ArticleClinical drug investigation2018
Cost-Effectiveness of Fixed-Dose Combinations Therapies for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Treatment.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combined aclidinium bromide and long-acting beta2-agonist for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled 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
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Fixed-Dose Tiotropium/Olodaterol versus Tiotropium for COPD Patients in China.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Indacaterol/Glycopyrronium versus Salmeterol/Fluticasone Using a Novel Markov Exacerbation-Based Approach.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a progressive lung disorder associated with decline of respiratory function, affects 10.2% of Spanish adults (40-80 years of age). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of two fixed-dose combinations of long-acting muscarinic antagonist and long-acting β2-agonist therapies for COPD, with Spanish National Health System perspective.
methodsA Markov model with five health states based on severity levels defined by GOLD 2010 criteria was used to simulate in monthly cycles the evolution along a 5-year period of a cohort of moderate-to-severe COPD patients, treated with aclidinium-formoterol (ACL/FF) 400/12 µg or tiotropium-olodaterol (TIO/OLO) 5/5 µg fixed-dose combinations. Clinical data on lung-function improvement were obtained from a network meta-analysis and applied to mean baseline forced-expiratory-volume in 1 s (FEV
resultsBoth therapies provided the same outcomes (4.073 LYG and 2.928 QALY) at 5-year period. ACL/FF 400/12 µg provided marginally lower costs (€ - 332) compared to TIO/OLO 5/5 µg.
conclusionACL/FF 400/12 µg was a cost-saving therapy in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD in Spain, and provided equivalent effects compared to TIO/OLO 5/5 µg.
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.