PurposeFrequent exacerbations which are both costly and potentially life-threatening are a major concern to patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), despite the availability of several treatment options. This study aimed to assess the lifetime costs and outcomes associated with alternative treatment regimens for patients with severe COPD in the UK setting.Patients and methodsA Markov cohort model was developed to predict lifetime costs, outcomes, and cost-effectiveness of various combinations of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA), a long-acting beta agonist (LABA), an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), and roflumilast in a fully incremental analysis. Patients willing and able to take ICS, and those refusing or intolerant to ICS were analyzed separately. Efficacy was expressed as relative rate ratios of COPD exacerbation associated with alternative treatment regimens, taken from a mixed treatment comparison. The analysis was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Parameter uncertainty was explored using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ResultsBased on the results of the fully incremental analysis a cost-effectiveness frontier was determined, indicating those treatment regimens which represent the most cost-effective use of NHS resources. For ICS-tolerant patients the cost-effectiveness frontier suggested LAMA as initial treatment. Where patients continue to exacerbate and additional therapy is required, LAMA + LABA/ICS can be a cost-effective option, followed by LAMA + LABA/ICS + roflumilast (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] versus LAMA + LABA/ICS: £16,566 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] gained). The ICER in ICS-intolerant patients, comparing LAMA + LABA + roflumilast versus LAMA + LABA, was £13,764/QALY gained. The relative rate ratio of exacerbations was identified as the primary driver of cost-effectiveness.ConclusionThe treatment algorithm recommended in UK clinical practice represents a costeffective approach for the management of COPD. The addition of roflumilast to the standard of care regimens is a clinical and cost-effective treatment option for patients with severe COPD, who continue to exacerbate despite existing bronchodilator therapy.

PurposePrevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains an important goal for patients receiving chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to define, from the UK payer perspective, the cost-effectiveness of an antiemetic regimen using aprepitant, a selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, for patients receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.MethodsA decision-analytic model was developed to compare an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant, ondansetron, and dexamethasone) with a standard UK antiemetic regimen (ondansetron, dexamethasone, and metoclopramide) for expected costs and health outcomes after single-day adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. The model was populated with results from patients with breast cancer participating in a randomized trial of CINV preventative therapy for cycle 1 of single-day chemotherapy.ResultsDuring 5 days after chemotherapy, 64% of patients receiving the aprepitant regimen and 47% of those receiving the UK comparator regimen had a complete response to antiemetic therapy (no emesis and no rescue antiemetic therapy). A mean of £37.11 (78%) of the cost of aprepitant was offset by reduced health care resource utilization costs. The predicted gain in quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALYs) with the aprepitant regimen was 0.0048. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) with aprepitant, relative to the UK comparator, was £10,847/QALY, which is well below the threshold commonly accepted in the UK of £20,000–£30,000/QALY.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that aprepitant is cost-effective for preventing CINV associated with chemotherapy for patients with breast cancer in the UK health care setting.

ObjectivesCombined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) are the most widely prescribed contraceptive methods in the UK; however, their use is associated with significant cardiovascular risk for women with some medical conditions and risk factors. The objective of this study was to assess the potential change in CHC prescribing among higher-risk women following publication of the UK Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (UKMEC) in 2006.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted using the General Practice Research Database to analyse UK women aged 15–49 years who were prescribed CHCs during the period 2004–2010. Of women prescribed CHCs, those at higher risk of cardiovascular events (with UKMEC Category 3 or 4 risk factors) were identified. The percentage of higher-risk CHC users, among all CHC users, in 2005 (pre-UKMEC) was compared to that in 2010 (post-UKMEC).ResultsThe percentage of higher-risk CHC users significantly decreased by 0.8% (95% CI 0.68% to 1.02%) following publication of UKMEC [8.1% (95% CI 7.98% to 8.22%) in 2005 vs 7.3% (95% CI 7.14% to 7.38%) in 2010; p<0.001]. However, an estimated 1 74 472 women in the UK were prescribed CHCs in 2010 despite having Category 3 or 4 risk factors. The most common Category 3 or 4 risk factors were body mass index ≥35 kg/m2, hypertension and smoking in women aged ≥35 years.ConclusionsDespite the observed reduction in prescribing of CHCs to higher-risk women after publication of UKMEC, a large number of women with Category 3 or 4 risk factors are still prescribed CHCs. The increased risk of cardiovascular events is unnecessary for many of these women given the availability of alternative contraceptive methods.

No abstract

No abstract