LAUSR

Abstract Background In recent years, the combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) has emerged as an alternative therapy, since it is administered every 24 h, in contrast to other ICS/LABAs such as fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/Salm), which requires administration every 12 h. Concerns have arisen over whether the benefit generated by FF/VI justifies the additional costs it involves over FP/Salm. This study aimed at assessing the health and economic consequences of FF/VI in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma. Methods A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs for FF/VI and FP/Salm were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. Results We estimated a gain of 16.8 and 10.7 QALYs per patient per year on FF/VI and FP/Salm, respectively. At the same time, we observed a difference of US$216 in total discounted cost per person-year on FF/VI with respect to FP/Salm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FF/VI was USD $70 per QALY with respect to FP/Salm. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. Conclusion FF/VI is more cost-effective than FP/Salm. The evidence supports using FF/VI therapy in Colombia, and the study should be replicated in other middle-income countries.