MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций
International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD: A German Healthcare Perspective.

СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Beeh Kai-Michael, Claussen Jing, Shah Dhvani, Martin Alan, Kendall Robyn, Dasari Priyadarsini, Ismaila Afisi S, Noorduyn Stephen G

Аннотация

PURPOSE: The INTREPID trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) using fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) offers clinical benefits versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in real-world clinical practice. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SITT with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for treating symptomatic COPD from a German healthcare perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from the INTREPID trial, including baseline characteristics, treatment effects (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD assessment test score mapping]), and discontinuation rates, along with German healthcare resource and drug costs (2023 Euros), were used to populate the GALAXY COPD model. The analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, with outcomes including life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios. The robustness of the analysis was assessed using scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic analyses.

RESULTS: Improved lifetime outcomes were predicted for FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT, providing additional LYs of 0.174 (95% range: 0.065, 0.322) and QALYs of 0.261 (0.186, 0.346) per patient, together with cost savings of €2,850 (€3,517, €2,220). Additionally, patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI were predicted to experience a reduction in exacerbations (-0.063), highlighting its dominance as the preferred treatment option. These findings remained consistent across one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses, highlighting the robustness of FF/UMEC/VI as a cost-effective solution for COPD management in Germany.

CONCLUSION: FF/UMEC/VI offers clinical benefits and cost savings compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT, suggesting that it may reduce the burden of COPD in Germany and warranting consideration as a preferred treatment option by physicians.

Предметные рубрики MeSH