A Dutch cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab versus best supportive care in patients with chronic migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model. METHODS: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population.

Real-world Impact of Fremanezumab on Migraine-Related Health Care Resource Utilization in Patients with Comorbidities, Acute Medication Overuse, and/or Unsatisfactory Prior Migraine Preventive Response.

INTRODUCTION: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide, is indicated for preventive treatment of migraine in adults. Real-world evidence assessing the effect of fremanezumab on migraine-related medication use, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs in patient populations with comorbidities, acute medication overuse (AMO), and/or unsatisfactory prior migraine preventive response (UPMPR) is needed. METHODS: Data for this US, retrospective claims analysis were obtained from the Merative® MarketScan® Commercial and supplemental databases. Eligible adults with migraine initiated fremanezumab between 1 September 2018 and 30 June 2019 (date of earliest fremanezumab claim is the index date), had ≥ 12 months of continuous enrollment prior to initiation (preindex period) and ≥ 6 months of data following initiation (postindex period; variable follow-up after 6 months), and had certain preindex migraine comorbidities (depression, anxiety, and cardiovascular disease), potential AMO, or UPMPR. Changes in migraine-related concomitant acute and preventive medication use, HCRU, and costs were assessed pre- versus postindex. RESULTS: In total, 3193 patients met the eligibility criteria. From pre- to postindex, mean (SD) per patient per month (PPPM) number of migraine-related acute medication and preventive medication claims (excluding fremanezumab), respectively, decreased from 0.97 (0.90) to 0.86 (0.87) (P < 0.001) and 0.94 (0.74) to 0.81 (0.75) (P < 0.001). Migraine-related outpatient and neurologist office visits, emergency department visits, and other outpatient services PPPM decreased pre- versus postindex (P < 0.001 for all), resulting in a reduction in mean (SD) total health care costs PPPM from US$541 (US$858) to US$490 (US$974) (P = 0.003). Patients showed high adherence and persistence rates, with mean (SD) proportion of days covered of 0.71 (0.29), medication possession ratio of 0.74 (0.31), and persistence duration of 160.3 (33.2) days 6 months postindex. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with certain migraine comorbidities, potential AMO, and/or UPMPR in a real-world setting had reduced migraine-related medication use, HCRU, and costs following initiation of fremanezumab. Graphical abstract available for this article.

Real-world effectiveness after initiating fremanezumab treatment in US patients with episodic and chronic migraine or difficult-to-treat migraine.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb; IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. The efficacy and safety of fremanezumab for migraine prevention have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world effectiveness data are needed to complement clinical trial data. This study assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab across different subgroups of adult patients with episodic migraine (EM), chronic migraine (CM), or difficult-to-treat (DTT) migraine in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based online chart review used electronic case report forms. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of EM or CM; age ≥ 18 years at the time of first fremanezumab initiation; ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment; ≥ 1 follow-up visit since first initiation; and ≥ 2 measurements of monthly migraine days (MMD; with 1 within a month before or at first initiation and ≥ 1 after first initiation). Changes in MMD and monthly headache days were assessed during the follow-up period. These endpoints were evaluated in subgroups of patients by migraine type (EM/CM) and in subgroups with DTT migraine (diagnosis of medication overuse [MO], major depressive disorder [MDD], generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], or prior exposure to a different CGRP pathway-targeted mAb [CGRP mAb]). RESULTS: Data were collected from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD at Month 6 were - 7.7 (77.0%) in EM patients, - 10.1 (68.7%) in CM patients, - 10.8 (80.6%) in the MO subgroup, - 9.9 (68.3%) in the MDD subgroup, - 9.5 (66.4%) in the GAD subgroup, and - 9.0 (68.7%) in the prior CGRP mAb exposure subgroup. Improvements in MDD or GAD severity were reported by 45.5% and 45.8% of patients with comorbid MDD or GAD, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, fremanezumab demonstrated effectiveness for migraine regardless of migraine type or the presence of factors contributing to DTT migraine (MO, GAD, MDD, or prior exposure to a different CGRP mAb).

A real-world study of acute and preventive medication use, adherence, and persistence in patients prescribed fremanezumab in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Following approval of fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine in adults, health care decision makers are interested in understanding real-world clinical characteristics and treatment patterns among patients initiating fremanezumab therapy. METHODS: Data were obtained for this retrospective (pre-post) study from the Veradigm Health Insights database. The study period was January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2019. Patients were included if they were aged ≥ 18 years; had ≥ 1 migraine diagnosis during the study period; and had a medication record for fremanezumab on or after diagnosis during the identification period (September 1, 2018-December 31, 2018). Treatment patterns, including adherence, persistence, and utilization of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions, were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 987 patients initiating fremanezumab during the study period, 738 (74.8%) were adherent to fremanezumab by proportion of days covered (PDC; ≥ 80%) and 780 (79.0%) were adherent by medication possession ratio (MPR; ≥ 80%). A total of 746 (75.6%) patients were persistent for ≥ 6 months. Quarterly fremanezumab (n = 186) was associated with higher rates of adherence versus monthly fremanezumab (n = 801) by PDC (quarterly, 91.3%; monthly, 84.9%; P < 0.001) and MPR (quarterly, 92.2%; monthly, 87.9%; P = 0.006) and higher persistence at ≥ 6 months (quarterly, 82.8%; monthly, 73.9%; P = 0.011). After fremanezumab initiation, patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions from baseline in the mean monthly number of acute and preventive migraine medication prescriptions (P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses in patients with comorbid depression and anxiety showed meaningful real-world benefits based on significant reductions in the number of patients who were prescribed antidepressants (baseline, 68.6%; follow-up, 56.4%; P = 0.0025) and anxiolytic medications (baseline, 55.0%; follow-up, 47.2%; P = 0.037), respectively. In a subgroup of patients with comorbid hypertension at baseline, fremanezumab treatment resulted in nonsignificant reductions in blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, adherence and persistence to fremanezumab in this real-world study was high in patients with migraine, with higher rates observed for quarterly fremanezumab. Patients who were persistent for ≥ 6 months experienced significant reductions in acute and preventive migraine medication use, while a subgroup of migraine patients with comorbid depression and anxiety at baseline showed significant reductions in antidepressant and anxiolytic medication use.

Real-world effectiveness of fremanezumab in migraine patients initiating treatment in the United States: results from a retrospective chart study.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults, have been demonstrated in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Real-world data can further support those clinical trial data and demonstrate the full clinical benefits of fremanezumab. This chart review assessed the effectiveness of fremanezumab for improving clinical outcomes in adult patients with migraine treated according to real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective, panel-based, online physician chart review study used electronic case report forms with US physicians. Patient inclusion criteria were a physician diagnosis of migraine, fremanezumab treatment initiation at ≥ 18 years of age after US Food and Drug Administration approval, ≥ 1 dose of fremanezumab treatment, and ≥ 2 assessments of monthly migraine days (MMD; 1 within 30 days before treatment initiation and ≥ 1 after initiation). Changes from baseline in MMD, monthly headache days (MHD), and Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) and 6-item Headache Impact Test (HIT-6) scores were assessed over 6 months. These endpoints were evaluated in the overall population and subgroups divided by dosing schedule and number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures. RESULTS: This study included data from 421 clinicians and 1003 patients. Mean age at fremanezumab initiation was 39.7 years, and most patients were female (75.8%). In the overall population, mean baseline MMD and MHD were 12.7 and 14.0, respectively. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MMD and MHD, respectively, were - 4.6 (36.2%) and - 4.7 (33.6%) at Month 1, - 6.7 (52.8%) and - 6.8 (48.6%) at Month 3, and - 9.2 (72.4%) and - 9.8 (70.0%) at Month 6. Mean (percent) reductions from baseline in MIDAS and HIT-6 scores also increased over the 6-month study period, from - 6.2 (21.6%) and - 8.4 (14.0%) at Month 1 to - 18.1 (63.1%) and - 16.2 (27.0%) at Month 6, respectively. Improvements in these outcomes over 6 months were observed across all evaluated subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study demonstrated effectiveness of fremanezumab treatment for up to 6 months, irrespective of dosing regimen or number of prior migraine preventive treatment failures, reflecting ongoing, clinically meaningful improvements in patient outcomes.

Real-world patient characteristics, treatment patterns and costs in relapsing multiple sclerosis patients treated with glatiramer acetate, dimethyl fumarate or teriflunomide in Germany.

Aim: To evaluate adherence, healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs for glatiramer acetate (GA; injectable), dimethyl fumarate (oral) and teriflunomide (oral) in relapsing multiple sclerosis. Patients & methods: Retrospective analyses of a claims database. Results: Teriflunomide patients were older with more co-morbidities and fewer relapses versus GA and dimethyl fumarate. GA patients were mostly disease-modifying therapies (DMTs)-treatment naive. Treatment adherence was 61-70%. All DMTs reduced HRU versus pre-index. Costs were comparable across cohorts. High adherence reduced hospitalizations and several costs versus low adherers. Conclusion: Adherence rates were high and comparable with all DMTs. Similar (and high) reductions in HRU and costs occurred with all DMTs. High adherence improved economic outcomes versus low adherence. Thus, investing in adherence improvement is beneficial to improve outcomes in relapsing multiple sclerosis.

Drugs used for relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) include, among others, glatiramer acetate (injection), dimethyl fumarate (tablet) and teriflunomide (tablet). We compared treatment adherence (based on drug claims), healthcare use and costs for these drugs. Treatment adherence and healthcare use was similar for these three drugs. The need to be in hospital was lower with these drugs compared with not using them. No differences in treatment costs were seen between these drugs. Adherence reduced the need for hospital stays and lowered some costs compared with patients who were classified as adherent. RMS patients should be encouraged to take their RMS medication as prescribed. Improving treatment adherence will have a positive effect on RMS, and a good impact on healthcare use and costs.

Real-world impact of fremanezumab on migraine symptoms and resource utilization in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is approved for migraine prevention in adults. Real-world data on the effectiveness of fremanezumab are limited. This retrospective, observational cohort study assessed patient-reported migraine symptoms, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and direct medical costs before and after fremanezumab treatment initiation. METHODS: Data were extracted from September 2018 through June 2020 from the Midwest component of EMRClaims+®, an integrated health services database containing > 20 million medical records from national commercial insurance claims, Medicare claims, and regional electronic medical records. Patients included in the cohort analysis were aged ≥ 18 years and were administered fremanezumab, with enrollment or treatment history for ≥ 6 months prior (pre-index) to initiating fremanezumab (index date) and ≥ 1 month after the index date (post-index), and without pregnancy or pregnancy-related encounters during the study period. Patient-reported headache frequency, migraine pain intensity (MPI), composite migraine symptoms, and HCRU were assessed pre-index and ≥ 1 month after fremanezumab initiation. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare means of migraine symptoms and outcomes and HCRU before and after fremanezumab initiation. RESULTS: Overall, 172 patients were eligible for analysis. Of patients who self-reported (n = 129), 83.7% reported improvement in headache frequency or symptoms after fremanezumab treatment. Specifically, headache frequency decreased by 63% after fremanezumab initiation: mean (standard deviation) headache frequency was 22.24 (9.29) days per month pre-index versus 8.24 (7.42) days per month post-index (P < 0.0001). Mean MPI also decreased by 18% after fremanezumab initiation: MPI was 5.47 (3.19) pre-index versus 4.51 (3.34) post-index (P = 0.014). Mean emergency room (ER) visits per month decreased from 0.72 to 0.54 (P = 0.003), and mean outpatient visits per month decreased from 1.04 to 0.81 (P < 0.001). Mean hospitalizations per month decreased, but the results did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.095). Hospitalization and ER costs decreased, while outpatient costs increased, from pre-index to post-index, but differences were not statistically significant (P ≥ 0.232). CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in headache frequency, MPI, and HCRU were observed after fremanezumab initiation in patients with migraine in a US real-world setting.

Comment on: Gao B, Lu Q, Wan R, Wang Z, Yang Y, Chen Z, Wang Z. "Monthly versus quarterly fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine: a systemic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials". Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2021 Apr;394(4):819-828. Epublished November 2020.

Recently, Gao et al. published an article titled "Monthly versus quarterly fremanezumab for the prevention of migraine: a systemic review and meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials" which concluded that monthly administration of fremanezumab led to significant reduction in monthly migraine days (MMD) when compared to quarterly fremanezumab. We have noted a critical flaw in Gao et al. meta-analysis wherein the authors have mistakenly utilized standard error values in place of standard deviation values in performing their pooled analyses. This error directly impacts the study results and conclusions. In this brief communication, we present revised analysis using correct methods. Using the correct SD values, our pooled analysis showed no significant difference in mean change from baseline in MMD between the two fremanezumab dosing regimens (P = 0.17). Furthermore, in the corrected subgroup analyses by type of migraine, there were no significant differences in mean change from baseline in MMD between monthly fremanezumab and quarterly fremanezumab (chronic migraine, P = 0.50; episodic migraine, P = 0.69). Overall, results from our corrected meta-analyses show that there is no significant difference in migraine prevention efficacy between monthly and quarterly fremanezumab dosing.

Assessment of rituximab-abbs, a biosimilar, and rituximab outcomes in patients with CLL or NHL: A real-world UK study.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab (chimeric anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) treatment is approved for chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Rituximab-abbs (first biosimilar approved in 2017) is expected to significantly reduce healthcare economic burden due to lower acquisition costs. This non-interventional, non-comparative study assessed real-world effectiveness and tolerability of rituximab-abbs and rituximab in treatment-naive patients with CLL or NHL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Via an online physician survey, 46 UK-registered hematologists and oncologists retrospectively reported on randomly selected patients aged ≥18 years with CLL or NHL with rituximab-abbs or rituximab as first-line immunotherapy. Overall, 201 patient charts were examined across 4 cohorts: rituximab-abbs in CLL, rituximab-abbs in NHL, rituximab in CLL, rituximab in NHL. RESULTS: Demographic profiles across cohorts were similar. Most patients (94 %-100 %) received combination therapy (rituximab-abbs or rituximab mainly with chemotherapy). For both treatments, overall response rate (94 %-98 %) and 1-year overall survival (98 %-100 %) were very high for patients with CLL or NHL. Most common serious adverse events were neutropenia, fatigue, anemia and infusion reactions. The majority of patients (54 %-66 %) did not experience a grade ≥3 adverse event. Healthcare resource utilization was similarly high across cohorts, driven by diagnostic testing, oncologist office visits, and day-case hospital admissions; many patients required supportive medical therapies. Mean annual savings of ∼£1000/patient driven by acquisition costs occurred with rituximab-abbs versus rituximab, administration costs were similar. CONCLUSION: Rituximab-abbs and rituximab demonstrated similar effectiveness and tolerability in treating CLL and NHL in routine UK clinical practice and demonstrate the utility of the biosimilar as a cost-saving alternative treatment.

Clinical Outcomes and Health-Care Resource Use Associated With Reslizumab Treatment in Adults With Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Real-World Practice.

BACKGROUND: Reslizumab, an anti-IL-5 monoclonal antibody, is indicated as add-on maintenance treatment for adults with severe eosinophilic asthma. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the real-world outcomes associated with reslizumab use in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma in a US clinical practice? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, patient-level data from adults treated with reslizumab were obtained from center- and panel-based medical chart reviews. Eligible patients had available medical records and treatment history for ≥ 6 months before initiation of reslizumab treatment (index date) to ≥ 7 months after reslizumab initiation. The primary outcome was response to reslizumab treatment, based on clinical expert predefined definitions of response. Other outcomes included clinical asthma exacerbations (CAEs), use of maintenance oral corticosteroids (OCS), FEV1 percent predicted, Asthma Control Test (ACT) score, and health-care resource use (HRU). RESULTS: Medical charts were obtained for 215 patients. Most patients (58.6%) showed an excellent response, 16.3% showed a clinically meaningful response, 21.9% showed a partial response, and 3.3% were nonresponders or treatment failures. A significant reduction was observed in the proportion of patients experiencing a CAE in a 6-month period (from 86.0% to 40.5%; P < .001) and in the mean number of CAEs per patient (2.84 [SD, 2.41] vs 0.94 [SD, 1.86]) after reslizumab initiation. Improvements were observed in FEV1 percent predicted (65.1% [SD, 20.5%] vs 73.1% [SD, 23.1%]; P < .001) and in ACT scores (13.8 [SD, 4.2] vs 18.6 [SD, 4.0]; P < .001) before to after reslizumab initiation. Among patients using maintenance OCS at baseline, more than half discontinued use of these by approximately 10 months after reslizumab initiation. Significant reductions in asthma-related HRU were observed after reslizumab initiation. INTERPRETATION: In clinical practice, reslizumab may have been initiated in response to heavy symptom burden and CAEs. Reslizumab was associated with improved clinical and patient-reported outcomes and significant reductions in asthma-related HRU.

Long-term cost and utility consequences of short-term clinically important deterioration in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from the TORCH study.

Purpose: Clinically important deterioration (CID) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a novel composite endpoint that assesses disease stability. The association between short-term CID and future economic and quality of life (QoL) outcomes has not been previously assessed. This analysis considers 3-year data from the TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study, to examine this question. Patients and methods: This post hoc analysis of TORCH (NCT00268216) compared costs and utilities at 3 years among patients without CID (CID-) and with CID (CID+) at 24 weeks. A positive CID status was defined as either: a deterioration in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥100 mL from baseline; or a ≥4-unit increase from baseline in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score; or the incidence of a moderate/severe exacerbation. Patients from all treatment arms were included. Utility change was based on the EQ-5D utility index. Costs were based on healthcare resource utilization from 24 weeks to end of follow-up combined with unit costs for the UK (2016 GBP), and reported as per patient per year (PPPY). Adjusted estimates were generated controlling for baseline characteristics, treatment assignment, and number of CID criteria met. Results: Overall, 3,769 patients completed the study and were included in the analysis (stable CID- patients, n=1,832; unstable CID+ patients, n=1,937). At the end of follow-up, CID- patients had higher mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) utility scores than CID+ patients (0.752 [0.738, 0.765] vs 0.697 [0.685, 0.71]; difference +0.054; P<0.001), and lower costs PPPY (£538 vs £916; difference: £378 [95% CI: £244, £521]; P<0.001). The cost differential was primarily driven by the difference in general hospital ward days (P=0.003). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that achieving early stability in COPD by preventing short-term CID is associated with better preservation of future QoL alongside reduced healthcare service costs.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium as add-on to ICS/LABA therapy in COPD: A UK perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The cost-effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 µg as add-on therapy to other maintenance COPD treatments is unknown. METHODS: This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of the following in COPD: UMEC + fluticasone furoate/vilanterol 100/25 µg (FF/VI); UMEC + fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 µg (FP/SAL); and UMEC + several alternative choices of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist (ICS/LABA). The model was informed with direct and indirect data from previously published studies, with a UK perspective and a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: For the lifetime horizon, compared with FF/VI, FP/SAL and ICS/LABAs, addition of UMEC was associated with incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of £4050, £7210 and £5780, respectively, and incremental costs per life year gain of £3380, £6020 and £4940. All UMEC-containing regimens resulted in numerically lower exacerbation rates versus comparator regimens over a lifetime horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of UMEC to various ICS/LABA treatments was associated with higher cost than ICS/LABA alone, but was cost-effective in most scenarios.

Systematic review of association between critical errors in inhalation and health outcomes in asthma and COPD.

Inhaled medications are the cornerstone of treatment and management of asthma and COPD. However, inhaler device errors are common among patients and have been linked with reduced symptom control, an increased risk of exacerbations, and increased healthcare utilisation. These observations have prompted GINA (Global INitiative for Asthma) and GOLD (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease) to recommend regular assessment of inhaler technique in a bid to improve therapeutic outcomes. To better define the relationship between device errors and health outcomes (clinical outcomes, quality of life, and healthcare utilisation) in asthma and COPD, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, with a particular focus on the methods used to assess the relationship between device errors and outcomes. Sixteen studies were identified (12 in patients with asthma, one in patients with COPD, and three in both asthma and COPD) with varying study designs, endpoints, and patient populations. Most of the studies reported that inhalation errors were associated with worse disease outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD. Patients who had a reduction in errors over time had improved outcomes. These findings suggest that time invested by healthcare professionals is vital to improving inhalation technique in asthma and COPD patients to improve health outcomes.

Primary data, claims data, and linked data in observational research: the case of COPD in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Real-world evidence (RWE) can inform patient management decisions, but RWE studies are associated with limitations. Linkage of different RWE data types could address such limitations by enriching data and improving scientific quality. Using the example of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany, this study assessed the value of data linkage between primary and secondary data sources for RWE. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of data from an observational RWE study, which used prospectively collected data and data from an insurance claims database to assess treatment adherence and persistence in patients with COPD in Germany. Patient-level primary data were collected from the prospective observational study (primary dataset, N = 636), and claims data from the sickness fund AOK Nordost (claims dataset, N = 74,916). Primary and claims data were linked at a patient level using insurance numbers (linked dataset). Patients in the linked dataset were indexed at date of study inclusion for primary data and matched calendar date for claims data. Agreement between primary and claims data was examined for patients in the linked dataset based on comparisons between recorded sociodemographic data at index, comorbidities (primary: any recorded; claims: pre-index), prescriptions for COPD therapies (type and date) and exacerbations in the 12-month post-index period. RESULTS: The linked dataset included primary and claims data for 536 patients. Fewer comorbid patients were reported in primary data compared with claims data (p < 0.001), with overall agreement between 63.6% (hypertension) and 90.5% (osteoporosis). Number of prescriptions for COPD therapies per patient was lower in primary versus claims data (3.7 vs 10.3 prescriptions, respectively), with only 24.5% of prescriptions recorded in both datasets. Only 11.5% of exacerbations (moderate or severe) were recorded in both datasets, with 15.5% recorded only in primary data and 73.0% recorded only in claims data. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted discrepancies between primary and claims data capture for this population of German patients with COPD, with lower reporting of comorbidities, COPD therapy prescriptions and exacerbations in primary versus claims data. Study findings suggest that data linkage of primary and claims data could provide enrichment and be useful in fully describing COPD endpoints.

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (- 0.053; 95% CI: - 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: - £645, - £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (- 0.033; 95% CI: - 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost.Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Systematic review of the association between exercise tests and patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an increasingly common cause of death worldwide. Its cardinal symptoms include breathlessness and severely reduced exercise capacity. Several patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are used to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), functional performance, and breathlessness in patients with COPD. Exercise testing is employed to measure functional performance objectively, which is generally believed to impact on overall HRQoL. However, the extent to which commonly used laboratory- and field-based exercise test results correlate with PROs has not been systematically assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of Embase, MedLine, and the Cochrane Library identified primary publications in English that reported data on the correlations (Pearson's r or Spearman's ρ) between the outcomes of exercise tests and HRQoL and breathlessness PROs. Studies reporting on the following tests were included: 6-minute walk test (6MWT), 12MWT, incremental and endurance shuttle walk tests, incremental and endurance cycle ergometer tests, and treadmill tests. RESULTS: Of 3,205 articles screened, 28 were deemed eligible for inclusion. The most commonly reported HRQoL PRO measure was the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (13 studies), and the most commonly reported breathlessness PRO measure was the Baseline Dyspnea Index (six studies). The St George's Respiratory Questionnaire appears to correlate very weakly to moderately with the 6MWT, and breathlessness PROs appear to be moderately to strongly associated with 6MWT outcomes. Across all studies, the 6MWT was the most commonly reported exercise test. Very few publications reporting associations between other exercise tests and PRO measures were found. CONCLUSION: This review found evidence to support the association of 6MWT outcomes with HRQoL and breathlessness PROs. There were limited data showing correlations with the outcomes of other exercise tests. Further work is required to examine the associations between these PROs and exercise test outcomes.

Rates of prostate surgery and acute urinary retention for benign prostatic hyperplasia in men treated with dutasteride or finasteride.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested a greater benefit for various outcomes in men diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who are treated with dutasteride than for men treated with finasteride. This study investigates whether the rates of BPH-related prostate surgery and acute urinary retention (AUR) differ between dutasteride and finasteride users in the Netherlands. METHODS: From the PHARMO Database Network, men aged ≥50 years with a dispensing of dutasteride or finasteride with or without concomitant alpha-blocker treatment between March 1, 2003 and December 31, 2011 were selected. The incidence of BPH-related prostate surgery and AUR was determined during dutasteride or finasteride treatment and stratified by type of initial BPH-treatment (5-ARI monotherapy or combination with alpha-blocker) and prescriber (general practitioner (GP) or urologist). Comparison of the incidence of BPH-related prostate surgery and AUR between the treatment groups was done by Cox proportional hazard regression. RESULTS: 11,822 dutasteride users and 5,781 finasteride users were identified. Most users started treatment in combination with an alpha-blocker. Overall, dutasteride users had a lower risk of BPH-related prostate surgery was lower among dutasteride users than finasteride users (HR: 0.75; 95 % CI: 0.56-0.99). This lower risk among dutasteride users was also seen when stratifying by monotherapy or combination therapy (HR: 0.73; 95 % CI: 0.54-0.98 for monotherapy and HR: 0.85; 95 % CI: 0.74-0.97 for combination therapy). However, the association was only present among men treated by urologists. For AUR the rates were low and no statistical significant difference was observed between dutasteride and finasteride users. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of undergoing BPH-related prostate surgery was lower among men using dutasteride compared to men using finasteride. The association was observed for monotherapy as well as combination therapy, however, only among men who received their prescription from a urologist.

Economic evaluation of ropinirole prolonged release for treatment of Parkinson's disease in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: By using the findings obtained from the PREPARED study, we aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of ropinirole prolonged release (PR) [Requip-Modutab(®)] in Parkinson's disease (PD) versus ropinirole immediate release (IR). In the PREPARED study, ropinirole PR provided a significantly greater improvement in time spent 'off' than ropinirole IR when used as an add-on to levodopa. METHODS: A health state transition model was developed-based on Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stages in PD-to compare the two treatment strategies. The Markov model included the following treatment-related aspects: (i) rate of disease progression; (ii) rates of dyskinesia; and (iii) medication adherence. RESULTS: In our approach, the base-case analysis showed a favourable pharmacoeconomic profile of ropinirole PR versus ropinirole IR. In particular, general cost savings were estimated combined with modest gains in quality of life, due to reduced disease progression and lower dyskinesia rates. Sensitivity analyses showed that this result was rather robust for varying parameters deterministically, although cost savings were lost in some instances. In particular, the treatment benefits of lower dyskinesia rates and improved adherence influenced the cost-effectiveness outcome. Nonetheless, the cost effectiveness remained acceptable within the limits that were investigated. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of accepting PR over IR exceeded 95 % for all relevant 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds. CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicate a high likelihood of ropinirole PR being cost saving or at least being considered cost effective for use in the Netherlands. However, claims included in our model regarding dyskinesia and improved medication adherence should be further supported by data from daily practice.

Cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for neck pain: a systematic review on economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: Various conservative interventions have been used for the treatment of non-specific neck pain. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Clinical and economic electronic databases, reference lists and authors' databases were searched up to 13 January 2011. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, performed the risk of bias assessment and data extraction. RESULTS: A total of five economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. All studies were conducted alongside randomised controlled trials and included a cost-utility analysis, and four studies also conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis. Most often, the economic evaluation was conducted from a societal or a health-care perspective. One study found that manual therapy was dominant over physiotherapy and general practitioner care, whilst behavioural graded activity was not cost-effective compared to manual therapy. The combination of advice and exercise with manual therapy was not cost-effective compared to advice and exercise only. One study found that acupuncture was cost-effective compared to a delayed acupuncture intervention, and another study found no differences on cost-effectiveness between a brief physiotherapy intervention compared to usual physiotherapy. Pooling of the data was not possible as heterogeneity existed between the studies on participants, interventions, controls, outcomes, follow-up duration and context related socio-political differences. CONCLUSION: At present, the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity between studies warrant no definite conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of conservative treatments for non-specific neck pain.

The economic evaluation of a participatory ergonomics programme to prevent low back and neck pain.

This study was an economic evaluation conducted alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial with a follow-up of 12 months. The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of the Stay@Work Participatory Ergonomics programme (PE) compared to a control group (no PE). In total, 37 departments (n=3047 workers) were randomised into either the intervention (PE) or control group (no PE). During a meeting, working groups followed the steps of PE, and composed and prioritized ergonomic measures aimed to prevent low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP). Working groups had to implement the ergonomic measures within three months in their department. Cost data included those directly related to LBP and NP. Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and cost-benefit analyses (CBA) were performed. After 12 months, health care costs and costs of productivity losses were higher in the intervention group than in the control group (the mean total cost difference was $/euro$127; 95% CI $/euro$-164 - $/euro$418). From a societal perspective, the CEA showed that PE was not cost-effective compared to control for LBP and NP prevalence, work performance, and sick leave. The CBA from a company perspective showed a monetary loss of $/euro$78 per worker. The PE programme was neither cost-effective nor cost-beneficial on any of the effect measures.