One-year cost-effectiveness of XXXX versus @entity13265 to treat @entity1030 .

@entity5489 @entity1 @entity13265 @entity1030 @entity7634
The aim of this paper is to assess the health economic consequences of substituting @entity13265 with the new, once-daily bronchodilator @entity5489 in @entity1 with a diagnosis of @entity1030 ( @entity1030 ). This prospective cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside two 1-yr randomised, double-blind clinical trials in the Netherlands and Belgium. @entity1 had a diagnosis of @entity1030 and a forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) < or = 65% predicted normal. @entity1 were randomised to @entity5489 (18 microg once daily) or @entity13265 (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 @entity13265 group (n = 175) to 0.74 in the @entity5489 group (n = 344). The percentages of @entity1 with a relevant improvement on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) were 34.6% and 51.2%, respectively. Compared to @entity13265 , 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 @entity7634 (SEM 160) in the @entity5489 group and 1,541 @entity7634 (SEM 163) in the @entity13265 group (difference 180 @entity7634 ). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were 667 @entity7634 per exacerbation avoided and 1084 @entity7634 per @entity1 with a relevant improvement on the SGRQ. Substituting @entity5489 for @entity13265 in @entity1030 @entity1 offers improved health outcomes and is associated with increased costs of 180 @entity7634 per @entity1 per year.
