Cost-effectiveness of a single inhaler triple therapy versus ICS/LABA in COPD

Abstract

Background: IMPACT (InforMing the PAthway of COPD Treatment, NCT02164513), showed superior exacerbation reduction and lung function improvement with single inhaler, once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) 100/62.5/22μg vs once-daily FF/VI 100/22μg, for patients with moderate/severe COPD.

Objectives: The cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI vs FF/VI was assessed, from a Canadian public payer perspective.

Methods: A validated linked risk equation model (Briggs, Med Decis Making 37;4 2017), which predicts COPD disease progression, associated healthcare costs and health outcomes, was populated with baseline characteristics, efficacy and medication use from IMPACT. Canadian healthcare resource unit costs and drug costs were applied, with future costs and health outcomes discounted at 1.5% annually. Analysis was probabilistic, with a lifetime horizon and outputs including exacerbation rates, costs (2017 CAD), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY.

Results: Compared with FF/VI, FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (10.52 and 3.38 vs 11.13 and 3.48), mean (95% CI) incremental costs and QALYs of $2,598 ($2,010, $3,268) and 0.13 (0.09, 0.18), and an ICER of $19,649 per QALY ($15,406, $26,454). The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs FF/VI was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, and efficacy of treatment post-discontinuation.

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