• Journal Article

Cost effectiveness of tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of the evidence

Citation

Mauskopf, J., Baker, C. L., Monz, B. U., & Juniper, M. (2010). Cost effectiveness of tiotropium for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Medical Economics, 13(3), 403-417.

Abstract

Abstract Background: Tiotropium has been shown to reduce exacerbations and improve quality of life for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a lung disease characterized by a persistent and progressive airflow limitation. Objectives: To present a systematic literature review of the cost effectiveness of treatment with tiotropium compared with other currently used treatments for COPD. Methods: A systematic search was performed via PubMed, the Cochrane database, and EMBASE from 2002 to 2009. Methods and results by study design and by country were compared. Results: Seventeen studies were included in the review. Study designs were characterized as follows: modeling based on clinical trial data, and empirical analysis based on either clinical trial or observational data. Comparing monotherapy regimens (12 studies), all study designs found that treatment with tiotropium was associated with lower costs for hospitalisation and other non-drug services. Total costs, including the costs of maintenance drugs, were lower with tiotropium in some, but not all, of the studies. Tiotropium was shown to be cost effective based on commonly accepted benchmark values. Limitations of the review included the wide variety of outcome measures used in different studies, the limited number of observational database studies for monotherapy, and limited data for combination therapy regimens. Conclusions: The main conclusions of the economic evaluations derived from clinical trial data at the time of product approval and from later observational data reflecting clinical use are similar: use of tiotropium monotherapy is associated with lower hospital and other non-drug costs and better health outcomes and is either cost saving or cost effective compared with other maintenance monotherapies