Back to Journals » ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research » Volume 8

Cost versus utility of aclidinium bromide 400 μg plus formoterol fumarate dihydrate 12 μg compared to aclidinium bromide 400 μg alone in the management of moderate-to-severe COPD

Authors Ramos M, Haughney J, Henry N, Lindner L, Lamotte M

Received 24 February 2016

Accepted for publication 29 April 2016

Published 12 September 2016 Volume 2016:8 Pages 445—456

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/CEOR.S107121

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 Lorenzo Colombo


Mafalda Ramos,1 John Haughney,2 Nathaniel Henry,3 Leandro Lindner,4 Mark Lamotte1

1Real World Evidence, IMS Health, Zaventem, Belgium; 2Academic Primary Care Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, 3Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Real World Evidence, IMS Health, London, UK; 4AstraZeneca, Barcelona, Spain


Purpose: Aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg is a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting β2-agonist in a fixed-dose combination used in the management of patients with COPD. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg against the long-acting muscarinic antagonist aclidinium bromide 400 µg.
Materials and methods: A five-health-state Markov transition model with monthly cycles was developed using MS Excel to simulate patients with moderate-to-severe COPD and their initial lung-function improvement following treatment with aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg or aclidinium 400 µg. Health states were based on severity levels defined by Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2010 criteria. The analysis was a head-to-head comparison without step-up therapy, from the NHS Scotland perspective, over a 5-year time horizon. Clinical data on initial lung-function improvement were provided by a pooled analysis of the ACLIFORM and AUGMENT trials. Management, event costs, and utilities were health state-specific. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. The outcome of the analysis was expressed as cost (UK£) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The analysis included one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to investigate the impact of parameter uncertainty on model outputs.
Results: Aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg provided marginally higher costs (£41) and more QALYs (0.014), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,976/QALY. Sensitivity analyses indicated that results were robust to key parameter variations, and the main drivers were: mean baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), risk of exacerbation, FEV1 improvement from aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg, and lung-function decline. The probability of aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg being cost-effective (using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY) versus aclidinium 400 µg was 79%.
Conclusion: In Scotland, aclidinium–formoterol 400/12 µg can be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared to aclidinium 400 µg alone in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD.

Keywords: cost-effectiveness, Scotland, Markov model, lung-function improvement, LABA, LAMA

Creative Commons License 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]