The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. (25th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gong, Yinhua; Lin, Chen; Jin, Yifeng; Chen, Rong
• Other Names: Melani Andrea S. Academic Editor.
• Is Part Of: Canadian respiratory journal. Volume 2022(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-08-25
• Subjects: Respiratory organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Respiration -- Canada -- Periodicals; Respiration; Respiratory organs -- Diseases; Canada; Respiratory Tract Diseases -- Periodicals; Periodicals; Periodicals; 616.2
• DOI: 10.1155/2022/2878648
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1198-2241

Abstract

Abstract : Background . Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β 2-agonists (LABAs) are widely used in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A novel LAMA/LABA combination of umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI; 62.5 μ g/25 μ g) is approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) treatment. Objective . This study aimed to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI versus tiotropium (TIO) 18 μ g in symptomatic patients with COPD from the perspective of the Chinese National Healthcare System. Methods . A simple analysis included three studies in the meta-analysis that compared UMEC/VI with TIO. A Markov model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of UMEC/VI compared with TIO treatment in symptomatic patients with COPD. First, utilities, clinical efficacy, and adverse events obtained from the literature were utilized as model inputs. Costs were from Chinese average data, including local data. Costs were expressed in dollars based on 2020 prices. Then, the model outputs including drug costs, other medical costs, and total costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Furthermore, incremental cost-effective ratios (ICERs) were analyzed. Finally, the influences of changing parameters on the uncertainty of the results were assessed by means of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results . This study revealed that UMEC/VI treatment had a higher rate of clinical efficacy in comparison with TIO, and the differences in the rate of adverse events between the two treatments were not significant. The results indicated that UMEC/VI was superior to TIO, which provided an increase in QALYs (0.002) and a total cost savings of $765.67 per patient over 3 years. In the base case, the ICER of UMEC/VI is -$397468.04/QALY compared with TIO, suggesting that UMEC/VI may be considered a dominant option over TIO. According to the Chinese medical system, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 61.6% at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $31554/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust. Conclusion . UMEC/VI could be considered a cost-effective treatment compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Chinese National Healthcare System perspective. These results may help decision-makers in China when making judgements on which treatments to administer.