Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Pulmonary Medicine and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Comparison of resource use by COPD patients on inhaled therapies with long-acting bronchodilators: a database study

Chris M Kozma1, Andrew L Paris2, Craig A Plauschinat3*, Terra Slaton4 and John I Mackowiak5

Author Affiliations

1 CK Consulting, 84 Tomahawk Trail, St. Helena Island, SC, 29920, USA

2 Vigilytics LLC, 559 Fox Hunt Drive, Victor, NY, 14564, USA

3 Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 59 Route 10, East Hanover, NJ, 07936, USA

4 308 Canaberry Drive, West Columbia, SC 29170, USA

5 Center for Outcomes Research, 3500 Woodmont Blvd, Nashville, TN, 37215, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Pulmonary Medicine 2011, 11:61  doi:10.1186/1471-2466-11-61

Published: 22 December 2011



The purpose of this analysis was to compare health care costs and utilization among COPD patients who had long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA)

long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA); LABA
inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) prescription claims.


This was a 12 month pre-post, retrospective analysis using COPD patients in a national administrative insurance database. Propensity score and exact matching were used to match patients 1:1:1 between the LABA or LAMA (formoterol, salmeterol, or tiotropium), LABA and LAMA (tiotropium/formoterol or tiotropium/salmeterol), and LABA, LAMA and ICS (bronchodilators plus steroid) groups. Post-period comparisons were evaluated with analysis of covariance. Costs were evaluated from a commercial payer perspective.


A total of 523 patients were matched using 29 pre-period variables (e.g., demographics, medication exposure). Post-match assessments indicated balance among the cohorts. COPD-related costs differed among groups (LABA or LAMA $2,051 SE = 91; LABA and LAMA $2,823 SE = 62; LABA, LAMA and ICS $3,546 SE = 89; all p < .0001) with the differences driven by study medication costs. However, non-study COPD medication costs were higher for the LABA or LAMA therapy group ($911 SE = 91) compared to the LABA and LAMA therapy group ($668 SE = 58; p = 0.0238) and non-study respiratory medications were approximately $100 greater for the LABA or LAMA therapy group relative to both LABA and LAMA (p = .0018) and LABA, LAMA, and ICS (p = .0071) therapy groups. While there was no observed difference in outpatient costs, there was a slightly higher number of outpatient visits per patient in the LABA and LAMA (25.5 SE = 0.9, p = 0.0070) relative to the LABA or LAMA therapy group (22.3 SE = 0.8) and higher utilization (89.7% of patients) with COPD visits in the LABA and LAMA therapy group relative to both the LABA or LAMA (73.8%; p < .0001) and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapy groups (85.3; p = 0.0305).


Significant cost differences driven mainly by pharmaceuticals were observed among LABA or LAMA, LABA and LAMA and LABA, LAMA and ICS therapies. A COPD-related cost offset was observed from single bronchodilator to two bronchodilators. Addition of an ICS with two bronchodilators resulted in higher treatment costs without reduction in other COPD-related costs compared with two bronchodilators.