Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus glycopyrronium in moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Canada, Spain, Sweden, and the UK
Authors Eklund O, Afzal F, Borgström F, Flavin J, Ternouth A, Ojanguren ME, Crespo C, Baldwin M
Received 2 February 2016
Accepted for publication 11 April 2016
Published 11 June 2016 Volume 2016:8 Pages 243—252
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Lucy Goodman
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Giorgio Colombo
Oskar Eklund,1 Faraz Afzal,2 Fredrik Borgström,1 Jason Flavin,3 Andrew Ternouth,4 Maria Eugenia Ojanguren,5 Carlos Crespo,5 Mike Baldwin6
1Quantify Research AB, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Boehringer Ingelheim, Asker, Norway; 3Boehringer Ingelheim, Burlington, ON, Canada; 4Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, Berkshire, UK; 5Boehringer Ingelheim, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Barcelona, Spain; 6Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany
Objectives: Tiotropium (TIO), Spiriva® Handihaler®, is a well-established bronchodilator, LAMA (long acting muscarinic antagonist), for the treatment of moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Clinical evidence from the SPARK trial suggests that TIO is superior to glycopyrronium (GLY), Seebri® Breezhaler®, in terms of severe exacerbations. This modeling study assessed the cost-effectiveness of TIO versus GLY for Canada (CAN), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), and the UK, making use of this new clinical evidence.
Methods: A Markov cohort model, with moderate to very severe (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease II–IV) COPD patients, was populated with efficacy data from the Understanding Potential Long-term Impacts on Function with Tiotropium (UPLIFT) and SPARK trials as well as costs, utilities, and epidemiological data relevant for each country. Treatment efficacy was modeled as improvements in lung function, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and as a lowering of the risk of exacerbations (rate of exacerbations). Risks of exacerbations differed between cohorts based on data from SPARK. Health and cost outcomes were simulated over an approximate lifetime horizon, starting from the age of 65 years. Robustness of results was validated in deterministic sensitivity analyses.
Results: Over the lifetime horizon, patients treated with TIO accumulated −623 (CAN), 1,066 (ESP), 1,137 (SWE), and −169 (UK), respectively, in incremental costs (€2014). TIO generated better health outcomes compared to GLY in all countries, 0.21 (CAN), 0.25 (ESP), 0.23 (SWE), and 0.23 (UK) in incremental QALYs. The cost per QALY gained was found to be €4,281 and €1,137 for ESP and SWE, respectively, while TIO was found to be cost saving in CAN and the UK. The results were mainly driven by the relative risk of severe exacerbations found in SPARK (GLY/TIO relative risk: 1.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.05–1.97, P=0.025).
Conclusion: The results from this study show that TIO is a cost-effective treatment compared to GLY in moderate to very severe COPD. The cost per QALY is well below the existing implicit and explicit willingness-to-pay thresholds.
Keywords: COPD, exacerbations, tiotropium, glycopyrronium, cost-effectiveness, Markov cohort model
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]