Systemic Sclerosis and Associated Interstitial Lung Disease in Ontario, Canada: An Examination of Prevalence and Survival Over 10 Years.

OBJECTIVE: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a rare autoimmune disease. Pulmonary complications of SSc are some of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine prevalence and survival estimates of SSc and SSc with interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) in the Canadian province of Ontario using administrative data over 10 years. METHODS: Using International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision codes adapted for Canada (ICD-10-CA), adult patients diagnosed with SSc and SSc-ILD between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018, were identified from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System and the Discharge Abstract Database administrative databases. SSc was identified first, and ILD was included if presence occurred after SSc diagnosis. Prevalence estimates were determined for both SSc and SSc-ILD. For survival rates, Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated. RESULTS: At the start of the 2017/18 fiscal year (final year of the cohort), there were 2114 prevalent SSc cases for a cumulative prevalence of 19.1 per 100,000 persons, as well as 257 prevalent cases of SSc-ILD that generated a prevalence of 2.3 cases per 100,000 persons. Mean ages were 57 and 58 years with 84% and 80% females for patients with SSc and SSc-ILD, respectively. One-, 5-, and 10-year survival rates were 85.0%, 64.5%, and 44.9% for the SSc group and 77.1%, 44.4%, and 22.0% for the SSc-ILD group, respectively. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study provides the first population-based estimates of SSc and SSc-ILD in Canada for prevalence and survival. Results confirm that the prevalence estimates of SSc-ILD fall within the Canadian threshold for rare disease. It also demonstrates the poor survival in SSc, especially when ILD is also present.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus glycopyrronium in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

OBJECTIVES: Tiotropium (TIO), Spiriva® Handihaler®, is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long acting muscarinic antagonist), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence from the SPARK trial suggests that TIO is superior to glycopyrronium (GLY), Seebri® Breezhaler®, in terms of severe exacerbations. This modeling study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIO versus GLY for Canada (CAN), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), and the UK, making use of this new clinical evidence. METHODS: A Markov cohort model, with moderate to very severe (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease II-IV) COPD patients, was populated with efficacy data from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) and SPARK trials as well as costs, utilities, and epidemiological data relevant for each country. Treatment efficacy was modeled as improvements in lung function, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations (rate of exacerbations). Risks of exacerbations differed between cohorts based on data from SPARK. Health and cost outcomes were simulated over an approximate lifetime horizon, starting from the age of 65 years. Robustness of results was validated in deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Over the lifetime horizon, patients treated with TIO accumulated -623 (CAN), 1,066 (ESP), 1,137 (SWE), and -169 (UK), respectively, in incremental costs (€2014). TIO generated better health outcomes compared to GLY in all countries, 0.21 (CAN), 0.25 (ESP), 0.23 (SWE), and 0.23 (UK) in incremental QALYs. The cost per QALY gained was found to be €4,281 and €1,137 for ESP and SWE, respectively, while TIO was found to be cost saving in CAN and the UK. The results were mainly driven by the relative risk of severe exacerbations found in SPARK (GLY/TIO relative risk: 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.97, P=0.025). CONCLUSION: The results from this study show that TIO is a cost-effective treatment compared to GLY in moderate to very severe COPD. The cost per QALY is well below the existing implicit and explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds.