Economic analyses comparing tiotropium with ipratropium or salmeterol in UK patients with COPD

This study presents a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis comparing cost and outcomes for UK patients with COPD treated with either tiotropium, ipratropium or salmeterol.

A previously-published COPD cost-effectiveness model was adapted for the UK, then used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. Additional epidemiological data were used to estimate the budget impact of switching patients from ipratropium or salmeterol to tiotropium.

In England, the estimated annual cost per patient on tiotropium was pound1350, on salmeterol was pound1404, and on ipratropium was pound1427; in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (S/W/NI) these costs were pound1439, pound1565, and pound1631, respectively. Tiotropium patients experienced better quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across all comparisons, and this option was therefore dominant compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. The probability of tiotropium being dominant ranged from 72% to 87% across comparisons. At a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000 per QALY, tiotropium had at least a 97% chance of being cost-effective. The estimated annual saving per primary care trust (PCT) of switching patients from salmeterol and ipratropium to tiotropium in England was pound230,000 and in S/W/NI was pound160,000.

Tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative to ipratropium and salmeterol, and switching COPD patients from ipratropium and salmeterol to tiotropium could result in considerable cost savings for PCTs along with improvements in quality-of-life.