Abstract
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Budesonide/Glycopyrronium/Formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) versus LAMA/LABA and ICS/LABA, respectively, in patients with moderate to severe COPD, from the Spanish National Healthcare System (NHS) perspective. A lifetime Markov model with monthly cycle length was developed with baseline and treatment effect data from ETHOS clinical trial, together with utility values from literature and Spanish healthcare resource costs (€, 2021). A 3% annual discount rate was used for costs and benefits. The model comprised ten health states: nine forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)-related, which were divided by three levels of severity: moderate (FEV1 ≥50% and <80%); severe (FEV1 ≥30% and <50%) and very severe (FEV1 <30%) and a death state. Each FEV1-health state was divided into no exacerbation, moderate exacerbation, and severe exacerbations. An expert panel validated data and assumptions. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost per exacerbation avoided, per life year (LY) gained, and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (ICUR). One-way (OWSA), scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. According to this cost-effectiveness analysis based on a Markov model, BUD/GLY/FOR was associated with a lower totals exacerbation per patient (12.80) compared to LAMA/LABA (13.36) and ICS/LABA (13.23) and higher LYs (10.32 vs 10.14 and 10.06, respectively) and QALYs (7.55 vs 7.41 and 7.32, respectively). The incremental costs were €850.95, and €2422.26, respectively, per exacerbation avoided, €2733.38 and €4111.15, respectively, per LY gained and €3461.19 and €4545.24 per QALY gained. OWSA showed that the model was most sensitive to the costs of treatments following discontinuation, but the ICUR remained below the cost-effectiveness threshold of €25,000 per QALY gained. In the PSA, the probability of BUD/GLY/FOR being cost-effective was 91.32% vs LAMA/LABA and 99.29% vs ICS/LABA. BUD/GLY/FOR is a cost-effective treatment strategy for Spanish NHS patients with COPD compared to dual therapies.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
