Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily, Single-Inhaler Indacaterol Acetate/ Glycopyrronium Bromide/ Mometasone Furoate in Patients with Uncontrolled Moderate-to-Severe Asthma in Canada.

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of high-dose indacaterol acetate (IND)/glycopyrronium bromide (GLY)/mometasone furoate (MF) (150/50/160 μg, once daily) compared with high-dose salmeterol/fluticasone (SAL/FLU; 50/500 µg, twice daily)+tiotropium (TIO; 5 µg, once daily) (SAL/FLU+TIO) and with high-dose SAL/FLU (50/500 µg, twice daily) for the treatment of inadequately controlled moderate-to-severe asthma. A Markov model estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of treatment with high-dose IND/GLY/MF compared with SAL/FLU+TIO and high-dose IND/GLY/MF compared with SAL/FLU. The model included three health states (day-to-day symptoms without exacerbations, day-to-day symptoms with exacerbations, and death) with a 4-week cycle length. A lifetime time horizon was used. Exacerbation rates and utility values were derived from ARGON and IRIDIUM clinical trials. Canadian dollars (CAD$, 2020) were applied. IND/GLY/MF was the less costly and more effective treatment strategy compared with SAL/FLU+TIO and SAL/FLU in the base-case analyses. IND/GLY/MF had lower costs (CAD $33,501 versus CAD $50,907) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (18.37 versus 18.06 QALYs) compared with SAL/FLU+TIO. Compared with SAL/FLU, IND/GLY/MF had lower costs (CAD $33,408 versus CAD $36,577) and higher QALYs (19.33 versus 19.04 QALYs). IND/GLY/MF was the most cost-effective option in all scenarios tested. IND/GLY/MF was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD $50,000/QALY in patients with uncontrolled, moderate-to-severe asthma versus SAL/FLU+TIO and SAL/FLU in the base case and all scenarios tested.

Informations de copyright

© 2021 Mtibaa et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

MM is an employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. SG and MaM were employees of Novartis Healthcare Private Limited when the study was conducted. JM and RI are employees of Novartis Pharma AG. HK is an employee of Novartis Healthcare Private Limited. RO is a consultant of Novartis Pharma AG but received no compensation for contributions to this study. RO also reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, and Glaxo Smith Kline, outside the submitted work. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.