IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Healthcare Costs with Tiotropium Plus Usual Care versus Usual Care Alone Following 1 Year of Treatment in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD)

  • Mitchell Friedman

    (Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA)

  • Shailendra S. Menjoge

    (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA)

  • Susan F. Anton

    (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA)

  • Steven Kesten

    (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA)

Registered author(s):

    Background: Healthcare costs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have continued to increase with the increasing prevalence of the disease. New interventions that can reduce the medical costs of COPD are needed. Tiotropium bromide, a once-daily inhaled anticholinergic, has been evaluated in patients with COPD enrolled in two 1-year randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled (usual care) trials which showed the drug reduced exacerbations and improved spirometry, dyspnoea, and health status. Objective: To retrospectively assess the direct costs of medical care for COPD in a US healthcare setting for patients treated with tiotropium in addition to usual care compared with usual care alone over a 1-year timeframe. The study was based on resource utilisation in the two previously described trials. Methods: Resource utilisation and clinical data were prospectively collected for the two 1-year, randomised, double-blind trials of tiotropium plus usual care versus usual care alone (placebo) in 921 patients with COPD. Usual care was defined as any medication for COPD used prior to the trial except anticholinergics and long-acting beta-adrenoceptor agonists. Medical care resource utilisation was recorded at every scheduled visit in each trial. Mean total costs were calculated retrospectively by combining the resources utilised with the appropriate unit costs (1999 US dollars), excluding study drug (tiotropium) costs. Results: Compared with usual care, patients receiving tiotropium in addition to usual care had significantly fewer COPD exacerbations (20% decrease), hospitalisations (44% reduction) and hospital days (50% reduction). Utilisation of resources other than hospitalisation did not differ between study groups. As a consequence, patients receiving tiotropium had significantly lower mean per- Conclusions: As hospitalisation is a large contributor to the cost of COPD, the addition of tiotropium to usual care therapy may have the potential to reduce the economic burden of COPD in a US healthcare setting. However, as our study did not consider the acquisition cost of tiotropium, further economic evaluation including this cost is needed to address whether tiotropium is cost saving compared with usual care (placebo).

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Pay per view

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 22 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 11 ()
    Pages: 741-749

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:22:y:2004:i:11:p:741-749
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:22:y:2004:i:11:p:741-749. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.