Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective

Respir Res. 2018 Nov 20;19(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s12931-018-0916-7.

Abstract

Background: A head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) versus once-daily tiotropium/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis evaluated the cost effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO from a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective, using data from this study and Spanish literature.

Methods: This analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV1 was obtained from the head-to-head study and used in the model (UMEC/VI minus TIO/OLO difference: + 52 mL [95% confidence interval: 28, 77]). Baseline patient characteristics were sourced from Spanish literature or the head-to-head study if unavailable. A scenario analysis using only the intent-to-treat (ITT) population from the head-to-head study, and sensitivity analyses (including probabilistic sensitivity analyses), were conducted. Direct healthcare costs (2017 Euro) were obtained from Spanish sources and costs and benefits were discounted at 3% per annum.

Results: UMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

Conclusion: UMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) treatments can be considered cost effective in Spain.

Keywords: Bronchodilators; Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Health resources; LAMA/LABA; National Healthcare System perspective; QALY; Spain; Utility.

Publication types

  • Observational Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Benzoxazines / administration & dosage
  • Benzoxazines / economics*
  • Benzyl Alcohols / administration & dosage
  • Benzyl Alcohols / economics*
  • Chlorobenzenes / administration & dosage
  • Chlorobenzenes / economics*
  • Cost-Benefit Analysis / methods*
  • Cross-Over Studies
  • Drug Combinations
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • National Health Programs / economics*
  • Prospective Studies
  • Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / drug therapy
  • Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / economics*
  • Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive / epidemiology
  • Quinuclidines / administration & dosage
  • Quinuclidines / economics*
  • Single-Blind Method
  • Spain / epidemiology
  • Tiotropium Bromide / administration & dosage
  • Tiotropium Bromide / economics*

Substances

  • Benzoxazines
  • Benzyl Alcohols
  • Chlorobenzenes
  • Drug Combinations
  • GSK573719
  • Quinuclidines
  • tiotropium-olodaterol
  • vilanterol
  • Tiotropium Bromide