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

Abstract

Background: 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.