Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model
Soham Shukla,Dhvani Shah,Alan Martin,Nancy A Risebrough,Robyn Kendall,Claus F Vogelmeier,Isabelle Boucot,Lee Tombs,Leif Bjermer,Paul W Jones,Edward Kerwin,Chris Compton,François Maltais,David A Lipson,Afisi Ismaila
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S331636
2021-11-14
International Journal of COPD
Abstract:Soham Shukla, 1 Dhvani Shah, 2 Alan Martin, 3 Nancy A Risebrough, 4 Robyn Kendall, 5 Claus F Vogelmeier, 6 Isabelle Boucot, 3 Lee Tombs, 7 Leif Bjermer, 8 Paul W Jones, 3 Edward Kerwin, 9 Chris Compton, 3 François Maltais, 10 David A Lipson, 11, 12 Afisi S Ismaila 1, 13 1 Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 2 ICON, New York, NY, USA; 3 Value Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 4 Global Health Economics, and Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, ICON, Toronto, ON, Canada; 5 Global Health Economics, and Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, ICON, Vancouver, BC, Canada; 6 Department of Medicine, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Member of the German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Marburg, Germany; 7 Precise Approach Ltd, Contingent Worker on Assignment at GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK; 8 Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden; 9 Altitude Clinical Consulting and Clinical Research Institute of Southern Oregon, Medford, OR, USA; 10 Centre de Pneumologie, Institut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada; 11 Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 12 Respiratory Clinical Sciences, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA; 13 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Correspondence: Afisi S Ismaila Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA, 19426-0989, USA Tel +1 919 315 8229 Email Introduction: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data. Methods: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥ 10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. Results: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (− 0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £ 690 (£ 231, £ 1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £ 1336 (£ 1006, £ 2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£ 4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£ 12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol. Conclusion: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol. Keywords: COPD treatment, cost-effectiveness, umeclidinium, salmeterol, umeclidinium/vilanterol Treatment of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is expensive and uses extensive healthcare resources. UK clinical guidelines recommend a combination of two types of long-term bronchodilator medications for many patients with COPD. More evidence is needed to show that this is more cost-effective than treatment with one bronchodilator. We analyzed data from the 6-month EMAX clinical trial in patients who were not using -Abstract Truncated-