Cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium in comparison with salmeterol/fluticasone combination for patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a LANTERN population analysis from Singapore

Economic evaluations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease pharmacotherapy: how well are the real-world issues of medication adherence, comorbidities and adverse drug-reactions addressed?

INTRODUCTION

When estimating the cost-effectiveness or budget impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) medication, it is common practice to use trial data for clinical inputs. However, such inputs do not always reflect the real-world situation. Previous reviews recognized the need for taking real-world data (medication adherence, comorbidity and adverse drug reactions [ADRs]) into account. Whether recent cost-effectiveness analyses of COPD medication implemented those recommendations is unknown.

AREAS COVERED

The authors reviewed recent economic evaluations of COPD-maintenance treatments focusing on medication adherence, comorbidity and ADRs.

EXPERT OPINION

In most registration trials of COPD treatment, strict inclusion and exclusion criteria are applied. During trials, patient monitoring is well controlled. As such, medication adherence is often higher than seen in less controlled, real-world environments with more heterogeneous characteristics. Additionally, safety data collected in trials may not be widely generalizable due to more comorbidity and polypharmacy in the real-world. Consequently, when merely relying on trial data, the impact of adherence, comorbidity and ADRs on the cost-effectiveness can be underestimated. To overcome these real-world data gaps, use of pragmatic trials and observational studies in addition to strictly controlled trial data is recommended. To catalyze implementation of these real-world issues, reporting checklists should be updated.

Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone Using a Novel Markov Exacerbation-Based Approach

Purpose

Exacerbations drive outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While patient-level (micro) simulation cost-effectiveness models have been developed that include exacerbations, such models are complex. We developed a novel, exacerbation-based model to assess the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) versus salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC) in COPD, using a Markov structure as a simplification of a previously validated microsimulation model.

Methods

The Markov model included three health states: infrequent or frequent exacerbator (IE or FE; ≤1 or ≥2 moderate/severe exacerbations in prior 12 months, respectively), or death. The model used data from the FLAME study and was run over a 10-year horizon. Cycle length was 1 year, after which patients remained in the same health state or transitioned to another. Analysis was conducted from a Swedish payer's perspective (Swedish healthcare costs, converted into Euros), with incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated (discounted 3% annually).

Results

At all post-baseline timepoints, IND/GLY was associated with more patients in the IE health state and fewer patients in the FE and dead states relative to SFC. Over a 10-year period, IND/GLY was associated with a cost saving of €1,887/patient, an incremental benefit of 0.142 QALYs, and an addition of 0.057 life-years, compared with SFC.

Conclusion

This Markov model represents a novel cost-effectiveness analysis for COPD, with simpler methodology than prior microsimulation models, while retaining exacerbations as drivers of disease progression. In patients with COPD with a history of exacerbations in the previous year, IND/GLY is a cost-effective treatment option compared with SFC.

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability.Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value.Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country's essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.