Limits...
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination tiotropium – olodaterol for patients with COPD in the Netherlands

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination (FDC) of tiotropium and olodaterol showed increased effectiveness regarding lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with the use of its mono-components. Yet, while effectiveness and safety have been shown, the health economic implication of this treatment is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost–utility and budget impact of tiotropium–olodaterol FDC in patients with moderate to very severe COPD in the Netherlands.

Patients and methods: A cost–utility study was performed, using an individual-level Markov model. To populate the model, individual patient-level data (age, height, sex, COPD duration, baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second) were obtained from the tiotropium–olodaterol TOnado trial. In the model, forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-level data were extrapolated to utility and survival, and treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol FDC was compared with tiotropium. Cost–utility analysis was performed from the Dutch health care payer’s perspective using a 15-year time horizon in the base-case analysis. The standard Dutch discount rates were applied (costs: 4.0%; effects: 1.5%). Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Budget impact was annually assessed over a 5-year time horizon, taking into account different levels of medication adherence.

Results: As a result of cost increases, combined with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains, results showed that tiotropium–olodaterol FDC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7,004/QALY. Without discounting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €5,981/QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Budget impact was estimated at €4.3 million over 5 years assuming 100% medication adherence. Scenarios with 40%, 60%, and 80% adherence resulted in lower 5-year incremental cost increases of €1.7, €2.6, and €3.4 million, respectively.

Conclusion: Tiotropium–olodaterol FDC can be considered a cost-effective treatment under current Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds.

No MeSH data available.


Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (100 iterations).Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life-year; Tio, Tiotropium; Olo, Olodaterol.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036592&req=5

f1-copd-11-2191: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (100 iterations).Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life-year; Tio, Tiotropium; Olo, Olodaterol.

Mentions: In Figure 1, the PSA is shown. Treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol, as well as tiotropium alone, resulted in both cost increases and QALY gains, although differences were marginal. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed (Figure 2).


Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination tiotropium – olodaterol for patients with COPD in the Netherlands
Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (100 iterations).Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life-year; Tio, Tiotropium; Olo, Olodaterol.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036592&req=5

f1-copd-11-2191: Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (100 iterations).Abbreviations: QALYs, quality-adjusted life-year; Tio, Tiotropium; Olo, Olodaterol.
Mentions: In Figure 1, the PSA is shown. Treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol, as well as tiotropium alone, resulted in both cost increases and QALY gains, although differences were marginal. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve was constructed (Figure 2).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Purpose: The fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination (FDC) of tiotropium and olodaterol showed increased effectiveness regarding lung function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with the use of its mono-components. Yet, while effectiveness and safety have been shown, the health economic implication of this treatment is still unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the cost–utility and budget impact of tiotropium–olodaterol FDC in patients with moderate to very severe COPD in the Netherlands.

Patients and methods: A cost–utility study was performed, using an individual-level Markov model. To populate the model, individual patient-level data (age, height, sex, COPD duration, baseline forced expiratory volume in 1 second) were obtained from the tiotropium–olodaterol TOnado trial. In the model, forced expiratory volume in 1 second and patient-level data were extrapolated to utility and survival, and treatment with tiotropium–olodaterol FDC was compared with tiotropium. Cost–utility analysis was performed from the Dutch health care payer’s perspective using a 15-year time horizon in the base-case analysis. The standard Dutch discount rates were applied (costs: 4.0%; effects: 1.5%). Both univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Budget impact was annually assessed over a 5-year time horizon, taking into account different levels of medication adherence.

Results: As a result of cost increases, combined with quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains, results showed that tiotropium–olodaterol FDC had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7,004/QALY. Without discounting, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €5,981/QALY. Results were robust in univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Budget impact was estimated at €4.3 million over 5 years assuming 100% medication adherence. Scenarios with 40%, 60%, and 80% adherence resulted in lower 5-year incremental cost increases of €1.7, €2.6, and €3.4 million, respectively.

Conclusion: Tiotropium–olodaterol FDC can be considered a cost-effective treatment under current Dutch cost-effectiveness thresholds.

No MeSH data available.