Oba Yugi
Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Environmental Medicine, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65212, USA.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007 May;82(5):575-82. doi: 10.4065/82.5.575.
To evaluate and compare the cost-effectiveness of long-acting bronchodilators by estimating incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
This cost-effective analysis was conducted from a third-party payer's perspective. The study was a retrospective pooled analysis, and the effectiveness evidence was derived from a systematic review of literature published from January 1, 1980, to April 14, 2006. Incremental QALYs were estimated by converting the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire scores into EuroQoL-5D scores and using these combined scores as the summary benefit measure.
The incremental cost per additional QALY was $26,094 (range, $11,780-$77,214) for tiotropium and $41,000 (range, $23,650-$98,750) for salmeterol compared with placebo. The cost per QALY gained was lower with tiotropium compared with salmeterol or ipratropium based on either the pooled data of available trials or a head-to-head trial. Treatment with tiotropium could save $391 per year while gaining 13 quality-adjusted days compared with ipratropium.
Tiotropium appears to be more cost-effective than the alternatives and may be the preferred agent for maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Compared with ipratropium, tiotropium could be cost saving. Because of the wide ranges of cost-effectiveness ratios for tiotropium and salmeterol and the significant overlap between them, a large prospective head-to-head trial would help address the uncertainty and confirm the results of this analysis.
通过估计中度至重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本,评估并比较长效支气管扩张剂的成本效益。
本成本效益分析从第三方支付方的角度进行。该研究为回顾性汇总分析,有效性证据来自对1980年1月1日至2006年4月14日发表的文献的系统评价。通过将圣乔治呼吸问卷评分转换为欧洲五维健康量表(EuroQoL-5D)评分,并使用这些综合评分作为总体获益指标来估计增量QALY。
与安慰剂相比,噻托溴铵每增加一个QALY的增量成本为26,094美元(范围为11,780 - 77,214美元),沙美特罗为41,000美元(范围为23,650 - 98,750美元)。基于现有试验的汇总数据或直接比较试验,与沙美特罗或异丙托溴铵相比,噻托溴铵每获得一个QALY的成本更低。与异丙托溴铵相比,使用噻托溴铵治疗每年可节省391美元,同时增加13个质量调整日。
噻托溴铵似乎比其他药物更具成本效益,可能是中度至重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者维持治疗的首选药物。与异丙托溴铵相比,噻托溴铵可节省成本。由于噻托溴铵和沙美特罗的成本效益比范围较宽且存在显著重叠,一项大型前瞻性直接比较试验将有助于解决不确定性并证实本分析结果。