IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v15y2025i1d10.1186_s13561-025-00640-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-inhaler extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide against other SITTs in adult patients with uncontrolled asthma in England

Author

Listed:
  • Ioanna Vlachaki

    (Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.)

  • Simon Donhauser

    (Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.)

  • Alessandra Madoni

    (Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.)

  • Marielle Deijl

    (Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A.)

  • Yuvraj Sharma

    (IQVIA Ltd)

  • Dimitrios Tzelis

    (IQVIA Ltd)

  • Ines Guerra

    (IQVIA Ltd)

Abstract

Background In patients with asthma uncontrolled by a medium or high-strength (MS/HS) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) via single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). Evidence has previously been published on the cost-effectiveness of a SITT extra fine formulation of beclomethasone, formoterol and glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) vs. dual ICS/LABA combination, using data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER). However, there is limited evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of SITTs. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY versus other SITTs, in the UK setting. Methods Markov cohort state-transition model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY Medium Strength (MS) vs. fluticasone, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) MS and, BDP/FOR/GLY High Strength vs. FF/UMEC/VI HS and vs. indacaterol acetate, glycopyrronium bromide, and mometasone (IND/GLY/MF) HS. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate comparative efficacy of BDP/FOR/GLY against other SITTs. The model analyzed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (NMB), and was developed from the perspective of England National Health Service (NHS) and Prescribed Specialized Services expenditure (2022 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results BDP/FOR/GLY MS was projected to be a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI MS (£5,121 less costly, gained 0.065 additional QALYs). Similarly, BDP/FOR/GLY HS was a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI HS (£143, 0.003 additional QALYs) and IND/GLY/MF HS (£692 less costly, gained 0.023 additional QALYs). BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS had 77.1%, 51.3%, and 61.2% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs. FF/UMEC/VI MS, FF/UMEC/VI HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS at the defined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively. Conclusions BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS were a dominant treatment alternative compared with FF/UMEC/VI, both MS and HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS in patients with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioanna Vlachaki & Simon Donhauser & Alessandra Madoni & Marielle Deijl & Yuvraj Sharma & Dimitrios Tzelis & Ines Guerra, 2025. "A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-inhaler extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide against other SITTs in adult patients with uncontrolled asthma in England," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00640-9
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-025-00640-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-025-00640-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-025-00640-9?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
    ---><---

    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:hecrev:v:15:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-025-00640-9. 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/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.