Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on to triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy in patients with severe and very severe COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the UK

Purpose

Patients with severe COPD are at high risk of experiencing disease exacerbations, which require additional treatment and are associated with elevated mortality and increased risk of future exacerbations. Some patients continue to experience exacerbations despite receiving triple inhaled therapy (ICS plus LAMA plus LABA). Roflumilast is recommended by the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease as add-on treatment to triple inhaled therapy for these patients. This cost-effectiveness analysis compared costs and quality-adjusted life-years for roflumilast plus triple inhaled therapy vs triple inhaled therapy alone, using data from the REACT and RE2SPOND trials.

Patients and methods

Patients included in the analysis had severe to very severe COPD, FEV1 <50% predicted, symptoms of chronic bronchitis and ≥2 exacerbations per year. Our model was adapted from a previously published and validated model, and the analyses conducted from a UK National Health Service perspective. A scenario analysis considered a subset of patients who had experienced at least one COPD-related hospitalization within the previous year.

Results

Roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was associated with non-significant reductions in rates of both moderate and severe exacerbations compared with triple inhaled therapy alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for roflumilast as add-on to triple inhaled therapy was £24,976. In patients who had experienced previous hospitalization, roflumilast was associated with a non-significant reduction in the rate of moderate exacerbations, and a statistically significant reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. The ICER for roflumilast in this population was £7,087.

Conclusions

Roflumilast is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe or very severe COPD, chronic bronchitis, and a history of exacerbations. The availability of roflumilast as add-on treatment addresses an important unmet need in this patient population.

Roflumilast: Who Is Using It and How It Affects Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs

OBJECTIVE

Compare baseline characteristics, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and associated costs of COPD patients treated with add-on roflumilast with those of other combination medications.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODOLOGY

Patients aged 40 years with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) between March 1, 2011, and Nov. 30, 2012, were identified from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database and classified as roflumilast or nonroflumilast combination-therapy cohorts. Baseline characteristics were compared for all patients. HCRU and costs were compared between matched (M) roflumilast and nonroflumilast cohorts, using propensity score as a partial balancing score and then complementing the score with exact matching on specifically important variables. Generalized linear model and Poisson regression were used to estimate the adjusted differences in total costs and hospitalization rates, respectively, between the 2 matched cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 695 roflumilast and 30,542 nonroflumilast combination therapy users were identified. At baseline, the roflumilast cohort had more complex COPD and a higher number of severe and moderate COPD exacerbations relative to the nonroflumilast cohort. After matching, the roflumilast (M) and nonroflumilast (M) cohorts (n = 328 in each) had similar mean age, gender distribution, and follow-up time. The roflumilast (M) cohort had significantly higher pharmacy-related, per-patient, per-month (PPPM) costs (P < .001) and similar total cost (P = .90). After adjusting for confounding variables, no difference was observed between the 2 cohorts in total costs (P = .86) and number of hospitalizations (P = .65).

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that patients in the roflumilast cohort, relative to the nonroflumilast cohort, were more severely ill in the real-world setting. Despite higher pharmacy costs, the total cost for the roflumilast cohort was statistically similar to the nonroflumilast cohort. Future studies with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate the long-term economic impact of roflumilast use.

Cost-effectiveness of roflumilast as an add-on treatment to long-acting bronchodilators in the treatment of COPD associated with chronic bronchitis in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding a selective phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, roflumilast, to a long-acting bronchodilator therapy (LABA) for the treatment of patients with severe-to-very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) associated with chronic bronchitis with a history of frequent exacerbations from the UK payer perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to predict the lifetime cost and outcomes [exacerbations rates, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALY)] in patients treated with roflumilast, which showed a reduction in the exacerbation rates and lung function improvement in a pooled analysis from two clinical trials, M2-124 and M2-125. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of uncertainties on the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The addition of roflumilast to concomitant LABA reduced the number of exacerbations from 15.6 to 12.7 [2.9 (95 % CI 0.88-4.92) exacerbations avoided] and increased QALYs from 5.45 to 5.61 [0.16 (95 % CI 0.02-0.31) QALYs gained], at an incremental cost of £3,197 (95 % CI £2,135-£4,253). Cost in LABA alone and LABA + roflumilast were £16,161 and £19,358 respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the base case were £19,505 (95 % CI £364-£38,646) per quality-adjusted life-year gained and 18,219 (95 % CI £12,697-£49,135) per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses suggest that among the main determinants of cost-effectiveness are the reduction of exacerbations and the case fatality rate due to hospital-treated exacerbations. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the probability of roflumilast being cost-effective is 82 % at willingness-to-pay £30,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of roflumilast to LABA in the treatment of patients with severe-to-very severe COPD reduces the rate of exacerbations and can be cost-effective in the UK setting.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A 1-year prospective cost-effectiveness analysis of roflumilast for the treatment of patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

RATIONALE

Roflumilast is an oral, once-daily phosphodiesterase IV (PDE4) inhibitor under investigation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study investigated the cost effectiveness of roflumilast in patients with severe to very severe COPD from the perspective of the UK society and UK NHS.

METHODS

The analysis was conducted alongside a 1-year, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial. The trial included 1514 COPD patients aged >or=40 years with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) % predicted <or=50% who were randomised to receive either roflumilast 500microg once daily (n = 761) or placebo (n = 753). Patients in both treatment groups were allowed to receive active treatment with a short-acting bronchodilator (salbutamol or anticholinergic) as needed. About 62% of patients in both groups were using an inhaled corticosteroid at trial entry. They were allowed to continue this on a stable dosage. Direct healthcare and productivity costs were calculated. Resource utilisation was recorded at every scheduled visit in health economics case report forms (HE-CRFs). Trial-wide resource use was combined with UK unit cost (2004 values). Roflumilast was assumed to cost euro1 per day. Incremental costs were related to the differences in the number of moderate to severe exacerbations and the net proportion of patients with an improvement of at least 4 units on the total score of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Costs and health outcomes that were missing after withdrawal of patients from the trial were imputed using multiple imputation with the propensity score method. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the data.

RESULTS

In the total group, annual COPD-related costs from a societal perspective were euro1637 in the roflumilast group and euro1401 in the placebo group. From an NHS perspective, this was euro1418 and euro1242, respectively. The rate of moderate to severe COPD exacerbations per patient was low, and no statistically significant difference existed between roflumilast (0.96) and placebo (1.06). The net proportion of patients with a relevant improvement on SGRQ total score was higher in the roflumilast group (0.19) than in the placebo group (0.14), but the difference was not statistically significant. From a societal perspective, COPD-related costs were euro2356 per exacerbation avoided and euro4712 per net additional patient with a relevant improvement on the SGRQ. The probability that roflumilast was cost effective exceeded 70% at a willingness to pay of euro5000 to avoid an exacerbation. In a subgroup of patients with very severe COPD (n = 223), the placebo group had a high exacerbation rate (1.7 per patient per year) whereas roflumilast recipients showed 35% fewer exacerbations (1.1 per patient per year). This resulted in roflumilast dominating placebo. In a subgroup of patients with high healthcare utilisation prior to the study (n = 549) roflumilast recipients showed 19% fewer exacerbations than those receiving placebo, which translated into an ICER of euro804 per exacerbation avoided.

CONCLUSION

Roflumilast increased the overall treatment costs of COPD, although the increase was partly offset by reductions in other forms of healthcare use. Roflumilast has the potential to be cost saving in patients with very severe COPD, due to a statistically significant reduction of exacerbations.

[Clinico-economic assessment of milnacipran in the prevention of depressive episodes]

The objective of this study was to evaluate, for patients at risk of a new depressive episode, the net cost of maintenance therapy with milnacipran compared with a symptomatic treatment of further episodes. Using clinical decision analysis techniques, a Markov-state transition was constructed to estimate the 12 months direct costs of the two therapeutic strategies. Model construction and probabilities for performing the analysis were primarily based on a controlled phase III clinical trial demonstrating the prophylactic efficacy of milnacipran compared to placebo. Others parameters and unit costs were obtained from published sources. For each group (maintenance and episodic treatment groups), the model simulated the clinical evolution of patients on 6 successive 2-months cycles. Costs were affected for each health state period (remission, depression, abandonment of health care, suicide). The baseline analysis showed the mean costs per patient and year were 627 FF (105 US$) higher for maintenance treatment. Sensitivity analysis suggested that costs were equal under a 25% rate of hospitalization hypothesis for a depressive episode. Maintenance costs were 1,587 FF (265 US$) lower than episodic treatment costs for depressed subjects with a good initial response to milnacipran (HDRS-21 score at remission < 5); this economic benefit remained under a lower rate of hospitalization hypothesis (12%). Based on the study assumptions, maintenance treatment with milnacipran appears to be clinically and economically justified for patients at high risk of hospitalization when having a recurrence, and even more for patients with an excellent initial acute response.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of milnacipran (a SNRI) with TCAs and SSRIs: a modeling approach

A simulation model based on the theory of clinical decision analysis was used to compare outcomes and costs when treating patients with major depressive episodes using either a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI) or a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), in comparison with milnacipran (a serotonin), and a norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor (SNRI). The clinical data used were taken from published meta-analyses. This analysis supports: (1) a comparable efficacy of milnacipran and TCA with a better tolerance; and, (2) an advantage of milnacipran over SSRI for efficacy with a comparable tolerance. Based on these findings, a decision tree was constructed with the assistance of a panel of psychiatrists in order to provide a model of usual clinical practice. Estimates not available from clinical studies were obtained either from literature analysis or from the panel. Economic appraisal was performed according to the viewpoint of the French national sickness fund (sécurité sociale), and expenditure assessment was limited to direct costs (hospitalizations, antidepressant medications, visits, and laboratory tests). The results suggest that milnacipran is a cost-effective alternative: the expected cost of treatment per depressive episode is lower than either a French representative panel of TCAs (a saving of 288 FF), or SSRIs (a savings of 961 FF). The expected length of clinical remission is slightly higher than comparators. The robustness of these findings was supported by sensitivity analyses.