Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective

Shah, D., Driessen, M., Risebrough, N., Baker, T., Naya, I., Briggs, A. and Ismaila, A. S. (2018) Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 16, 17. (doi:10.1186/s12962-018-0101-3) (PMID:29773969) (PMCID:PMC5946544)

[img]
Preview
Text
163082.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

932kB

Abstract

Background: Cost-effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) was compared with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) and once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Methods: A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated healthcare costs, exacerbations rates, life years (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. Treatment effects [mean (standard error)] at 12 weeks on forced expiratory volume in 1 s and St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire score were obtained from the intention-to-treat populations of two head-to-head studies [GSK study identifiers 201316 (NCT02207829) and 201315 (NCT02236611)] which compared UMEC 62.5 mcg with TIO 18 mcg and UMEC 62.5 mcg with GLY 50 mcg, respectively. Treatment costs reflect UK list prices (2016) and NHS unit costs; UMEC and GLY prices being equal and less than TIO. A lifetime horizon, discounted costs and effects at 3.5% were used. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of variations in input parameters and assumptions in the model. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, UMEC was predicted to increase LYs (+ 0.195; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.069, 0.356) and QALYs (+ 0.118; 95% CI: 0.055, 0.191) and reduce the number of annual exacerbations (− 0.053; 95% CI: − 0.171, 0.028) compared with TIO, with incremental cost savings of £460/patient (95% CI: − £645, − £240). Compared with GLY, UMEC increased LYs (+ 0.124; 95% CI: 0.015, 0.281) and QALYs (+ 0.101; 95% CI: 0.043, 0.179) and reduced annual exacerbation (− 0.033; 95% CI: − 0.135, 0.017) at an additional cost of £132/patient (95% CI: £12, £330), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1310/QALY (95% CI: £284, £2060). Similar results were observed in alternative time horizons and additional sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: For treatment of patients with COPD in the UK over a lifetime horizon, treatment with UMEC dominates treatment with TIO, providing both improved health outcomes and cost savings. In comparison with GLY, treatment with UMEC achieved improved health outcomes but was associated with a higher cost. Trial registration 201316, NCT02207829; 201315, NCT02236611.

Item Type:Articles
Additional Information:This study was funded by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK; Study Number HO-14-8059).
Keywords:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, cost-effectiveness, economic evaluation, long-acting muscarinic antagonist.
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Briggs, Professor Andrew
Authors: Shah, D., Driessen, M., Risebrough, N., Baker, T., Naya, I., Briggs, A., and Ismaila, A. S.
College/School:College of Medical Veterinary and Life Sciences > Institute of Health and Wellbeing > Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment
Journal Name:Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation
Publisher:BioMed Central
ISSN:1478-7547
ISSN (Online):1478-7547
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2018 The Authors
First Published:First published in Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 16: 17
Publisher Policy:Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record