ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2018
Cost-utility analysis of an intervention designed to reduce the critical handling error of insufficient inspiratory effort.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Calculating the cost of medication errors: A systematic review of approaches and cost variables.BMJ open quality · 2024Pooled it
- Development of an asthma health-care burden score as a measure of severity and predictor of remission in SARP III and U-BIOPRED: results from two major longitudinal asthma cohorts.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2025Article
- Asthma management with breath-triggered inhalers: innovation through design.Asthma research and practice · 2020Review
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
objectivesUp to 70-80% of patients use inhalers incorrectly. Dry-powder inhalers (DPIs) require forceful inhalation for optimal delivery, and approximately 40% of Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA)-defined Step-3+ patients inhale corticosteroid and long-acting beta-agonist through DPIs. The CRITIKAL study (Price et al. in J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 5:1071-e9-1081-e9, 2017) found a statistically significant association between 'insufficient inspiratory effort' error and increased risk of uncontrolled asthma and hospitalisation-requiring exacerbations. This paper explores the cost-effectiveness of an error-targeted intervention.
methodsA probabilistic Markov cost-utility model simulated patients transitioning between controlled and uncontrolled health states over one year. Odds ratios (ORs, from the CRITIKAL study) of a patient having uncontrolled asthma conditional on making the error were applied to baseline transition probabilities sourced from the literature, both indirectly via an adjustment formula (Zhang et al. in JAMA 280:1690-1691, 1998) and directly by assuming OR approximates relative risk (RR). The analysis explored complete/partial eradication of the error when the intervention was priced to match comparators, as well as impact of indirect costs based on lost/reduced productivity.
resultsThe intervention dominated both DPI comparators over one year, with direct cost savings of £45/£86 with 0.0053/0.0102 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and had the highest probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000/QALY threshold. Key factors driving variance were weekly utilities per state and RR of moving to an uncontrolled state.
conclusionThe analysis demonstrated the economic and societal costs of 'insufficient inspiratory effort' and potential economic benefits of introducing an effective intervention to reduce/eradicate this error. Further research should assess the economic impact of other handling errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29754324What 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.