| Popis: |
David MG Halpin,1 Robyn Kendall,2 Soham Shukla,3 Alan Martin,4 Dhvani Shah,5 Dawn Midwinter,6 Kai M Beeh,7 Janwillem WH Kocks,8– 11 Paul W Jones,12 Chris Compton,12 Nancy A Risebrough,13 Afisi S Ismaila3,14 1University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; 2ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 3Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 4Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Uxbridge, UK; 5ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, New York, NY, USA; 6Biostatistics, GSK, Brentford, UK; 7Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany; 8General Practitioners Research Institute, Groningen, the Netherlands; 9Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute, Singapore; 10Groningen Research Institute Asthma and COPD (GRIAC), University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 11Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 12Global Respiratory Franchise, GSK, Brentford, UK; 13ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada; 14Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: David MG Halpin, University of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK, Tel +44 01392 201178, Email d.halpin@nhs.netPurpose: 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.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cost-effectiveness, health technology assessment, pragmatic, real-world, triple therapy |
