ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2016
Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium in symptomatic COPD Spanish patients.
Article in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 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
- 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
- Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Trial
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol 62.5/25 mcg versus tiotropium/olodaterol 5/5 mcg in symptomatic patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a Spanish National Healthcare System perspective.Respiratory research · 2018Trial
- Indacaterol/glycopyrronium is cost-effective compared to salmeterol/fluticasone in COPD: FLAME-based modelling in a Swedish population.Respiratory research · 2017Trial
- Impact of Increased Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy Use in Appropriate Patients on Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations, Mortality, and Medical Costs: PROMETHEUS Spain.Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases · 2026Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fibrinolysis vs Thoracoscopic Decortication for Early Empyema.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2021Article
- 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
- Dual versus monotherapy with bronchodilators in GOLD group B COPD patients according to baseline FEVRespiratory research · 2021Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
- Estimation of the Clinical and Economic Impact of an Improvement in Adherence Based on the Use of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with COPD.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed-Dose Combinations Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Article
- 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 umeclidinium compared with tiotropium and glycopyrronium as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a UK perspective.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2018Article
- Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the fixed-dose dual bronchodilator combination tiotropium-olodaterol for patients with COPD in the Netherlands.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2016Article
- Cost-effectiveness of physical activity in the management of COPD patients in the UK.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseArticle
- Therapeutic Success of Tiotropium/Olodaterol, Measured Using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), in Routine Clinical Practice: A Multinational Non-Interventional Study.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUmeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) is a novel fixed dose combination of a long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonist (LAMA) and a long-acting beta 2 receptor antagonist (LABA) agent. This analysis evaluated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of UMEC/VI compared with tiotropium (TIO), from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective.
methodsA previously published linked equations cohort model based on the epidemiological longitudinal study ECLIPSE (Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate End-points) was used. Patients included were COPD patients with a post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) ≤70% and the presence of respiratory symptoms measured with the modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale (modified Medical Research Council ≥2). Treatment effect, expressed as change in FEV1 from baseline, was estimated from a 24-week head-to-head phase III clinical trial comparing once-daily UMEC/VI with once-daily TIO and was assumed to last 52 weeks following treatment initiation (maximum duration of UMEC/VI clinical trials). Spanish utility values were derived from a published local observational study. Unitary health care costs (€2015) were obtained from local sources. A 3-year time horizon was selected, and 3% discount was applied to effects and costs. Results were expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed.
resultsUMEC/VI produced additional 0.03 QALY and €590 vs TIO, leading to an ICER of €21,475/QALY. According to PSA, the probability of UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 80.3% at a willingness-to-pay of €30,000/QALY.
conclusionUMEC/VI could be considered as a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with TIO in symptomatic COPD patients from the Spanish NHS perspective.
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.