Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial

Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2022 Oct 25:17:2745-2755. doi: 10.2147/COPD.S370577. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Purpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective.

Patients and methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions.

Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Keywords: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; cost-effectiveness; health technology assessment; pragmatic; real-world; triple therapy.

Publication types

  • Clinical Trial

MeSH terms

  • Administration, Inhalation
  • Androstadienes
  • Benzyl Alcohols
  • Bronchodilator Agents
  • Chlorobenzenes
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis
  • Double-Blind Method
  • Drug Combinations
  • Humans
  • Nebulizers and Vaporizers*
  • Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive* / drug therapy
  • Quinuclidines
  • State Medicine

Substances

  • Androstadienes
  • Benzyl Alcohols
  • Bronchodilator Agents
  • Chlorobenzenes
  • Drug Combinations
  • Quinuclidines

Grants and funding

This analysis was funded by GSK (study number 212888). The INTREPID trial was also funded by GSK (NCT03467425). The sponsor was involved in study conception and design, and the decision to submit the article for publication. The sponsor was also given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy as well as intellectual property considerations.