Rupert Gale

Cost-utility analysis of indacaterol in Germany: A once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD

INTRODUCTION Indacaterol is a novel inhaled once-daily long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) for the maintenance treatment of COPD that has been compared to existing inhaled monotherapies on a number of symptomatic endpoints in clinical studies. With constrained healthcare budgets, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of indacaterol 150 μg, the approved starting dose for maintenance therapy, from a German heath service perspective against the most widely used bronchodilator tiotropium, and the twice-daily LABA, salmeterol. METHODS A Markov model was developed with the following main health states: Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Very Severe COPD, based on pre-bronchodilator FEV(1) measures reported in the indacaterol clinical trials, and death. Each disease severity health state had two associated health states for severe or non-severe exacerbation. The model considered patients with moderate to severe COPD, with a mean age of 64 years. The base case time horizon was three years, with discounting set at 3% for costs and benefits. Selected clinical inputs and health state utilities were derived from indacaterol clinical trials, while costs were based on publicly available drug prices and tariffs or published sources. Inputs describing disease progression were based on published data on the rate of FEV(1) decline. RESULTS Point-estimates show that indacaterol 150 μg is dominant (lower total costs and better outcomes) against tiotropium and salmeterol. An alternative analysis comparing indacaterol 300 μg (maximum dose) against tiotropium, showed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of approximately €28,300 per QALY. CONCLUSION Indacaterol is cost-effective compared to tiotropium and salmeterol.

Comparative efficacy of indacaterol 150 μg and 300 μg versus fixed-dose combinations of formoterol + budesonide or salmeterol + fluticasone for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease – a network meta-analysis

Objective: To compare efficacy of indacaterol to that of fixed-dose combination (FDC) formoterol and budesonide (FOR/BUD) and FDC salmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FP) for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) based on the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Methods: Fifteen placebo-controlled RCTs were included that evaluated: indacaterol 150 μg (n = 5 studies), indacaterol 300 μg (n = 4), FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (n = 2), FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (n = 3), SAL/FP 50/500 μg (n = 5), and SAL/FP 50/250 μg (n = 1). Outcomes of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), total scores for St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), and transition dyspnea index (TDI). All trials were analyzed simultaneously using a Bayesian network meta-analysis and relative treatment effects between all regimens were obtained. Treatment-by-covariate interactions were included where possible to improve the similarity of the trials. Results: Indacaterol 150 μg resulted in a higher change from baseline (CFB) in FEV1 at 12 weeks compared to FOR/BUD 9/160 μg (difference in CFB 0.11 L [95% credible intervals: 0.08, 0.13]) and FOR/BUD 9/320 μg (0.09 L [0.06, 0.11]) and was comparable to SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.02 L [−0.04, 0.08]) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (0.03 L [0.00, 0.06]). Similar results were observed for indacaterol 300 μg at 12 weeks and indacaterol 150/300 μg at 6 months. Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated comparable improvement in SGRQ total score at 6 months versus FOR/BUD (both doses), and SAL/FP 50/500 μg (−2.16 point improvement [−4.96, 0.95]). Indacaterol 150 and 300 μg demonstrated comparable TDI scores versus SAL/FP 50/250 μg (0.21 points (−0.57, 0.99); 0.39 [−0.39, 1.17], respectively) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg at 6 months. Conclusion: Indacaterol monotherapy is expected to be at least as good as FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and comparable to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of lung function. Indacaterol is also expected to be comparable to FOR/BUD (9/320 and 9/160 μg) and SAL/FP 50/500 μg in terms of health status and to SAL/FP (50/250 and 50/500 μg) in terms of breathlessness.

Application of latent growth and growth mixture modeling to identify and characterize differential responders to treatment for COPD.

OBJECTIVE To explore the utility of applying growth mixture models (GMMs) in secondary analyses of clinical trials to identify sources of variability in data reported by patients with COPD. METHODS Analyses were performed on data from two 6-month clinical trials comparing indacaterol and open-label tiotropium or blinded salmeterol and the first six months of a 12-month trial comparing indacaterol and blinded formoterol. Latent growth model (LGM) analyses were conducted to explore the response of the SGRQ Symptoms score from baseline to six months and GMM analyses were evaluated as a method to identify latent classes of differential responders. RESULTS Variability in SGRQ Symptom scores was found suggesting subsets of patients with differential response to treatment. GMM analyses found subsets of non-responders in all trials. When the responders were analyzed separately from non-responders, there were increased treatment effects (e.g., symptoms score improvement over six months for whole groups: indacaterol=8-12 units, tiotropium=7 units, salmeterol=9 units, formoterol=11 units. Responder subgroup improvement: indacaterol=9-21 units, tiotropium=7 units, salmeterol=10 units, formoterol=20 units). Responders had significantly different baseline SGRQ Symptom scores, smoking history, age, and mMRC dyspnea scores than non-responders. CONCLUSIONS Patients with COPD represent a heterogeneous population in terms of their reporting of symptoms and response to treatment. GMM analyses are able to identify sub-groups of responders and non-responders. Application of this methodology could be of value on other endpoints in COPD and in other disease areas.

Efficacy of once-daily indacaterol relative to alternative bronchodilators in COPD: a patient-level mixed treatment comparison.

OBJECTIVE Indacaterol was evaluated versus placebo, formoterol, and salmeterol in randomized controlled trials. No direct comparisons, however, are available for indacaterol 150 μg with formoterol or indacaterol 300 μg with salmeterol. Indacaterol trial evidence was synthesized to provide coherent estimates of indacaterol 150 μg and indacaterol 300 μg relative to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium. METHODS Four randomized controlled trials were combined with Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons by using individual patient-level data. End points of interest were trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and response (≥ 4 points), and Transition Dyspnea Index total score and response (≥ 1 point). RESULTS Indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a higher FEV(1) than did formoterol at 12 weeks and 6 months (0.10 L difference; 95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.06-0.14), as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol (0.06 L difference at 12 weeks; CrI = 0.02-0.10; 0.06 L at 6 months; CrI = 0.02-0.11). Regarding SGRQ, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a comparable proportion of responders versus formoterol, as did indacaterol 300 μg versus salmeterol. In comparison to tiotropium, indacaterol 150 μg demonstrated a greater proportion of responders (odds ratio = 1.52 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.15-2.00). For Transition Dyspnea Index, indacaterol 150 μg and formoterol showed a similar response. Indacaterol 300 μg was more efficacious than salmeterol (odds ratio = 1.65 at 12 weeks; CrI 1.16-2.34). Overall, indacaterol 150 μg showed the greatest efficacy for SGRQ and indacaterol 300 μg for FEV(1) and Transition Dyspnea Index. CONCLUSION Indacaterol is expected to be comparable to formoterol, salmeterol, and tiotropium, providing higher FEV(1) than formoterol and salmeterol and greater improvement in the SGRQ total score than tiotropium. Indacaterol 150 μg provided comparable improvement in dyspnea, while indacaterol 300 μg demonstrated the greatest response overall.

Costs of Chemotherapy for Indolent Follicular Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in the UK: An Observational Study

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) is the sixth most common cancer in the United Kingdom (UK). This analysis assessed the health service costs of patients receiving chemotherapy for indolent follicular NHL based on a retrospective analysis of patient records in the UK. Each patient was followed up for a period of 3 years or until death. The analysis included 181 patients, who received a total of 187 treatment periods. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. The study found the cost of providing treatment with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone) or fludarabine to patients with indolent follicular NHL to be lower than previously reported.

QL7 INTERPRETING SCORES ON THREE COPD PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES

INTERPRETING SCORES ONTHREE COPD PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES McKenna SP,Twiss J, Meads DM, Revicki D, Pokrzywinski R, Gale R Galen Research, Manchester, UK, United BioSource Corporation, Bethesda, MD, USA, United Biosource Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, Novartis AG, Horsham, UK OBJECTIVES: To aid interpretation of scores on the Living with COPD scale (LCOPD; scored 0–22), COPD and Asthma Sleep Impact Scale (CASIS; scored 0–100) and COPD and Asthma Fatigue Scale (CAFS, scored 0–100). These new patient reported outcome measures, designed for use in clinical trials, have previously been shown to be reliable and valid.METHODS:Questionnaire data from UK (n = 162; 46% male; mean age = 69.3 years) and US (n = 145; 51%male; mean age = 71.7 years) surveys were analysed. Mean questionnaire scores were evaluated against clinician severity rating and by exacerbation status (US only). Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors of measurement (SEM)were used to provide a preliminary estimate of the minimal important difference (MID). RESULTS: Scores on the LCOPD and CAFS were significantly related to clinician rating of COPD severity (p < 0.001). A similar trend for the CASIS was not statistically significant. Scores on all measures were also significantly higher (p < 0.05), indicating greater impairment if the patient had had an exacerbation in the previous week. For the LCOPD the values for 0.3 ES, 0.5 ES and SEMwere 2.0, 3.3 and 1.4 respectively. For the CASIS the figures were 7.4, 12.3 and 7.4 and for the CAFS; 7.3, 12.2 and 5.5. Therefore, these distribution-based analyses suggest that the MID is in the region of 2 for the LCOPD and 7 for the CASIS and CAFS. CONCLUSIONS: The analyses provide preliminary information on how to interpret scores on the scales. Further analyses of longitudinal data are required to confirm these findings, to assess anchor-based estimates and to allow greater precision in powering studies using these questionnaires.