INFORMING THE PATHWAY OF COPD TREATMENT (IMPACT STUDY) - SINGLE INHALER TRIPLE THERAPY (FF/UMEC/VI) VERSUS UMEC/VI IN PATIENTS WITH COPD- COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FROM A SOCIETAL PERSPECTIVE IN QUEBEC
Author(s)
Mursleen S1, Shah D2, Schroeder M3, Perdrizet J4, Ndirangu K2, Risebrough N5, Martin A6
1GSK, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2ICON Health Economics, New York City, NY, USA, 3GlaxoSmithKline plc., Brentford, UK, 4ICON Access, Commercialisation & Communications, New York City, NY, USA, 5ICON Health Economics, ICON, Toronto, ON, Canada, 6GlaxoSmithKline plc., Uxbridge, UK
OBJECTIVES: With a variety of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatments available, there is a need to understand the cost-effectiveness of new single inhaler triple therapy. The cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs. UMEC/VI was assessed from a Quebec societal perspective, incorporating data from IMPACT (NCT02164513). METHODS: Baseline characteristics, efficacy, and medication use obtained from IMPACT were populated into a validated linked risk equation, COPD disease progression, model (Briggs 2017 Med Decis Making 37:4). Quebec healthcare, societal, and drug costs were used and future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. As per new Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux guidelines the analysis was conducted probabilistically, over 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. Uncertainty around base estimates was explored by varying parameter values and assumptions. RESULTS: Compared with UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (10.16 and 3.13 versus 11.12 and 3.48); translating to fewer total per patient per year exacerbations (1.46 versus 1.63). Overall mean (95% CI) incremental costs were $2,082 ($1,462, $2,674) for FF/UMEC/VI compared with UMEC/VI, but indirect non-drug costs were lower ($4,270 versus $4,625). Incremental LYs (undiscounted) and QALYs of 0.12 (0.05, 0.18) and 0.12 (0.07, 0.17), resulted in an ICER of $17,222 ($12,968, $24,358) per QALY. Scenario analyses showed an ICER range from $9,278 to $25,998. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000/QALY, the probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective compared with UMEC/VI was 100% for the base case and all scenario analyses. When run deterministically FF/UMEC/VI remained below the WTP threshold (ICER of $17,205). CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI was found to be a cost-effective treatment in patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations despite use of maintenance therapy with UMEC/VI in Quebec.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2018-11, ISPOR Europe 2018, Barcelona, Spain
Value in Health, Vol. 21, S3 (October 2018)
Code
PRS44
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders