+1 Recommend
2 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).


          Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.


          Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.


          Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Does quality of life of COPD patients as measured by the generic EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire differentiate between COPD severity stages?

          To assess the discriminative properties of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) with respect to COPD severity according to Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) criteria in a large multinational study. Baseline EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) scores, EQ-5D utility scores, and St. George Respiratory Questionnaire scores were obtained from a subset of patients in the Understanding the Potential Long-term Impact on Function with Tiotropium trial, which was a 4-year placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effect of tiotropium on the rate of decline in FEV(1) in COPD patients aged > or = 40 years, an FEV(1) of /= 10 pack-years. A total of 1,235 patients (mean post bronchodilator FEV(1), 48.8% predicted) from 13 countries completed the EQ-5D. The EQ-5D VAS and utility scores differed significantly among patients in GOLD stages 2, 3, and 4, also after correction for age, sex, smoking, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidity (p < 0.001). The mean EQ-5D VAS scores for patients in GOLD stages 2, 3, and 4 were 68 (SD, 16), 62 (SD, 17), and 58 (SD, 16), respectively. The mean utility scores were 0.79 (SD, 0.20) for patients in GOLD stage 2, 0.75 (SD, 0.21) for patients in GOLD stage 3, and 0.65 (SD, 0.23) for patients in GOLD stage 4. Effect sizes for the difference in utility scores between patients in GOLD stages 3 and 4 were more than twice as high as those for the difference between patients in GOLD stages 2 and 3. Gender, postbronchodilator FEV(1) percent predicted, the number of hospital admissions and emergency department visits in the year prior to baseline measurements, measures of comorbidity, and BMI were independently associated with EQ-5D utility. EQ-5D utility scores also differed between patients from different countries. French patients especially had lower utility scores than US patients. Utility scores calculated with the US value set were on average 5% higher than those calculated with the UK value set. Increasing severity of COPD was associated with a significant decline in EQ-5D VAS scores and utility scores. These results demonstrate that a generic instrument can assess COPD impact on quality of life and that the scores discriminate between patient groups of known severity. These utility scores will be useful in cost-effectiveness assessments.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparisons of health status scores with MRC grades in COPD: implications for the GOLD 2011 classification.

            The 2011 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) strategy document recommends assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) using symptoms and future exacerbation risk, employing two score cut-points: COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score ≥ 10 or modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale (mMRC) grade ≥ 2. To explore the equivalence of these two symptom cut-points, the relationship between the CAT and the mMRC and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the Short-form Health Survey and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue scores were retrospectively analysed using a primary care dataset. Data from 1817 patients (mean ± SD forced expiratory volume in 1 s 1.6 ± 0.6 L) showed a significant association between mMRC grades and all health status scores (ANOVA p<0.0001). mMRC grade 1 was associated with significant levels of health status impairment (SGRQ 39.4 ± 15.5 and CAT 15.7 ± 7.0); even patients with mMRC grade 0 had modestly elevated scores (SGRQ 28.5 ± 15.1 and CAT 11.7 ± 6.8). An mMRC grading ≥ 2 categorised 57.2% patients with low symptom (groups A and C) versus 17.2% with the CAT. Using the mMRC cut-point (≥ 1) resulted in similar GOLD group categorisations as the CAT (18.9%). The mMRC showed a clear relationship with health status scores; even low mMRC grades were associated with health status impairment. Cut-points of mMRC grade ≥ 1 and CAT score ≥ 10 were approximately equivalent in determining low-symptom patients. The GOLD assessment framework may require refinement.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The global economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

              Non-communicable diseases are now the number one cause of disabilities and loss of life expectancy. Among them, chronic respiratory conditions constitute a major class. The burden of chronic respiratory diseases is generally increasing across the globe, and asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are among the main causes of mortality and morbidity. However, the direct and indirect costs of these conditions vary across jurisdictions. This article reports on recent estimates of the costs of asthma and COPD, with a focus on comparing disease burden across different regions. Overall, there is tremendous variation in per capita annual costs of asthma and COPD. However, the methodology of the cost-of-illness studies is also vastly different, making it difficult to associate differences in reported costs to differences in the true burden of asthma and COPD. Suggestions are provided towards improving the validity and comparability of future studies.

                Author and article information

                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis
                International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
                29 November 2019
                : 14
                : 2681-2695
                [1 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc , Collegeville, PA, USA
                [2 ]Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, ON, Canada
                [3 ]ICON Health Economics, ICON plc , Toronto, ON, Canada
                [4 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc , Brentford, UK
                [5 ]ICON Health Economics, ICON plc , New York, NY, USA
                [6 ]Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc , Uxbridge, UK
                [7 ]Health Economics and Outcomes Research, GlaxoSmithKline plc , Mississauga, ON, Canada
                [8 ]Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University , Philadelphia, PA, USA
                [9 ]Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Lung Health Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham, AL, USA
                [10 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital , Exeter, UK
                [11 ]University of Michigan, Pulmonary and Critical Care , Ann Arbor, MI, USA
                [12 ]UCL Respiratory, University College London , London, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Afisi S Ismaila Value Evidence and Outcomes, GlaxoSmithKline plc , 1250 South Collegeville Road, Collegeville, PA19426-0989, USATel +1 919 315 8229 Email
                © 2019 Ismaila et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (

                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 3, References: 39, Pages: 15
                Original Research


                Comment on this article