What is the impact of GOLD 2017 recommendations in primary care? – a descriptive study of patient classifications, treatment burden and costs

Abstract

Purpose

The changes in grading of disease severity and treatment recommendations for patients with COPD in the 2017 GOLD strategy may present an opportunity for reducing treatment burden for the patients and costs to the health care system. The aim of this study was to assess the implications of the GOLD 2017 grading system in terms of change in distribution across GOLD groups A–D for existing patients in UK primary care and estimate the potential cost savings of implementing GOLD 2017 treatment recommendations in UK primary care.

Patients and methods

Using electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), patients aged ≥35 years with spirometry-confirmed COPD, receiving care during 2016, were included. The cohort was graded according to the GOLD 2017 groups (A–D), and treatment costs were calculated, according to corresponding recommendations, to observe the difference in actual vs predicted costs.

Results

When applying GOLD 2013 criteria, less than half of the cohort (46%) was assigned to GOLD A or B, as compared to 86% when applying the GOLD 2017 grading. The actual mean annual maintenance treatment cost was £542 per patient vs a predicted £389 for treatment according to the 2017 GOLD strategy.

Conclusion

There is a potential to make significant cost savings by implementing the grading and treatment recommendations from the 2017 GOLD strategy.

Keywords:

• COPD
• GOLD
• severity
• economics

View correction statement:

What is the impact of GOLD 2017 recommendations in primary care? – a descriptive study of patient classifications, treatment burden and costs [Erratum]

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd.

Author contributions

All the authors contributed to the conception or design of the work or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work. KM and SD contributed to the costing methods. AG and CP contributed to the analysis. All the authors contributed to the interpretation of data and reviewed the manuscript. All the authors have been involved in drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content and have approved the final version to be published. Finally, all the authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Disclosure

AG, SD, KM and CP are employees of Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd. JV has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Chiesi and Novartis within the last 3 years for advising and presenting. AGM has received honoraria from Boehringer-Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline within the last 3 years. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work.