Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 35, Issue 6, pp 647–659 | Cite as

An Early Health Economic Analysis of the Potential Cost Effectiveness of an Adherence Intervention to Improve Outcomes for Patients with Cystic Fibrosis

  • Paul TappendenEmail author
  • Susannah Sadler
  • Martin Wildman
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Cystic fibrosis (CF) negatively impacts upon health-related quality of life and survival. Adherence to nebulised treatments is low; improving adherence is hypothesised to reduce rates of exacerbation requiring intravenous antibiotics and lung function decline.

Objective

A state transition model was developed to assess the cost effectiveness of an intervention aimed at increasing patient adherence to nebulised and inhaled antibiotics compared with current CF care, in advance of the forthcoming CFHealthHub randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

The model estimated the costs and health outcomes for each option from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a lifetime horizon. Health gains were valued in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) trajectories were predicted over three lung function strata: (1) FEV1 ≥70%, (2) FEV1 40–69% and (3) FEV1 <40%. Additional states were included to represent ‘post-lung transplantation’ and ‘dead’. The model was populated using CF Registry data, literature and expert opinion. Costs were presented at 2016 values. Uncertainty was assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Results

If effective, the adherence intervention is expected to produce an additional 0.19 QALYs and cost savings of £64,078 per patient. Across all analyses, the intervention dominated current care. Over a 5-year period, the intervention is expected to generate cost savings of £49.5 million for the estimated 2979 patients with CF with Pseudomonas aeruginosa currently aged ≥16 years in the UK. If applied to a broader population of adult patients with CF receiving any nebulised therapy, the expected savings could be considerably greater.

Conclusions

If effective, the adherence intervention is expected to produce additional health gains at a lower cost than current CF care. However, the economic analysis should be revisited upon completion of the full RCT. More generally, the analysis suggests that considerable gains could be accrued through the implementation of adherence interventions that shift care from expensive hospital-based rescue to community-based prevention.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study represents an early evaluation undertaken as part of the CFHealthHub ACtiF programme, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme (grant number RP-PG-1212-20015). The authors thank the CF Registry for providing access to data.

Author Contributions

Paul Tappenden developed the health economic model. Susannah Sadler undertook the analyses of the CF Registry dataset. Martin Wildman advised on the design of the study and the evidence used to inform the model. All authors contributed to the preparation of this manuscript. Paul Tappenden will act as the overall guarantor for this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

Dr Wildman has received support from Pari to speak at conferences about the importance of adherence and to travel to meetings with Pari about setting up a trial to understand whether increasing adherence improves outcomes in CF. He has also received funding from Philips to support research using the Ineb nebuliser to understand how the device can be used to measure adherence and received speaker fees from Forest to give independent talks at CF meetings around the UK about the importance of adherence. Paul Tappenden and Susannah Sadler have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Cystic Fibrosis Trust. UK cystic fibrosis registry 2015 annual data report, pp. 1–66. Kent: CF Trust; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davies JC, Alton EWFW, Bush A. Cystic fibrosis. BMJ. 2007;335:1255–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cystic Fibrosis Trust. Antibiotic treatment for cystic fibrosis. Report of the UK Cystic Fibrosis Trust Antibiotic Working Group, pp. 1–102. London: CF Trust; 2009.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sawicki GS, Sellers DE, Robinson WM. High treatment burden in adults with cystic fibrosis: challenges to self-management. J Cyst Fibros. 2009;8(2):91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Quittner AL, Zhang J, Marynchenko M, Chopra PA, Signorovitch J, Yushkina Y, et al. Pulmonary medication adherence and healthcare utilization in cystic fibrosis. Chest. 2014;146(1):142–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vrijens B, De Geest S, Hughes DA, Przemyslaw K, Demonceau J, Ruppar T, et al. A new taxonomy for describing and defining adherence to medications. Br J Pharmacol. 2012;73(5):691–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daniels T, Goodacre L, Sutton C, Pollard K, Conway S, Peckham D. Accurate assessment of adherence: self-report and clinician report vs electronic monitoring of nebulizers. Chest. 2011;140(2):425–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoo ZH, Curley R, Campbell MJ, Walters SJ, Hind D, Wildman MJ. Accurate reporting of adherence to inhaled therapies in adults with cystic fibrosis: methods to calculate “normative adherence”. Patient Prefer Adher. 2016;10:1–14.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pugatsch T, Shoseyov D, Cohen-Cymberknoh M, Hayut B, Armoni S, Griese M, et al. Adherence pattern to study drugs in clinical trials by patients with cystic fibrosis. Paediatr Pulmonol. 2016;51(2):143–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Demonceau J, Ruppar T, Kristanto P, Hughes DA, Fargher E, Kardas P, et al. Identification and assessment of adherence-enhancing interventions in studies assessing medication adherence through electronically compiled drug dosing histories: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Drugs. 2013;73:545–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wildman M, O’Cathain A; the ACtiF Study Group. ACtiF - Development and evaluation of an intervention to support adherence to treatment in adults with cystic fibrosis. Study protocol. Sheffield: Sheffield Teaching Hospitals/University of Sheffield; 2016. pp. 1–57. https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.688928!/file/CFHealthHubRCTProtocolv1.213Feb17.pdf.
  12. 12.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tappenden P, Harnan S, Uttley L, Mildred M, Carroll C, Cantrell A. Colistimethate sodium powder and tobramycin powder for inhalation for the treatment of chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in cystic fibrosis: systematic review and economic model. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(56):1–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tappenden P, Harnan S, Uttley L, Mildred M, Walshaw M, Taylor C, et al. The cost effectiveness of dry powder antibiotics for the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with cystic fibrosis. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(2):159–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cystic Fibrosis Trust. CF registry—individual patient data. 2015 (data on file).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    England NHS. 2016/17 National tariff payment system—monitor report. London: NHSE; 2016. p. 1–90.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elkins MR, Robinson M, Rose BR, Harbour C, Moriarty CP, Marks GB, et al. A controlled trial of long-term inhaled hypertonic saline in patients with cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(3):229–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bradley J, Blume S, Stafford M. Quality of life and health utility in patients with cystic fibrosis. In: European Respiratory Society Conference 2010. http://www.ers-education.org/events/international-congress/barcelona-2010.aspx?idParent=80491.
  19. 19.
    Anyanwu A, McGuire A, Rogers C, Murday A. Assessment of quality of life in lung transplantation using a simple generic tool. Thorax. 2001;56(3):218–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dodge JA, Lewis PA, Stanton M, Wilsher J. Cystic fibrosis mortality and survival in the UK: 1947–2003. Eur Resp J. 2007;29(3):522–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2016.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    UK Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2014/15. London: DoH; 2015.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jung J. Estimating Markov transition probabilities between health states in the HRS dataset. In: Working paper–Towson University. 2006. https://juejung.github.io/papers/markovtransitions.pdf.
  24. 24.
    Döring G, Flume P, Heijerman H, Elborn JS, Consensus Study Group. Treatment of lung infection in patients with cystic fibrosis: current and future strategies. J Cyst Fibros. 2012;11(6):461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Flume PA, Mogayzel PJ Jr, Robinson KA, Goss CH, Rosenblatt RL, Kuhn RJ, et al. Cystic fibrosis pulmonary guidelines: treatment of pulmonary exacerbations. Am J Resp Crit Care Med. 2009;180(9):802–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Guyot P, Ades A, Ouwens MJ, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ScHARRUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldEngland, UK
  2. 2.Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSheffieldEngland, UK

Personalised recommendations