Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of A Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy For Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (Copd) Using The Fulfil Trial: A Spanish Perspective

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019(sic)) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed.Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of (sic)69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of (sic)642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than (sic)11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of (sic)30,000 per QALY gained.Conclusion: At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of (sic)30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.