The burden of mild asthma: Clinical burden and healthcare resource utilisation in the NOVELTY study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mild asthma represent a substantial proportion of the population with asthma, yet there are limited data on their true burden of disease. We aimed to describe the clinical and healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) burden of physician-assessed mild asthma. METHODS: Patients with mild asthma were included from the NOVEL observational longiTudinal studY (NOVELTY; NCT02760329), a global, 3-year, real-world prospective study of patients with asthma and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from community practice (specialised and primary care). Diagnosis and severity were based on physician discretion. Clinical burden included physician-reported exacerbations and patient-reported measures. HCRU included inpatient and outpatient visits. RESULTS: Overall, 2004 patients with mild asthma were included; 22.8% experienced ≥1 exacerbation in the previous 12 months, of whom 72.3% experienced ≥1 severe exacerbation. Of 625 exacerbations reported, 48.0% lasted >1 week, 27.7% were preceded by symptomatic worsening lasting >3 days, and 50.1% required oral corticosteroid treatment. Health status was moderately impacted (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire score: 23.5 [standard deviation ± 17.9]). At baseline, 29.7% of patients had asthma symptoms that were not well controlled or very poorly controlled (Asthma Control Test score <20), increasing to 55.6% for those with ≥2 exacerbations in the previous year. In terms of HCRU, at least one unscheduled ambulatory visit for exacerbations was required by 9.5% of patients, including 9.2% requiring ≥1 emergency department visit and 1.1% requiring ≥1 hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: In this global sample representing community practice, a significant proportion of patients with physician-assessed mild asthma had considerable clinical burden and HCRU.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma. METHODS: A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 µg to twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Dronedarone for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a NICE single technology appraisal.

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of dronedarone (Multaq®, Sanofi-Aventis Limited, UK) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of the anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter, as part of the Institute's single technology appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and the Centre for Health Economics, both at the University of York, were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and NICE's subsequent decisions regarding the use of dronedarone within the UK NHS. The ERG review comprised a critique of the submitted evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of dronedarone. The ERG examined the search strategy used to obtain relevant evidence, the selection of studies included in the assessment, outcome measures chosen and statistical methods employed. The ERG also validated the manufacturer's decision analytic model and used it to explore the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results to key assumptions. The main clinical effectiveness evidence supporting the use of dronedarone as a treatment for AF came from four randomized controlled trials. These trials were compared with a broader set of trials examining the effectiveness of other AADs for AF: amiodarone, sotalol and class 1c agents (flecainide and propafenone). The evidence suggested that all AADs decreased the recurrence of AF but dronedarone had the smallest effect. A mixed treatment comparison analysis of the trials showed that dronedarone was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than other AADs, but this was highly uncertain. There was limited evidence to assess the effect of dronedarone on stroke, and no statistically significant differences between dronedarone and other AADs were found for treatment discontinuation. From the evidence presented by the manufacturer, dronedarone appeared highly cost effective in each of the population groups examined compared with using standard baseline therapy alone as first-line treatment, or compared with sotalol or amiodarone as first-line AAD, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) well below £20,000 per QALY gained. The ICER for dronedarone relative to class 1c agents was around £19,000 per QALY. Although the evidence presented by the manufacturer indicated that dronedarone was cost effective, the estimates of treatment effect relative to other AADs and safety in the longer term were highly uncertain. The NICE Appraisal Committee in its preliminary guidance did not recommend the use of dronedarone for AF. However, following the response from a large number of consultees and commentators, NICE revised its preliminary guidance to allow the use of the drug in a specific subgroup of AF patients with additional cardiovascular risk factors.