ArticlePharmacoEconomics2005
Development of an economic model to assess the cost effectiveness of treatment interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
55 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Economic evaluations of screening and case-finding for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): a systematic review.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Inhaled corticosteroids versus placebo for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Canadian respiratory journal · 2022Pooled it
- Inhaled steroids and risk of pneumonia for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta₂-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled corticosteroids alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta(2)-agonist in one inhaler versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Inhaled corticosteroids for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of pharmacological maintenance treatment for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a review of the evidence and methodological issues.PharmacoEconomics · 2012Pooled it
- Inhaled corticosteroids versus long-acting beta(2)-agonists for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Pooled it
- Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus inhaled steroids for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Combined corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist in one inhaler versus placebo for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- Long-acting beta2-agonists for poorly reversible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2006Pooled it
- Cost effectiveness of a novel swallowing and respiratory sensation assessment and a modelled intervention to reduce acute exacerbations of COPD.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fixed-Dose Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus Tiotropium for COPD Patients in China.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Cost Effectiveness of Case Detection Strategies for the Early Detection of COPD.Applied health economics and health policy · 2021Article
- A Novel Method for Analysing Frequent Observations from Questionnaires in Order to Model Patient-Reported Outcomes: Application to EXACT® Daily Diary Data from COPD Patients.The AAPS journal · 2019Observational
- Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2019Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed-Dose Combinations Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium/vilanterol for the management of patients with moderate to very severe COPD using an economic model.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop a Markov model that allows the cost effectiveness of interventions in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) to be estimated, and to apply the model to investigate the cost effectiveness of an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (beta(2)-agonist) combination (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate) versus usual care.
methodsA Markov model consisting of four mutually exclusive disease states was constructed (mild, moderate and severe disease, and death). The transition probabilities of disease progression (for smokers and ex-smokers) and death were derived from the published medical literature. The model outputs were costs, exacerbations, survival, QALYs and cost effectiveness. The model was made fully probabilistic to reflect the joint uncertainty in the model parameters. Efficacy data for the combination of inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/500microg twice daily in poorly reversible COPD patients with a history of exacerbations were obtained from the 1-year TRISTAN (TRial of Inhaled STeroids ANd long-acting beta-agonists) study and applied to the model, based on patient profiles representative of COPD clinical trials.
resultsAccording to the model, the mean life expectancy with usual care alone (placebo group) was 8.95 years, which decreased to 4.08 QALYs once adjusted for quality and discounted, at a lifetime discounted cost of Can 16,415 dollars per patient (year 2002 values). Assuming that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate reduced exacerbation frequency only (base case analysis), the estimated mean survival time remained unchanged but there was an increase in the number of QALYs (4.21) for an estimated lifetime cost of Can 25,780 dollars, resulting in a cost-effectiveness ratio of Can 74,887 dollars per QALY (95% CI 21,985, 128,671) versus usual care. If a survival benefit was assumed for salmeterol/fluticasone propionate, the incremental cost per QALY was Can11,125 dollars (95% CI 8710, dominated) versus usual care. If the combination achieved around a 10% improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, leading to delayed progression to more severe disease states, the benefits translated into an incremental cost per QALY of Can 49,928 dollars (95% CI 37 269, 66,006) versus usual care.
conclusionsThis Markov model allows, for the first time, a means of estimating the long-term cost effectiveness and cost utility of interventions for COPD. Initial evidence suggests that for patients with poorly reversible COPD and a documented history of frequent COPD exacerbations, the addition of salmeterol (a long-acting beta(2)-agonist) to fluticasone propionate (an inhaled corticosteroid) is potentially cost effective from the Canadian healthcare payer's perspective. However, the precision of this estimate will be improved when additional data are available from clinical trials such as the ongoing TORCH (TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health) study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15960557What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.