Background and Objectives: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects over 250 million people globally, carrying a notable economic burden. This systematic literature review aimed to highlight the economic burden associated with moderate-to-very severe COPD and to investigate key drivers of healthcare resource utilization (HRU), direct costs and indirect costs for this patient population. Materials and Methods: Relevant publications published between January 1, 2006 and November 14, 2016 were captured from the Embase, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process databases. Supplemental searches from relevant 2015-2016 conferences were also performed. Titles and abstracts were reviewed by two independent researchers against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were grouped by the type of economic outcome presented (HRU or costs). Where possible, data were also grouped according to COPD severity and/or patient exacerbation history. Results: In total, 73 primary publications were included in this review: 66 reported HRU, 22 reported direct costs and one reported indirect costs. Most of the studies (94%) reported on data from either Europe or North America. Trends were noted across multiple studies for higher direct costs (including mean costs per patient per year and mean costs per exacerbation) being associated with increasingly severe COPD and/or a history of more frequent or severe exacerbations. Similar trends were noted according to COPD severity and/or exacerbation history for rate of hospitalization and primary care visits. Multivariate analyses were reported by 29 studies and demonstrated the statistical significance of these associations. Several other drivers of increased costs and HRU were highlighted for patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD, including comorbidities, and treatment history. Conclusion: Moderate-to-very severe COPD represents a considerable economic burden for healthcare providers despite the availability of efficacious treatments and comprehensive guidelines on their use. Further research is warranted to ensure cost-efficient COPD management, to improve treatments and ease budgetary pressures.

EoE negatively impacts the HRQoL of patients and their families, and is a burden to the health care system. Although data are sparse, currently available treatments appear to improve HRQoL.

With increasing choice of medications and devices for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment, comparative evidence may inform treatment decisions. This systematic literature review assessed clinical and economic evidence for using a single combination inhaler versus multiple inhalers to deliver the same medication for patients with asthma or COPD. In 2016, Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for publications reporting studies in asthma or COPD comparing a single-inhaler combination medicine with multiple inhalers delivering the same medication. Publications included English-language articles published since 1996 and congress abstracts since 2013. Clinical, economic and adherence endpoints were assessed. Of 2031 abstracts screened, 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in asthma and four in COPD, nine retrospective and three prospective observational studies in asthma, and four observational studies in COPD were identified. Of these, five retrospective and one prospective study in asthma, and two retrospective studies in COPD reported greater adherence with a single inhaler than multiple inhalers. Nine observational studies reported significantly (n=7) or numerically (n=2) higher rates of adherence with single-versus multiple-inhaler therapy. Economic analyses from retrospective and prospective studies showed that use of single-inhaler therapies was associated with reduced healthcare resource use (n=6) and was cost-effective (n=5) compared with multiple-inhaler therapies. Findings in 18 asthma RCTs and one prospective study reporting lung function, and six RCTs reporting exacerbation rates, showed no significant differences between a single inhaler and multiple inhalers. This was in contrast to several observational studies reporting reductions in healthcare resource use or exacerbation events with single-inhaler treatment, compared with multiple inhalers. Retrospective and prospective studies showed that single-inhaler use was associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization and improved cost-effectiveness compared with multiple inhalers. Lung function and exacerbation rates were mostly comparable in the RCTs, possibly due to study design.

Limited data estimate HSUVs in patients with advanced GC, OC, or GEJ cancer. Utilities for advanced GC alone and advanced OC alone were reported in only two publications for each cancer type. No publications considered advanced GEJ utilities alone, and four publications considered utilities for a mixed population of gastrointestinal cancer types. Comparisons are confounded by heterogeneity across the identified publications. Further research into HSUVs associated with advanced GC and OC is required to improve the evidence available for use in CUAs.

No abstract