Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Advances in Therapy 12/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Bronchial Asthma | Original Research

A Budget Impact Model to Estimate the Environmental Impact of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux

Authors: Gustaf Ortsäter, Fredrik Borgström, Stéphane Soulard, Carolin Miltenburger

Published in: Advances in Therapy | Issue 12/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

The healthcare sector contributes 5–8% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Global and regional organizations and governments have started to design and implement measures to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in the healthcare sector, e.g. by green public procurement policies and inclusion of ecological considerations in the decision-making process for purchasing and funding of healthcare technologies. The objective of this study was to perform budget impact analysis of adopting RESPIMAT re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux that considered both the traditional healthcare costs as well as the environmental impact.

Methods

Inhaler costs and environmental impact over 5 years in the Nordics and Benelux in a scenario with RESPIMAT re-usable compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable were estimated using an budget impact model. RESPIMAT re-usable enables patients to re-use the inhaler device and its availability therefore reduces the number of inhalers and associated wastage. The carbon emissions were derived for each treatment pattern considering the whole life cycle (cradle-to-grave) of the inhaler product. The cost of carbon emissions was estimated using a societal cost per ton of carbon emission.

Results

Progressively introducing RESPIMAT re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux was estimated to decrease the number of inhalers used by 2023 by 7,466,621 compared to a scenario without RESPIMAT re-usable, which would result in a reduction of the environmental burden of inhaler use of 4717 tCO2e and a decrease in societal cost of €205,888.

Conclusions

Adopting RESPIMAT re-usable would lead to a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions, leading to savings from a societal perspective.

Funding

Boehringer Ingelheim.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Yorgancioglu A, et al. The WHO global alliance against chronic respiratory diseases in Turkey (GARD Turkey). Tuberk Toraks. 2009;57(4):439–52.PubMed Yorgancioglu A, et al. The WHO global alliance against chronic respiratory diseases in Turkey (GARD Turkey). Tuberk Toraks. 2009;57(4):439–52.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Fletcher MJ, et al. COPD uncovered: an international survey on the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] on a working age population. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:612.CrossRef Fletcher MJ, et al. COPD uncovered: an international survey on the impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] on a working age population. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:612.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Nunes C, Pereira AM, Morais-Almeida M. Asthma costs and social impact. Asthma Res Pract. 2017;3:1.CrossRef Nunes C, Pereira AM, Morais-Almeida M. Asthma costs and social impact. Asthma Res Pract. 2017;3:1.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kemp L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of corticosteroid inhaler devices in primary care asthma management: a real world observational study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;2:75–85.PubMedPubMedCentral Kemp L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of corticosteroid inhaler devices in primary care asthma management: a real world observational study. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;2:75–85.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Dekhuijzen PN, Lavorini F, Usmani OS. Patients’ perspectives and preferences in the choice of inhalers: the case for Respimat(®) or HandiHaler(®). Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1561–72.CrossRef Dekhuijzen PN, Lavorini F, Usmani OS. Patients’ perspectives and preferences in the choice of inhalers: the case for Respimat(®) or HandiHaler(®). Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1561–72.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Virchow JC, et al. A review of the value of innovation in inhalers for COPD and asthma. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015;3:28760.CrossRef Virchow JC, et al. A review of the value of innovation in inhalers for COPD and asthma. J Mark Access Health Policy. 2015;3:28760.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lavorini F, et al. Asthma and COPD: interchangeable use of inhalers. A document of Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immmunology (SIAAIC) & Italian Society of Respiratory Medicine (SIMeR). Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2015;34:25–30.CrossRef Lavorini F, et al. Asthma and COPD: interchangeable use of inhalers. A document of Italian Society of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immmunology (SIAAIC) & Italian Society of Respiratory Medicine (SIMeR). Pulm Pharmacol Ther. 2015;34:25–30.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lavorini F, et al. Optimising inhaled pharmacotherapy for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the importance of delivery devices. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(7):461–73.CrossRef Lavorini F, et al. Optimising inhaled pharmacotherapy for elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: the importance of delivery devices. Drugs Aging. 2016;33(7):461–73.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Vincken W, et al. The ADMIT series—issues in inhalation therapy. 4) How to choose inhaler devices for the treatment of COPD. Prim Care Respir J. 2010;19(1):10–20.CrossRef Vincken W, et al. The ADMIT series—issues in inhalation therapy. 4) How to choose inhaler devices for the treatment of COPD. Prim Care Respir J. 2010;19(1):10–20.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Hawken N, et al. Patient preferences for dry powder inhaler attributes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in France: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17(1):99.CrossRef Hawken N, et al. Patient preferences for dry powder inhaler attributes in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in France: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17(1):99.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Chouaid C, et al. Patient preference for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment inhalers: a discrete choice experiment in France. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35:1–8.CrossRef Chouaid C, et al. Patient preference for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment inhalers: a discrete choice experiment in France. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019;35:1–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Schurmann W, et al. Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction. Treat Respir Med. 2005;4(1):53–61.CrossRef Schurmann W, et al. Respimat Soft Mist inhaler versus hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler: patient preference and satisfaction. Treat Respir Med. 2005;4(1):53–61.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hodder R, Price D. Patient preferences for inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: experience with Respimat Soft Mist inhaler. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009;4:381–90.CrossRef Hodder R, Price D. Patient preferences for inhaler devices in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: experience with Respimat Soft Mist inhaler. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2009;4:381–90.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Neumann PJ. Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl 1):S28–32.CrossRef Neumann PJ. Costing and perspective in published cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Care. 2009;47(7 Suppl 1):S28–32.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Garrison LP Jr, Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a broader concept of value: identifying and defining elements for an expanded cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health. 2017;20(2):213–6.CrossRef Garrison LP Jr, Kamal-Bahl S, Towse A. Toward a broader concept of value: identifying and defining elements for an expanded cost-effectiveness analysis. Value Health. 2017;20(2):213–6.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Armstrong MJ, Mullins CD. Value assessment at the point of care: incorporating patient values throughout care delivery and a draft taxonomy of patient values. Value Health. 2017;20(2):292–5.CrossRef Armstrong MJ, Mullins CD. Value assessment at the point of care: incorporating patient values throughout care delivery and a draft taxonomy of patient values. Value Health. 2017;20(2):292–5.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Baltussen R, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256–60.CrossRef Baltussen R, et al. Value assessment frameworks for HTA agencies: the organization of evidence-informed deliberative processes. Value Health. 2017;20(2):256–60.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Mandelblatt JS, et al. Evaluating frameworks that provide value measures for health care interventions. Value Health. 2017;20(2):185–92.CrossRef Mandelblatt JS, et al. Evaluating frameworks that provide value measures for health care interventions. Value Health. 2017;20(2):185–92.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Sanders GD, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.CrossRef Sanders GD, et al. Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093–103.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Sculpher M, Claxton K, Pearson SD. Developing a value framework: the need to reflect the opportunity costs of funding decisions. Value Health. 2017;20(2):234–9.CrossRef Sculpher M, Claxton K, Pearson SD. Developing a value framework: the need to reflect the opportunity costs of funding decisions. Value Health. 2017;20(2):234–9.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Sorenson C, et al. Advancing Value assessment in the United States: a multistakeholder perspective. Value Health. 2017;20(2):299–307.CrossRef Sorenson C, et al. Advancing Value assessment in the United States: a multistakeholder perspective. Value Health. 2017;20(2):299–307.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Polisena J, et al. Environmental impact assessment of a health technology: a scoping review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):317–26.CrossRef Polisena J, et al. Environmental impact assessment of a health technology: a scoping review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2018;34(3):317–26.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Gerecke G. Value-based health care: a new framework for smarter procurement starting point: tendering ripe for reshaping in Europe. 2016. Gerecke G. Value-based health care: a new framework for smarter procurement starting point: tendering ripe for reshaping in Europe. 2016.
29.
go back to reference Boehringer Ingelheim. Clinical Evaluation Report. 7. 2016. Boehringer Ingelheim. Clinical Evaluation Report. 7. 2016.
30.
go back to reference Dhand R, et al. Improving usability and maintaining performance: human-factor and aerosol-performance studies evaluating the new reusable Respimat inhaler. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:509–23.CrossRef Dhand R, et al. Improving usability and maintaining performance: human-factor and aerosol-performance studies evaluating the new reusable Respimat inhaler. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2019;14:509–23.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Sullivan SD, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14.CrossRef Sullivan SD, et al. Budget impact analysis-principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 Budget Impact Analysis Good Practice II Task Force. Value Health. 2014;17(1):5–14.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Marsh K, et al. Expanding health technology assessments to include effects on the environment. Value Health. 2016;19(2):249–54.CrossRef Marsh K, et al. Expanding health technology assessments to include effects on the environment. Value Health. 2016;19(2):249–54.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference McCabe H, et al. Prescribing trends of inhaler treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease within a resource-constrained environment in the Scottish National Health Service: findings and implications. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(7):679–89.CrossRef McCabe H, et al. Prescribing trends of inhaler treatments for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease within a resource-constrained environment in the Scottish National Health Service: findings and implications. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2019;13(7):679–89.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Capstick TG, Clifton IJ. Inhaler technique and training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2012;6(1):91–101 (quiz 102–3).CrossRef Capstick TG, Clifton IJ. Inhaler technique and training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2012;6(1):91–101 (quiz 102–3).CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Marsh K, et al. Incorporating environmental outcomes into a health economic model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(6):400–6.CrossRef Marsh K, et al. Incorporating environmental outcomes into a health economic model. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(6):400–6.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Lavorini F, et al. Switching from branded to generic inhaled medications: potential impact on asthma and COPD. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2013;10(12):1597–602.CrossRef Lavorini F, et al. Switching from branded to generic inhaled medications: potential impact on asthma and COPD. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2013;10(12):1597–602.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A Budget Impact Model to Estimate the Environmental Impact of Adopting RESPIMAT® Re-usable in the Nordics and Benelux
Authors
Gustaf Ortsäter
Fredrik Borgström
Stéphane Soulard
Carolin Miltenburger
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Published in
Advances in Therapy / Issue 12/2019
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Electronic ISSN: 1865-8652
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01114-1

Other articles of this Issue 12/2019

Advances in Therapy 12/2019 Go to the issue