COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES OF UMECLIDINIUM BROMIDE 62.5 MCG VERSUS GLYCOPYRRONIUM 44 MCG AND UMECLIDINIUM BROMIDE 62.5 MCG VERSUS TIOTROPIUM 18 MCG IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE IN THE UK
Author(s)
Shah D1, Driessen M2, Risebrough N3, Baker TM4, Naya I5, Lloyd EJ5, Briggs A6, Ismaila A7
1ICON Plc, New York, NY, USA, 2GlaxoSmithKline, London, UK, 3ICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada, 4ICON Health Economics & Epidemiology, New York City, NY, USA, 5GlaxoSmithKline, Brentford, UK, 6Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA, 7GSK, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
OBJECTIVES: Cost effectiveness of once-daily umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) 62.5 mcg was compared with once-daily glycopyrronium (GLY) 44 mcg and once-daily tiotropium (TIO) 18 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. METHODS: A linked-equation model was implemented to estimate COPD progression, associated health-service costs, exacerbation rates, survival and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Statistical risk equations for endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively (Briggs A, et al. Med Decis Making
Conference/Value in Health Info
2017-05, ISPOR 2017, Boston, MA, USA
Value in Health, Vol. 20, No. 5 (May 2017)
Code
PRS15
Topic
Economic Evaluation
Topic Subcategory
Cost-comparison, Effectiveness, Utility, Benefit Analysis
Disease
Respiratory-Related Disorders
Your browser is out-of-date
ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now