Disease Burden and Healthcare Utilization Among Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in England.

Purpose: Clinical guidelines for COPD management suggest pharmacologic treatment algorithms based on symptoms and exacerbation history. As previous research has suggested that prescribing patterns are not always aligned with these recommendations, this study investigated the burden of disease in patients with COPD receiving, and persisting on, new inhaled maintenance therapy. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study using two linked electronic databases containing health records of patients in England. Patients aged ≥35 years with a confirmed diagnosis of COPD, and who initiated a new inhaled respiratory pharmacologic maintenance regimen between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (index date) were eligible for inclusion. New treatments could be long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) or long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA) monotherapy, inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/LABA or LAMA/LABA dual therapy, or a multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT; LAMA/LABA/ICS). Patients were required to have 12 months of available medical history prior to, and after, the index date. Results: In total, 25,350 eligible patients were identified, of these 8282 (mean age: 70.9 years; 51.5% male) persisted with their newly prescribed inhaled therapy for ≥12 months and were included in the analysis. In the 12 months prior to index, 54% of patients had moderate or severe dyspnea (Medical Research Council score ≥3). The most common therapy initiated at index was MITT (42%), followed by ICS/LABA dual therapy (31.2%). The proportion of patients with moderate or severe dyspnea in the post-index period ranged from 29.0% of patients receiving ICS to 64.2% of patients receiving MITT. In the post-index period, 48.1% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation and 54.9% had ≥5 general practitioner visits. Conclusion: Many of the patients with COPD in our study continued to experience symptoms and exacerbations, despite persisting on the same treatment for ≥12 months. This suggests that some patients may benefit from treatment modification in accordance with guideline recommendations.

Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 µg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters. RESULTS: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

Quantifying the Economic Impact of Delayed Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy Initiation in Patients with COPD: A Retrospective Cohort Study of Linked Electronic Medical Record and Hospital Administrative Data in England.

PURPOSE: To assess if early multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) initiation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reduces subsequent healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), direct medical costs, and acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, longitudinal cohort study used electronic health records and linked hospital administrative data in England. COPD patients with an AECOPD between July 2012 and May 2016 (index), and who subsequently started MITT within 180 days were eligible. Patients with an AECOPD 6 months prior to index were excluded. HCRU, direct healthcare costs, and AECOPDs were assessed in the following 24-month period for early (≤30 days) and delayed (31-180 days) MITT initiators. RESULTS: A total of 934 patients were included in the analysis and categorized as early (n=367, 39%) or delayed (n=567, 61%) MITT initiators. Mean patient age was 68.5 years and 53.2% were male. A significantly higher proportion of delayed MITT initiators required ≥1 outpatient appointment (all-cause) compared with early MITT initiators (87% vs 79%; p=0.0016). A significantly higher proportion of delayed MITT initiators required ≥1 COPD­related inpatient stay versus early MITT initiators (47% vs 40%; p=0.0262). Over the 24-month follow-up, mean all-cause and COPD-related total healthcare costs were significantly higher in delayed MITT initiators compared with early MITT initiators (all­cause: £11,348 vs £8126; p=0.0011; COPD-related: £7307 vs £4535; p=0.0009). CONCLUSION: Delayed initiation of multiple-inhaler triple therapy was associated with higher all-cause and COPD-related costs, suggesting that earlier initiation of triple therapy in COPD patients may help reduce the economic burden on the healthcare system.