Validating A Model To Predict Disease Progression Outcomes In Patients With COPD

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK

Purpose

For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective.

Patients and Methods

The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.

Results

Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses.

Conclusion

FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Humidified High-Flow Therapy (HHFT) for COPD Patients on Long-Term Oxygen Therapy

Purpose

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of mortality, and is associated with significant respiratory impairment, decreased quality of life, and high health care costs. Recent evidence indicates significant clinical benefit results from adding humidified high-flow therapy (HHFT) to standard long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) as a home-based therapy in persons with severe COPD. The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding HHFT to standard treatment of COPD patients using LTOT with US healthcare cost estimates.

Patients and Methods

A Markov state-transition model was developed using data from a prospective clinical trial of adding HHFT to standard therapy for persons with severe COPD using LTOT. The analysis was conducted from the US health care system perspective using a 5-year time horizon and 3% discount rate. QALYs and downstream healthcare costs were modeled. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine the impact of input parameters on the incremental net monetary benefit (NMB).

Results

Incremental QALYs accrued were 0.058 (2.047 vs 1.989 QALYs for HHFT and standard therapy groups respectively). Incremental total costs were -$3939 ($47,516 vs $51,455 for HHFT and standard therapy groups respectively). Thus, HHFT was the dominant treatment in the analysis, resulting on both better health and lower total costs. Varying utility and cost inputs individually never resulted in NMB approaching 0. Probabilistic analyses indicate that HHFT is cost-effective in 84% of simulations.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that the reductions in acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs) that result from adding HHFT for persons with COPD on LTOT will produce both health benefit (QALYs) and cost savings. Cost savings occur because the HHFT device costs are more than offset by reductions in costly COPD exacerbations. Health care systems and payors can benefit from wider implementation of HHFT with existing treatments.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial

Purpose

Given between-country differences in healthcare systems, treatment costs, and disease management guidelines, country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses are important. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI among patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations from a Spanish healthcare system perspective.

Patients and Methods

Baseline data and treatment effects from the IMPACT trial were populated into the validated GALAXY COPD progression model. Utilities were estimated using Spanish observational data. Direct healthcare costs (2019 €) were informed by Spanish public sources. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. The time horizon and treatment duration were 3 years (base case). One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer exacerbations over 3 years (4.130 vs 3.648) versus FF/VI, with a mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) incremental cost of €444 (€149, €713) per patient and benefit of 0.064 (0.053, 0.076) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €6887 per QALY gained. FF/UMEC/VI was a dominant treatment strategy versus UMEC/VI, resulting in fewer exacerbations (4.130 vs 3.360), with a mean (95% CI) incremental cost of -€450 (-€844, -€149) and benefit of 0.054 (0.043, 0.064) QALYs. FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI across all analyses.

Conclusion

FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to be a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in symptomatic COPD patients at risk of exacerbations in Spain, across all scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial

Purpose

The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Patients and Methods

The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: −£2600, −£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model

Introduction

Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data.

Methods

The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results.

Results

Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (−0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol.

Conclusion

Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK

UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective

Purpose

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.

Patients and Methods

The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.

Results

FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusion

At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

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

Background

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).

Methods

Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

Results

Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.

Conclusion

Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Personalized medicine for patients with COPD: where are we?

Chronic airflow limitation is the common denominator of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, it is not possible to predict morbidity and mortality of individual patients based on the degree of lung function impairment, nor does the degree of airflow limitation allow guidance regarding therapies. Over the last decades, understanding of the factors contributing to the heterogeneity of disease trajectories, clinical presentation, and response to existing therapies has greatly advanced. Indeed, diagnostic assessment and treatment algorithms for COPD have become more personalized. In addition to the pulmonary abnormalities and inhaler therapies, extra-pulmonary features and comorbidities have been studied and are considered essential components of comprehensive disease management, including lifestyle interventions. Despite these advances, predicting and/or modifying the course of the disease remains currently impossible, and selection of patients with a beneficial response to specific interventions is unsatisfactory. Consequently, non-response to pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments is common, and many patients have refractory symptoms. Thus, there is an ongoing urgency for a more targeted and holistic management of the disease, incorporating the basic principles of P4 medicine (predictive, preventive, personalized, and participatory). This review describes the current status and unmet needs regarding personalized medicine for patients with COPD. Also, it proposes a systems medicine approach, integrating genetic, environmental, (micro)biological, and clinical factors in experimental and computational models in order to decipher the multilevel complexity of COPD. Ultimately, the acquired insights will enable the development of clinical decision support systems and advance personalized medicine for patients with COPD.

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

BACKGROUND

A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

METHODS

This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

METHODS

A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model.

RESULTS

Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

External Validation of Health Economic Decision Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Report of the Third COPD Modeling Meeting

OBJECTIVES

To validate outcomes of presently available chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models against results of two large COPD trials-the 3-year TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial and the 4-year Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) trial.

METHODS

Participating COPD modeling groups simulated the outcomes for the placebo-treated groups of the TORCH and UPLIFT trials using baseline characteristics of the trial populations as input. Groups then simulated treatment effectiveness by using relative reductions in annual decline in lung function and exacerbation frequency observed in the most intensively treated group compared with placebo as input for the models. Main outcomes were (change in) total/severe exacerbations and mortality. Furthermore, the absolute differences in total exacerbations and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used to approximate the cost per exacerbation avoided and the cost per QALY gained.

RESULT

Of the six participating models, three models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the TORCH trial (1.13/patient-year) (models: 1.22-1.48). Four models reported higher rates than observed in the UPLIFT trial (0.85/patient-year) (models: 1.13-1.52). Two models reported higher mortality rates than in the TORCH trial (15.2%) (models: 20.0% and 30.6%) and the UPLIFT trial (16.3%) (models: 24.8% and 36.0%), whereas one model reported lower rates (9.8% and 12.1%, respectively). Simulation of treatment effectiveness showed that the absolute reduction in total exacerbations, the gain in QALYs, and the cost-effectiveness ratios did not differ from the trials, except for one model.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most of the participating COPD cost-effectiveness models reported higher total exacerbation rates than observed in the trials, estimates of the absolute treatment effect and cost-effectiveness ratios do not seem different from the trials in most models.

Patient Heterogeneity in Health Economic Decision Models for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Are Current Models Suitable to Evaluate Personalized Medicine?

OBJECTIVES

To assess how suitable current chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cost-effectiveness models are to evaluate personalized treatment options for COPD by exploring the type of heterogeneity included in current models and by validating outcomes for subgroups of patients.

METHODS

A consortium of COPD modeling groups completed three tasks. First, they reported all patient characteristics included in the model and provided the level of detail in which the input parameters were specified. Second, groups simulated disease progression, mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs for hypothetical subgroups of patients that differed in terms of sex, age, smoking status, and lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁] % predicted). Finally, model outcomes for exacerbations and mortality for subgroups of patients were validated against published subgroup results of two large COPD trials.

RESULTS

Nine COPD modeling groups participated. Most models included sex (seven), age (nine), smoking status (six), and FEV₁% predicted (nine), mainly to specify disease progression and mortality. Trial results showed higher exacerbation rates for women (found in one model), higher mortality rates for men (two models), lower mortality for younger patients (four models), and higher exacerbation and mortality rates in patients with severe COPD (four models).

CONCLUSIONS

Most currently available COPD cost-effectiveness models are able to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of personalized treatment on the basis of sex, age, smoking, and FEV₁% predicted. Treatment in COPD is, however, more likely to be personalized on the basis of clinical parameters. Two models include several clinical patient characteristics and are therefore most suitable to evaluate personalized treatment, although some important clinical parameters are still missing.

Statistical Modeling of Disease Progression for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using Data from the ECLIPSE Study

BACKGROUND

To develop statistical models predicting disease progression and outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), using data from ECLIPSE, a large, observational study of current and former smokers with COPD.

METHODS

Based on a conceptual model of COPD disease progression and data from 2164 patients, associations were made between baseline characteristics, COPD disease progression attributes (exacerbations, lung function, exercise capacity, and symptoms), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and survival. Linear and nonlinear functional forms of random intercept models were used to characterize these relationships. Endogeneity was addressed by time-lagging variables in the regression models.

RESULTS

At the 5% significance level, an exacerbation history in the year before baseline was associated with increased risk of future exacerbations (moderate: +125.8%; severe: +89.2%) and decline in lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV₁]) (-94.20 mL per year). Each 1% increase in FEV₁ % predicted was associated with decreased risk of exacerbations (moderate: -1.1%; severe: -3.0%) and increased 6-minute walk test distance (6MWD) (+1.5 m). Increases in baseline exercise capacity (6MWD, per meter) were associated with slightly increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+0.04%) and increased FEV₁ (+0.62 mL). Symptoms (dyspnea, cough, and/or sputum) were associated with an increased risk of moderate exacerbations (+13.4% to +31.1%), and baseline dyspnea (modified Medical Research Council score ≥2 v. <2) was associated with lower FEV₁ (-112.3 mL).

CONCLUSIONS

A series of linked statistical regression equations have been developed to express associations between indicators of COPD disease severity and HRQoL and survival. These can be used to represent disease progression, for example, in new economic models of COPD.