One-year cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus ipratropium to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to assess the health economic consequences of substituting ipratropium with the new, once-daily bronchodilator tiotropium in patients with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This prospective cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside two 1-yr randomised, double-blind clinical trials in the Netherlands and Belgium. Patients had a diagnosis of COPD and a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < or = 65% predicted normal. Patients were randomised to tiotropium (18 microg once daily) or ipratropium (2 puffs of 20 microg administered four times daily) in a ratio of 2:1. The mean number of exacerbations was reduced from 1.01 in the ipratropium group (n = 175) to 0.74 in the tiotropium group (n = 344). The percentages of patients with a relevant improvement on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were 34.6% and 51.2%, respectively. Compared to ipratropium, the number of hospital admissions, hospital days and unscheduled visits to healthcare providers was reduced by 46%, 42% and 36% respectively. Mean annual healthcare costs including the acquisition cost of the study drugs were 1721 Euro (SEM 160) in the tiotropium group and 1,541 Euro (SEM 163) in the ipratropium group (difference 180 Euro). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 667 Euro per exacerbation avoided and 1084 Euro per patient with a relevant improvement on the SGRQ. Substituting tiotropium for ipratropium in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients offers improved health outcomes and is associated with increased costs of 180 Euro per patient per year.