Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model. METHODS: The model was implemented...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Punekar, Yogesh Suresh, Roberts, Graeme, Ismaila, Afisi, O’Leary, Martin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26692823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-015-0048-6
_version_ 1782405252922736640
author Punekar, Yogesh Suresh
Roberts, Graeme
Ismaila, Afisi
O’Leary, Martin
author_facet Punekar, Yogesh Suresh
Roberts, Graeme
Ismaila, Afisi
O’Leary, Martin
author_sort Punekar, Yogesh Suresh
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model. METHODS: The model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. For the selected timeframe (1–40 years) and probabilistic analysis, model outputs included disaggregated costs, total costs, exacerbations, life-years and QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis of tiotropium comparator trials estimated treatment effect of UMEC/VI as 92.17 mL (95 % confidence interval: 61.52, 122.82) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s. With this benefit, UMEC/VI resulted in an estimated annual exacerbation reduction of 0.04 exacerbations/patient and 0.36 life years gained compared to tiotropium over patient lifetime. With an additional 0.18 QALYs/patient and an additional lifetime cost of £372/patient at price parity, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared to tiotropium was £2088/QALY. This ICER increased to £17,541/QALY when price of UMEC/VI was increased to that of indacaterol plus tiotropium in separate inhalers. The ICER improved when model duration was reduced from patient lifetime to 1 or 5 years, or when treatment effect was assumed to last for 12 months following treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI can be considered a cost-effective alternative to tiotropium at a certain price. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-015-0048-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4676898
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46768982015-12-13 Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK Punekar, Yogesh Suresh Roberts, Graeme Ismaila, Afisi O’Leary, Martin Cost Eff Resour Alloc Research BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model. METHODS: The model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. For the selected timeframe (1–40 years) and probabilistic analysis, model outputs included disaggregated costs, total costs, exacerbations, life-years and QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Random-effects meta-analysis of tiotropium comparator trials estimated treatment effect of UMEC/VI as 92.17 mL (95 % confidence interval: 61.52, 122.82) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s. With this benefit, UMEC/VI resulted in an estimated annual exacerbation reduction of 0.04 exacerbations/patient and 0.36 life years gained compared to tiotropium over patient lifetime. With an additional 0.18 QALYs/patient and an additional lifetime cost of £372/patient at price parity, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared to tiotropium was £2088/QALY. This ICER increased to £17,541/QALY when price of UMEC/VI was increased to that of indacaterol plus tiotropium in separate inhalers. The ICER improved when model duration was reduced from patient lifetime to 1 or 5 years, or when treatment effect was assumed to last for 12 months following treatment initiation. CONCLUSION: UMEC/VI can be considered a cost-effective alternative to tiotropium at a certain price. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12962-015-0048-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC4676898/ /pubmed/26692823 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-015-0048-6 Text en © Punekar et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Punekar, Yogesh Suresh
Roberts, Graeme
Ismaila, Afisi
O’Leary, Martin
Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title_full Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title_short Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK
title_sort cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the uk
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676898/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26692823
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12962-015-0048-6
work_keys_str_mv AT punekaryogeshsuresh costeffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolcombinationtherapycomparedtotiotropiummonotherapyamongsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseintheuk
AT robertsgraeme costeffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolcombinationtherapycomparedtotiotropiummonotherapyamongsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseintheuk
AT ismailaafisi costeffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolcombinationtherapycomparedtotiotropiummonotherapyamongsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseintheuk
AT olearymartin costeffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolcombinationtherapycomparedtotiotropiummonotherapyamongsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydiseaseintheuk