Cost-effectiveness analysis: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from the perspective of the Chilean public health system

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorBalmaceda, Carlos
dc.contributor.authorEspinoza, Manuel A.
dc.contributor.authorAbbott, Tomas
dc.contributor.authorPeters, Anne
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T21:12:06Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T21:12:06Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.description.abstractBackground Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an inflammatory lung disease characterized by long-term breathing problems and airflow limitations. International guidelines recommend using bronchodilators like long-acting beta- and muscarinic antagonists, and inhalational corticosteroids. Objectives The cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler triple therapy containing fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) was compared to the treatments Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinio/Vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and Fluticasone Propionate 250 mcg/Salmeterol 25mcg + Tiotropio 18 mcg (FP/SAL/TIO) for patients with COPD from the Chilean public health system perspective. Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, including a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis over a 25-year time horizon. Two scenarios were assessed to study the effect of a 3%-discount for costs and outcomes on FF/UMEC/VI. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI was $10,076/QALY, being a cost-effective alternative to a threshold of one Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc), while versus FP/SAL/TIO the ICER increased to $50,288/QALY, showing to be a non-cost effective alternative to 1 GDPpc, but at a threshold of 3 GDPpc. Conclusion FF/UMEC/VI appears to be a cost-effective intervention for treating COPD compared to FF/VI. However, FF/UMEC/VI compared to FP/SAL/TIO showed an ICER above the threshold of 1 GDPpc, but, in comparison with lower price, the ICER was below 3 GDPpc.
dc.description.funderGlaxoSmithKline
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/14737167.2022.2044308
dc.identifier.eissn1744-8379
dc.identifier.issn1473-7167
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1080/14737167.2022.2044308
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/93644
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:000765619100001
dc.issue.numero5
dc.language.isoen
dc.pagina.final751
dc.pagina.inicio743
dc.revistaExpert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subjectCost-effectiveness analysis
dc.subjectChronic obstructive pulmonary disease
dc.subjectsingle inhaler triple therapy
dc.subjectquality-adjusted life years
dc.subjectChile
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleCost-effectiveness analysis: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from the perspective of the Chilean public health system
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen22
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas