ArticlePharmacoEconomics2012
A lifetime Markov model for the economic evaluation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Estimation of mortality hazard ratios by COPD grade using a systematic review and network meta-analysis: deriving grade-, sex-, and age-specific mortality for a German COPD decision model.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Motivational support intervention to reduce smoking and increase physical activity in smokers not ready to quit: the TARS RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Trial
- Improving inhaler adherence in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.Respiratory research · 2014Trial
- Assessing healthcare cost changes associated with transitioning away from cigarette smoking using healthcare claims data: an exploratory study among adult male patients with COPD.Harm reduction journal · 2024Article
- The effectiveness and value of ensifentrine for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2024Article
- The value of mHealth for managing chronic conditions.Health care management science · 2020Article
- 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
- An attempt at modeling COPD epidemiological trends in France.Respiratory research · 2018Article
- Choosing an epidemiological model structure for the economic evaluation of non-communicable disease public health interventions.Population health metrics · 2016Article
- Cost Effectiveness of Free Access to Smoking Cessation Treatment in France Considering the Economic Burden of Smoking-Related Diseases.PloS one · 2016Article
- A retrospective study of the impact of a telephone alert service (Healthy Outlook) on hospital admissions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.NPJ primary care respiratory medicine · 2014Article
- Improving clinical reality in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease economic modelling : development and validation of a micro-simulation approach.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Article
- A cost-effectiveness analysis of national smoking cessation services among chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients in Thailand.Journal of medical economicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is currently the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. It has serious health effects and causes substantial costs for society.
objectivesThe aim of the present paper was to develop a state-of-the-art decision-analytic model of COPD whereby the cost effectiveness of interventions in Germany can be estimated. To demonstrate the applicability of the model, a smoking cessation programme was evaluated against usual care.
methodsA seven-stage Markov model (disease stages I to IV according to the GOLD [Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease] classification, states after lung-volume reduction surgery and lung transplantation, death) was developed to conduct a cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective over a time horizon of 10, 40 and 60 years. Patients entered the cohort model at the age of 45 with mild COPD. Exacerbations were classified into three levels: mild, moderate and severe. Estimation of stage-specific probabilities (for smokers and quitters), utilities and costs was based on German data where possible. Data on effectiveness of the intervention was retrieved from the literature. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and effects. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to assess the robustness of the results.
resultsThe smoking cessation programme was the dominant strategy compared with usual care, and the intervention resulted in an increase in health effects of 0.54 QALYs and a cost reduction of &U20AC;1115 per patient (year 2007 prices) after 60 years. In the probabilistic analysis, the intervention dominated in about 95% of the simulations. Sensitivity analyses showed that uncertainty primarily originated from data on disease progression and treatment cost in the early stages of disease.
conclusionsThe model developed allows the long-term cost effectiveness of interventions to be estimated, and has been adapted to Germany. The model suggests that the smoking cessation programme evaluated was more effective than usual care as well as being cost-saving. Most patients had mild or moderate COPD, stages for which parameter uncertainty was found to be high. This raises the need to improve data on the early stages of COPD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22799876What 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.