BackgroundDry powder inhalers (DPIs) are often used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) therapies. Using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) methodology, this study conducted in France was designed to assess patients’ preferences for different attributes of DPIs.MethodsAttributes of DPIs were defined based on a literature review, patient focus group discussions and interviews with healthcare professionals (qualitative phase of the study). An online survey was then conducted among French patients with asthma or COPD to elicit patient preferences and willingness to pay (WTP) for these attributes using the DCE methodology (quantitative phase). A fractional factorial design including three blocks of 12 choice sets was created. Each choice set comprised three alternatives: two fictitious inhalers and the patient’s current inhaler. Marginal utilities were estimated using a ranked ordered logit model. Interactions between attributes and disease (asthma or COPD) were tested.ResultsSix DPI attributes were defined based on the qualitative phase: ease of use/fool-proof priming; accurate and easy-to-read dose counter; dose confirmation; hygiene of the mouthpiece; flexibility of the device handling; ability to use the inhaler with breathing difficulties. Overall, 201 patients with asthma and 93 with COPD were included in the online survey. Patients with asthma placed most value on an inhaler that requires one step for dose preparation (WTP €4.83 [95% CI: €3.77–€5.90], relative to an inhaler requiring four steps) and one that could be used during episodes of breathing difficulties (WTP €4.49 [95% CI: €2.95–€6.02]). Patients with COPD placed most value on an inhaler that could be used during episodes of breathing difficulties (WTP €7.70 [95% CI: €5.65–€9.76]) and on the accuracy of the dose counter (WTP €5.87 [95% CI: €3.98–€ 7.77]).ConclusionThis study suggests that asthma and COPD patients would be willing to change their inhaler if they were offered the option of a new inhaler with improved characteristics and they place a high value on an inhaler with ease of use during breathing difficulty episodes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12890-017-0439-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Each year, around 300,000 Herpes Zoster (HZ) cases are observed in the German population, resulting in costs over €182 million to society. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential public health and economic impact of the new Adjuvanted Recombinant Zoster Vaccine (RZV, Shingrix) in the German population ≥ 60 years of age (YOA) and to identify the optimal age of vaccination. We used a static, multi-cohort Markov model that followed a hypothetical cohort of 1 million people ≥ 60 YOA life-long after vaccination using German-specific inputs. Both costs and outcomes were discounted at 3%, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated based on the societal perspective. The coverage of RZV was set at 40% with a second-dose compliance of 70%. Vaccinating the population aged ≥ 60 YOA would result in 45,000 HZ cases avoided, 1,713 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained at a total cost of approximately €63 million compared to 38,000 cases avoided, 1,545 QALYs gained at a total cost of approximately €68 million in the population ≥ 70 YOA. This would result in an ICER of approximately €37,000 and €44,000/QALY, for the age cohort ≥ 60 and ≥ 70 YOA, respectively. Scenario analyses demonstrated that vaccinating at age 60 or 65 YOA would show greater public health impact and would result in the lowest observed ICER compared to vaccinating at 70 YOA. In conclusion, starting vaccination with RZV in the German population ≥ 60 YOA would demonstrate the best value from a public health and economic standpoint.[Figure: see text].
This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of 4CMenB infant vaccination in England comprehensively considers the broad burden of serogroup B invasive meningococcal disease (MenB IMD), which has not been considered, or was only partially considered in previous CEAs.Methods: A review of previous MenB vaccination CEAs was conducted to identify aspects considered in the evaluation of costs and health outcomes of the disease burden of MenB IMD. To inform the model structure and comprehensive analysis, the aspects were grouped into 5 categories. A stepwise analysis was conducted to analyze the impact of each category, and the more comprehensive consideration of disease burden, on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: MenB IMD incidence decreased by 46.0% in infants and children 0-4 years old within 5 years after introduction of the program. Stepwise inclusion of the 5 disease burden categories to a conventional narrow CEA setting reduced the ICER from £360 595 to £18 645-that is, considering the impact of all 5 categories, 4CMenB infant vaccination is cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained.Conclusions: When considering comprehensively the MenB IMD burden, 4CMenB infant vaccination can be cost-effective, a finding contrary to previous CEAs. This analysis allows policy decision-makers globally to infer the impact of current disease burden considerations on the cost-effectiveness and the comprehensive assessment necessary for MenB IMD. Although this comprehensive CEA can help inform decision making today, it may be limited in capturing the full disease burden and complex interactions of health and economics of MenB IMD.
Mirabegron 50 mg appears to be cost-effective compared with standard oral antimuscarinic agents for the treatment of adults with OAB from a UK National Health Service perspective.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.