INFORMING THE PATHWAY OF COPD TREATMENT (IMPACT STUDY) - SINGLE INHALER TRIPLE THERAPY (FF/UMEC/VI) VERSUS FF/VI IN PATIENTS WITH COPD- COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FROM A SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE IN QUEBEC

Author(s)

Schroeder M1, Shah D2, Mursleen S3, Martin A4, Perdrizet J5, Ndirangu K2, Risebrough N6
1GlaxoSmithKline plc., Brentford, UK, 2ICON Health Economics, New York City, NY, USA, 3GSK, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 4GlaxoSmithKline plc., Uxbridge, UK, 5ICON Access, Commercialisation & Communications, New York City, NY, USA, 6ICON Health Economics, ICON, Toronto, ON, Canada

OBJECTIVES: As acknowledged by international GOLD and Canadian treatment recommendations, inhaled triple therapy may be appropriate for some patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. FF/VI was thus assessed from a Quebec societal perspective, leveraging data from the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513).

METHODS: A validated linked risk equation, COPD disease progression, model (Briggs 2017 Med Decis Making 37:4) was populated with baseline characteristics, efficacy and medication use from IMPACT. Quebec healthcare resource and societal and drug costs were applied, with future costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% annually. The analysis was probabilistic, with a lifetime horizon. Outputs included exacerbation rates, costs (2017 CAD), life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY. Sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

RESULTS: Compared with FF/VI, FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (10.52 and 3.38 versus 11.12 and 3.48), translating to fewer total per patient per year exacerbations (1.53 versus 1.62). Overall mean (95% CI) incremental costs were $2,489 ($1,861, $3,212) for FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI but total indirect non-drug costs were lower ($4,428 versus $4,608). Incremental LYs (undiscounted, 95% CI) and QALYs were 0.14 (0.07, 0.21) and 0.13 (0.09, 0.18), resulted in an ICER of $18,887 ($14,625, $25,587) per QALY. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective compared with FF/VI was 100%, at a willingness-to-pay WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Across all scenarios considered the ICER ranged from $14,281 to $23,798, remaining below the WTP threshold. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, efficacy of treatment post-discontinuation and changing FF/VI cost.

CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve health outcomes and to be a cost-effective option for treatment of patients with moderate/severe COPD and a history of exacerbations, compared with FF/VI in Quebec.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2018-11, ISPOR Europe 2018, Barcelona, Spain

Value in Health, Vol. 21, S3 (October 2018)

Code

PRS46

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis

Disease

Respiratory-Related Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×