Cost-effectiveness analysis: fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from the perspective of the Chilean public health system

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is an inflammatory lung disease characterized by long-term breathing problems and airflow limitations. International guidelines recommend using bronchodilators like long-acting beta- and muscarinic antagonists, and inhalational corticosteroids.The cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler triple therapy containing fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) was compared to the treatments Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol (FF/VI), Umeclidinio/Vilanterol (UMEC/VI) and Fluticasone Propionate 250 mcg/Salmeterol 25mcg + Tiotropio 18 mcg (FP/SAL/TIO) for patients with COPD from the Chilean public health system perspective.A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed, including a deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis over a 25-year time horizon. Two scenarios were assessed to study the effect of a 3%-discount for costs and outcomes on FF/UMEC/VI.The incremental cost-effectiveness (ICER) of FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI was $10,076/QALY, being a cost-effective alternative to a threshold of one Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDPpc), while versus FP/SAL/TIO the ICER increased to $50,288/QALY, showing to be a non-cost effective alternative to 1 GDPpc, but at a threshold of 3 GDPpc.FF/UMEC/VI appears to be a cost-effective intervention for treating COPD compared to FF/VI. However, FF/UMEC/VI compared to FP/SAL/TIO showed an ICER above the threshold of 1 GDPpc, but, in comparison with lower price, the ICER was below 3 GDPpc.