Evaluation of the pharmacoeconomical effectiveness of triple therapy of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in employees at the large transport company

Introduction. According to the literature, exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a key factor that leads to an increase in the severity of the symptoms of the disease, deterioration of lung function, decreased exercise tolerance and, as a result, contribute to an increase in mortality. The prevention of exacerbations of COPD has social and economic significance and should be a primary task in the treatment of this disease. It is known that the use of fixed combinations improves patients’ adherence to therapy by about 2 times, which, in turn, leads to an increase in the effectiveness of treatment.

The study aims to evaluate the pharmacoeconomical effectiveness of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using the example of a fixed triple combination of budesonide+glycopyrronium bromide+formoterol (BUD/GLI/FORM).

Materials and methods. 698,359 employees of a large transportation company participated in the study. 2,154 of whom had an updated diagnosis of COPD, and 193 cases of COPD were registered for the first time. The authors conducted a clinical and economic analysis taking into account the current recommendations of the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Center for Expertise and Quality Control of Medical Care» of the Ministry of Health, Russian Federation, published in December 2016. The authors have used methods such as cost estimation, budget impact analysis, and cost–effectiveness analysis. To conduct a pharmacoeconomical analysis, the researchers used data from clinical studies comparing the effectiveness of three types of therapy in patients with moderate and severe COPD on an outpatient basis. The cost of comparison drugs is taken from the official website of the state register of maximum selling prices. The researchers analyzed the costs of the employer in accordance with the Recommendations for heads of medical institutions and attending physicians, specialist doctors of the executive bodies of the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation «Approximate terms of temporary disability in the most common diseases and injuries» (in accordance with ICD-10) (approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation dated August 21 2000 No. 2510/9362-34, 02-08/10‑1977P). The authors determined the cost–effectiveness ratio (CER) using the formula: CER=DC/Ef, where DC (direct costs) is the direct cost of medical technology (cost of treatment, rubles); Ef is an indicator of the effectiveness of therapy, which is expressed in the percentage of patients who successfully completed the course, which allows us to evaluate the amount of cost to ensure stable remission in 1 patient.

Results. The results clearly indicate a significant reduction in financial losses of the enterprise for the absence of an employee due to temporary disability (TD) against the background of using a triple combination of BUD/GLI/FORM compared with alternative schemes. The economic effect amounted to more than 124 million rubles compared with the appointment of dual therapy DAX/DBA and more than 61 million rubles compared with the appointment of dual therapy IGCS/DDBA. The assessment of indirect costs in case of potential loss of working capacity and labor productivity as a result of exacerbation of COPD from the point of view of the macroeconomics of the region demonstrated a decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) losses in case of exacerbation and death among patients receiving BUD/GLI/FORM.

Conclusion. BUD/GLI/FORM therapy in a comparative study is dominant, characterized by excellent clinical efficacy and reduced overall costs associated with a decrease in the frequency of moderate and severe exacerbations of COPD.

Ethics. This study was performed in accordance with the rules of good clinical practice and the Helsinki Declaration, and did not require the conclusion of the Ethics Committee.

Contribution:
Rumyantseva O.I. — concept and design of the study, writing, editing;
Kostenko N.A. — collection and processing of material, editing;
Zemlyakova S.S. — collection and processing of material, editing.

Conflict of interests. The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Funding. The study had no funding.

Received: 07.05.2024 / Accepted: 25.06.2024 / Published: 31.07.2024

1. Gambaryan M.G., Kalinina A.M., Shalnova S.A. and others. Epidemiological features of chronic respiratory diseases in different climatogeographic regions of Russia. Pul’monologiya. 2014; (3): 55–61. https://doi.org/10.18093/0869-0189-2014-0-3-55-61. https://journal.pulmonology.ru/pulm/article/view/386

2. Drapkina O.M., Kontsevaya A.V., Mukaneeva D.K., Smirnova M.I., Antsiferova A.A., Lukyanov M.M., Myrzamatov A.O., Mokhovikov G.I., Khudyakov M.B., Avdeev S.N. Forecast of the socio-economic burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Russian Federation in 2022. Pul’monologiya. 2022; 32(4): 507–516. https://doi.org/10.21886/2712-8156-2020-1-1-28-32

3. The incidence of the entire population of Russia in 2019. Statistical materials, Part II. Federal State Budgetary Institution «Central Research Institute of Organization and Informatization of Healthcare» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Moscow. 2020/Clinical recommendations «Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease» 2021 Russian Respiratory Society (RRO).

4. Mathers C.D., Loncar D. Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS. Med. 2006; 3(11): 442. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17132052/

5. Krysanov I.S. Cost analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the Russian Federation. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika. 2014; (2): 51–56. https://clck.ru/3BwFNo

6. Andersson F., Borg S., Jansson S.A. et al. The costs of exacerbations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Respir. Med. 2002; 96(6): 700–708. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12243316/

7. Miravitlles M., Murio C., Guerrero T., Gisbert R. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and COPD. Chest. 2002; 121(5): 1449–1455. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.121.5.1449

8. Halpin D.M., Miravitlles M., Metzdorf N., Celli B. Impact and prevention of severe exacerbations of COPD: a review of the evidence. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon Dis. 2017; 12: 2891–2908. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S139470

9. Russian Respiratory Society. Clinical recommendations. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. 2021. https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/schema/603_2

10. Koretskaya T.D., Pfaff V.F., Chernov O.E. Occupational morbidity in railway transport. Med. truda i prom. ekol. 2015; 1(1): 1–5. https://elibrary.ru/rshrsg

11. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease. 2018 Report. https://clck.ru/3BwF7M

12. López-Campos J.L., Quintana Gallego E., Carrasco Hernández L. Status of and strategies for improving adherence to COPD treatment. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2019; 14: 1503–1515. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S170848

13. Humenberger M., Horner A., Labek A. et al. Adherence to inhaled therapy and its impact on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). BMC Pulm. Med. 2018; 18: 163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-018-0724-3

14. van Boven J.F., Chavannes N.H., van der Molen T. et al. Clinical and economic impact of non-adherence in COPD: a systematic review. Respir. Med. 2014; 108: 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2013.08.044

15. Stempel D.A., Stoloff S.W., Carranza Rosenzweig J.R. et al. Adherence to asthma controller medication regimens. Respir. Med. 2005; 99(10): 1263–1267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2005.03.002

16. Chrischilles E., Gilden D., Kubisiak J. et al. Delivery of ipratropium and albuterol combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: effectiveness of a two-in-one inhaler versus separate inhalers. Am. J. Manag. Care. 2002; 8(10): 902–911.

17. Yu A.P., Guerin A., de Leon D.P. et al. Clinical and economic outcomes of multiple versus single long-acting inhalers in COPD. Respir. Med. 2011; 105(12): 1861–1871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2011.07.001

18. Martinez F., Rabe K., Ferguson G., et al. Reduced all-cause mortality in the ETHOS trial of budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, parallel-group study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020; 203(5): 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202006-2618OC

19. Lipson D.A., Criner G., Criner G. et al. Reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol compared to umeclidinium/vilanterol in IMPACT including previously missing or censored vital status data. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019; 199: A7344 https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201911-2207OC

20. Gary T. Ferguson, Klaus F Rabe, Fernando J. Martinez et al. Article and appendix online content. Lancet Respir Med. 2018; 6: 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(18)30327-8

21. Bourdin A., Molinari N., Ferguson G.T. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol Fumarate versus Other Triple Combinations in COPD: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-analysis. Adv. Ther. 2021; 38: 3089–3112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-021-01703-z

22. The State register of marginal selling prices. https://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/pricelims.aspx

23. Recommendations for heads of medical institutions and attending physicians, specialist doctors of the executive bodies of the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation «Approximate terms of temporary disability in the most common diseases and injuries» (in accordance with ICD-10) (approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation dated August 21, 2000.