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

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Review of the Evidence and Methodological Issues

  • Maureen P.M.H. Rutten-van Mlken

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment/Institute for Healthcare Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

  • Lucas M.A. Goossens

    (Institute for Medical Technology Assessment/Institute for Healthcare Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands)

Registered author(s):

    Background:Background: Over 200 million people have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) worldwide. The number of disease-year equivalents and deaths attributable to COPD are high. Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of the disease recommend an individualized step-up approach in which treatment is intensified when results are unsatisfactory. Abstract: Objective:Objective: Our objective was to present a systematic review of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment for COPD and to discuss the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the studies. Abstract: Methods:Methods: A systematic literature search for economic evaluations of drug therapy in COPD was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Economic Evaluation Database of the UK NHS (NHS-EED) and the European Network of Health Economic Evaluation Databases (EURONHEED). Full economic evaluations presenting both costs and health outcomes were included. Abstract: Results:Results: A total of 40 studies were included in the review. Of these, 16 were linked to a clinical trial, 14 used Markov models, eight were based on observational data and two used a different approach. The few studies on combining short-acting bronchodilators were consistent in finding net cost savings compared with monotherapy. Studies comparing inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) with placebo or no maintenance treatment reported inconsistent results. Studies comparing fluticasone with salmeterol consistently found salmeterol to be more cost effective. The cost-effectiveness studies of tiotropium versus placebo, ipratropium or salmeterol pointed towards a reduction in total COPD-related healthcare costs for tiotropium in many but not all studies. All of these studies reported additional health benefits of tiotropium. The cost-effectiveness studies of the combination of inhaled long-acting β2-agonists and ICS all report additional health benefits at an increase in total COPD-related costs in most studies. The cost-per-QALY estimates of this combination treatment vary widely and are very sensitive to the assumptions on mortality benefit and time horizon. Abstract: Conclusions:Conclusions: The currently available economic evaluations indicate differences in cost effectiveness between COPD maintenance therapies, but for a more meaningful comparison of results it is important to improve the consistency with respect to study methodology and choice of comparator.

    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): 30 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 4 ()
    Pages: 271-302

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:wkh:phecon:v:30:y:2012:i:4:p:271-302
    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:30:y:2012:i:4:p:271-302. 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.