IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i5d10.1007_s40258-022-00732-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic Evaluation of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate for the Treatment of Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China Using a Semi-Markov Model

Author

Listed:
  • Jia Liu

    (Tianjin University
    Tianjin University)

  • Xiaoning He

    (Tianjin University
    Tianjin University)

  • Jing Wu

    (Tianjin University
    Tianjin University)

Abstract

Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic respiratory disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BGF) is a newly approved pharmacotherapy for COPD in China that has been shown to improve lung function and reduce the risk of exacerbations, but the cost-effectiveness of BGF remains unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of BGF in patients with moderate to very severe COPD from a Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods A semi-Markov model was developed to compare the costs and benefit of treatment with BGF versus a composite comparator of long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist (LAMA/LABA) therapies. Clinical inputs for BGF and the composite comparator were based on the KRONOS study (NCT02497001) and a network meta-analysis. Cost inputs were derived from published literature and Chinese government documents, supplemented by expert opinion where necessary. Health-related quality-of-life inputs were also obtained based on the KRONOS study. Lifetime costs, number of exacerbations, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Costs were measured in 2020 Chinese Yuan (CN¥) and converted into US dollars (US$). Scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results Over the lifetime horizon, BGF treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (4.01 and 0.87, respectively) versus the composite comparator (8.42 and 2.04, respectively), with a base-case ICER of CN¥13,685.94 (US$1983.47) per QALY gained. Scenario analyses considering different population and utilities resulted in ICERs ranging from dominant to CN¥13,673.91 (US$1981.73). Extensive sensitivity analyses indicated robust base-case results since all analyses yielded ICERs below the conservative cost-effectiveness threshold of one times the Chinese per capita gross domestic product (CN¥72,447.00 [US$10,499.57], 2020). Conclusion Triple therapy with BGF was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option compared with LAMA/LABA therapies for patients with moderate to very severe COPD in China.

Suggested Citation

  • Jia Liu & Xiaoning He & Jing Wu, 2022. "Economic Evaluation of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/Glycopyrrolate/Formoterol Fumarate for the Treatment of Moderate to Very Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in China Using a Semi-Markov," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(5), pages 743-755, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00732-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-022-00732-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-022-00732-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-022-00732-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40258-022-00732-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.