Rebecca Forster1, Aran Ratcliffe2, Megan Lewis2, Amy Crossley2, Julio López Bastida3, William C N Dunlop4. 1. Mundipharma International Ltd, Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0AB, UK. 2. Adelphi Values Ltd, Adelphi Mill, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK10 5JB, UK. 3. Universidad Castilla-La Mancha, Talavera de la Reina, Toledo, Spain. 4. Mundipharma International Ltd, Cambridge Science Park, Cambridge, CB4 0AB, UK. Will.Dunlop@mundipharma.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Up to 70-80% of patients use inhalers incorrectly. Dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) require forceful inhalation for optimal delivery, and approximately 40% of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)-defined Step-3+ patients inhale corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist through DPIs. The CRITIKAL study (Price et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5:1071-e9-1081-e9, 2017) found a statistically significant association between 'insufficient inspiratory effort' error and increased risk of uncontrolled asthma and hospitalisation-requiring exacerbations. This paper explores the cost-effectiveness of an error-targeted intervention. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cost-utility model simulated patients transitioning between controlled and uncontrolled health states over one year. Odds ratios (ORs, from the CRITIKAL study) of a patient having uncontrolled asthma conditional on making the error were applied to baseline transition probabilities sourced from the literature, both indirectly via an adjustment formula (Zhang et al. in JAMA 280:1690-1691, 1998) and directly by assuming OR approximates relative risk (RR). The analysis explored complete/partial eradication of the error when the intervention was priced to match comparators, as well as impact of indirect costs based on lost/reduced productivity. RESULTS: The intervention dominated both DPI comparators over one year, with direct cost savings of £45/£86 with 0.0053/0.0102 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000/QALY threshold. Key factors driving variance were weekly utilities per state and RR of moving to an uncontrolled state. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrated the economic and societal costs of 'insufficient inspiratory effort' and potential economic benefits of introducing an effective intervention to reduce/eradicate this error. Further research should assess the economic impact of other handling errors.
OBJECTIVES: Up to 70-80% of patients use inhalers incorrectly. Dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) require forceful inhalation for optimal delivery, and approximately 40% of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)-defined Step-3+ patients inhale corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist through DPIs. The CRITIKAL study (Price et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5:1071-e9-1081-e9, 2017) found a statistically significant association between 'insufficient inspiratory effort' error and increased risk of uncontrolled asthma and hospitalisation-requiring exacerbations. This paper explores the cost-effectiveness of an error-targeted intervention. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cost-utility model simulated patients transitioning between controlled and uncontrolled health states over one year. Odds ratios (ORs, from the CRITIKAL study) of a patient having uncontrolled asthma conditional on making the error were applied to baseline transition probabilities sourced from the literature, both indirectly via an adjustment formula (Zhang et al. in JAMA 280:1690-1691, 1998) and directly by assuming OR approximates relative risk (RR). The analysis explored complete/partial eradication of the error when the intervention was priced to match comparators, as well as impact of indirect costs based on lost/reduced productivity. RESULTS: The intervention dominated both DPI comparators over one year, with direct cost savings of £45/£86 with 0.0053/0.0102 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000/QALY threshold. Key factors driving variance were weekly utilities per state and RR of moving to an uncontrolled state. CONCLUSION: The analysis demonstrated the economic and societal costs of 'insufficient inspiratory effort' and potential economic benefits of introducing an effective intervention to reduce/eradicate this error. Further research should assess the economic impact of other handling errors.
Authors: David B Price; Miguel Román-Rodríguez; R Brett McQueen; Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich; Victoria Carter; Kevin Gruffydd-Jones; John Haughney; Svein Henrichsen; Catherine Hutton; Antonio Infantino; Federico Lavorini; Lisa M Law; Karin Lisspers; Alberto Papi; Dermot Ryan; Björn Ställberg; Thys van der Molen; Henry Chrystyn Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Eric D Bateman; Homer A Boushey; Jean Bousquet; William W Busse; Tim J H Clark; Romain A Pauwels; Søren E Pedersen Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mike Thomas; David Price; Henry Chrystyn; Andrew Lloyd; Angela E Williams; Julie von Ziegenweidt Journal: BMC Pulm Med Date: 2009-01-02 Impact factor: 3.317
Authors: Mário Morais-Almeida; Helena Pité; João Cardoso; Rui Costa; Carlos Robalo Cordeiro; Eurico Silva; Ana Todo-Bom; Cláudia Vicente; José Agostinho Marques Journal: Asthma Res Pract Date: 2020-06-06