Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK

Abstract

Robyn Kendall,1 Alan A Martin,2 Dhvani Shah,3 Soham Shukla,4 Chris Compton,5 Afisi S Ismaila4,6 1ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, London, UK; 3ICON Health Economics, ICON plc, New York, NY, USA; 4Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 5Global Respiratory Franchise, GSK, London, UK; 6Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Afisi S Ismaila, Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426-0989, USA, Tel [phone], Email [email protected]: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective.Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £ 880 (£ 54, £ 1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses.Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, health technology assessment, economic evaluation, real-world, single-inhaler triple therapy

Keywords

• chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
• health technology assessment
• economic evaluation
• real-world
• single-inhaler triple therapy