论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
乌美溴铵/维兰特罗对比沙美特罗/氟替卡松在中国老年慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者中的成本效益
Authors Lan Y, Yang N, Wang Y, Yang Y, Xu M, He Q
Received 26 November 2021
Accepted for publication 12 March 2022
Published 22 March 2022 Volume 2022:17 Pages 609—619
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S350218
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Richard Russell
Background: Fixed dose dual bronchodilators such as long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs) plus long-acting β 2-agonists (LABAs) are a new and important inhaled preparation for COPD treatment in China. Among these, umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VIL) is increasingly being used in China, especially among the elderly.
Purpose: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of maintenance treatment with UMEC/VIL compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (FSC) as one of the main therapeutic drugs for moderate to very severe COPD in China.
Methods: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and outcomes from a societal perspective in a 10-year time horizon. Patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD were treated with UMEC/VIL (62.5/25μg) or FSC (50/500ug). Data concerning clinical efficacy, costs, utilities, transition probability, exacerbation rate, and mortality were obtained from the published literature and official government datasets. The costs were presented in US dollars based on 2021 prices. The indicators of total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and mortality were used as the model output. Costs and outcomes were discounted at a 5% annual rate. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated considering the threshold recommended by WHO. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the stability of results.
Results: Compared with FSC, treatment with UMEC/VIL could save $1947.18, with a gain of 0.12 life-years and 0.05 QALYs. Further, 28.0% patients treated with UMEC/VIL and 29.2% patients treated with FSC were predicted to die after 10 years. Incremental cost effectiveness analysis showed that UMEC/VIL was dominant to FSC. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the results were robust.
Conclusion: UMEC/VIL is a cost-effective treatment option compared with FSC among patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD.
Keywords: umeclidinium, vilanterol, salmeterol, fluticasone, cost-effectiveness, COPD, Markov