ArticleCost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E2015
Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol combination therapy compared to tiotropium monotherapy among symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK.
Article in Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Efficacy and Cost-Effectiveness of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Tiotropium in Symptomatic Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.Canadian respiratory journal · 2022Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations.PharmacoEconomics · 2017Pooled it
- Umeclidinium Plus Vilanterol Versus Placebo, Umeclidinium, or Vilanterol Monotherapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical drug investigation · 2016Pooled it
- Time-to-first exacerbation, adherence, and medical costs among US patients receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol or tiotropium as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Article
- The effect of delaying initiation with umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD: an observational administrative claims database analysis using marginal structural models.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness of physical activity in the management of COPD patients in the UK.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseArticle
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
backgroundThe cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium bromide-vilanterol (UMEC/VI) versus tiotropium monotherapy in the UK was assessed using a UMEC/VI treatment-specific economic model based on a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease-progression model.
methodsThe model was implemented as a linked-equation model to estimate COPD progression and associated health service costs, and its impact on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and survival. Statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints and resource use were derived from the ECLIPSE and TORCH studies, respectively. For the selected timeframe (1-40 years) and probabilistic analysis, model outputs included disaggregated costs, total costs, exacerbations, life-years and QALYs gained, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsRandom-effects meta-analysis of tiotropium comparator trials estimated treatment effect of UMEC/VI as 92.17 mL (95 % confidence interval: 61.52, 122.82) in forced expiratory volume in 1 s. With this benefit, UMEC/VI resulted in an estimated annual exacerbation reduction of 0.04 exacerbations/patient and 0.36 life years gained compared to tiotropium over patient lifetime. With an additional 0.18 QALYs/patient and an additional lifetime cost of £372/patient at price parity, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared to tiotropium was £2088/QALY. This ICER increased to £17,541/QALY when price of UMEC/VI was increased to that of indacaterol plus tiotropium in separate inhalers. The ICER improved when model duration was reduced from patient lifetime to 1 or 5 years, or when treatment effect was assumed to last for 12 months following treatment initiation.
conclusionUMEC/VI can be considered a cost-effective alternative to tiotropium at a certain price.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.