The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Background. Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-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 μg/25 μg) is approved for chronic obstructive pulm...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yinhua Gong, Chen Lin, Yifeng Jin, Rong Chen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Hindawi Limited 2022-01-01
Series:Canadian Respiratory Journal
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2878648
_version_ 1826999978272227328
author Yinhua Gong
Chen Lin
Yifeng Jin
Rong Chen
author_facet Yinhua Gong
Chen Lin
Yifeng Jin
Rong Chen
author_sort Yinhua Gong
collection DOAJ
description Background. Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-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 μg/25 μg) 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 μg 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.
first_indexed 2024-04-11T11:31:12Z
format Article
id doaj.art-2fca8d3d53d24a24a3d9dbf1c2d2c0a7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1916-7245
language English
last_indexed 2025-02-18T10:38:31Z
publishDate 2022-01-01
publisher Hindawi Limited
record_format Article
series Canadian Respiratory Journal
spelling doaj.art-2fca8d3d53d24a24a3d9dbf1c2d2c0a72024-11-02T05:28:46ZengHindawi LimitedCanadian Respiratory Journal1916-72452022-01-01202210.1155/2022/2878648The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary DiseaseYinhua Gong0Chen Lin1Yifeng Jin2Rong Chen3Department of PharmacyDepartment of PharmacyDepartment of General PracticeDepartment of PharmacyBackground. Both long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) and long-acting β2-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 μg/25 μg) 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 μg 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.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2878648
spellingShingle Yinhua Gong
Chen Lin
Yifeng Jin
Rong Chen
The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Canadian Respiratory Journal
title The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
title_full The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
title_fullStr The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
title_full_unstemmed The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
title_short The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
title_sort efficacy and cost effectiveness of umeclidinium vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/2878648
work_keys_str_mv AT yinhuagong theefficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT chenlin theefficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT yifengjin theefficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT rongchen theefficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT yinhuagong efficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT chenlin efficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT yifengjin efficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease
AT rongchen efficacyandcosteffectivenessofumeclidiniumvilanterolversustiotropiuminsymptomaticpatientswithchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease