IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharme/v37y2019i3d10.1007_s40273-019-00767-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost Effectiveness of Inhaled Mannitol (Bronchitol®) in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis

Author

Listed:
  • Emma Warren

    (HERA Consulting Australia Pty Ltd)

  • Kristen Morgan

    (Pharmaxis Ltd)

  • Toby J. Toward

    (Pharmaxis Ltd
    Henley Health Economics)

  • Matthias Schwenkglenks

    (University of Basel)

  • Joanna Leadbetter

    (Pharmaxis Ltd)

Abstract

Background Inhaled mannitol (Bronchitol®) is licensed in Australia as a safe and efficacious addition to best supportive care in patients with cystic fibrosis. Objective The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of inhaled mannitol (in addition to best supportive care) in the Australian setting from the perspective of a government-funded national healthcare system. Methods A probabilistic patient-level simulation Markov model estimated life-time costs and outcomes of mannitol when added to best supportive care, compared with best supportive care alone in patients aged 6 years and older. We estimated treatment-related inputs (initial change in percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume, relative reduction in severe pulmonary exacerbations, and treatment discontinuations) from two phase III trials. Longer term natural history rates of predicted forced expiratory volume decline over time and severe pulmonary exacerbation rates for best supportive care were taken from Australian CF registries. The utility value for the cystic fibrosis health state was as measured in the trials using the Health Utility Index, whereas the impact of pulmonary exacerbations and lung transplantation on utility was ascertained from the published literature. The underlying cost of managing cystic fibrosis, and the cost associated with pulmonary exacerbations and transplantations was taken from published Australian sources. Results The addition of inhaled mannitol to best supportive care resulted in a discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year of AU$39,165. The result was robust with 77% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis samples below a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$45,000/quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusion Benchmarked against an implicit Australian willingness-to-pay threshold for life-threatening diseases, our model suggests inhaled mannitol provides a cost-effective addition to best supportive care in patients with cystic fibrosis, irrespective of concomitant dornase alfa use.

Suggested Citation

  • Emma Warren & Kristen Morgan & Toby J. Toward & Matthias Schwenkglenks & Joanna Leadbetter, 2019. "Cost Effectiveness of Inhaled Mannitol (Bronchitol®) in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(3), pages 435-446, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00767-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00767-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-019-00767-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40273-019-00767-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:37:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-019-00767-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.