articles that measured or utilized preference-based utilities or disutilities according to disease severity.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched from inception until the end of November 2014. Two reviewers independently searched the literature with differences settled through discussion. Data extracted included utility scores as determined in original research categorized according to disease severity as well as disutilities associated with exacerbations or comorbidities. Data were tabulated and analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 862 articles were identified, 790 were rejected, and 69 analyzed. There were 44 dealing with COPD and 25 with asthma. Average utilities determined by research were 0.828 ± 0.062, 0.765 ± 0.090, 0.711 ± 0.120, and 0.607 ± 0.120 for mild, moderate, severe, and very severe COPD, respectively. Utilities used in economic analyses were 0.866 ± 0.038, 0.770 ± 0.024, 0.739 ± 0.045, and 0.596 ± 0.075, respectively. Disutilities (annual) ranged from 0.002-0.378; major and minor exacerbations had respective disutilities of 0.287 and 0.108. For asthma patients, utilities were for 0.86 ± 0.32, 0.83 ± 0.065, and 0.74 ± 0.029, for mild, moderate, and severe disease, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilities have been summarized according to severity category of asthma and COPD. These values should be useful for researchers undertaking economic analyses of these diseases.