Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30458866›Full record

Trial reportRespiratory research2018

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.

M T Driessen, J Whalen, B Seewoodharry Buguth, L A Vallejo-Aparicio, I P Naya, Y Asukai, B Alcázar-Navarrete, M Miravitlles, F García-Río, N A Risebrough

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

M T DriessenValue Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, UK.
J WhalenICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Abingdon, UK.
B Seewoodharry BuguthICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Abingdon, UK.
L A Vallejo-AparicioDepartamento de Evaluación de Medicamentos, GSK, Tres Cantos, Madrid, Spain.
I P NayaGlobal Respiratory Franchise, GSK, Brentford, Middlesex, UK.
Y AsukaiValue Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, UK. yumiko.x.asukai@gsk.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1837-5604
B Alcázar-NavarreteHospital de Alta Resolución de Loja, Granada, Spain.
M MiravitllesPneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Barcelona, Spain.
F García-RíoHospital Universitario La Paz-IdiPAZ, Madrid, Spain.
N A RisebroughICON Health Economics, ICON, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA head-to-head study demonstrated the superiority of once-daily umeclidinium bromide/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) 62.5/25 mcg on trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV

methodsThis analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System with a 3-year horizon as base case. A disease progression model using a linked risk equation approach was used to estimate disease progression and associated healthcare costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The Evaluation of COPD Longitudinally to Identify Predictive Surrogate Endpoints (ECLIPSE) study was used to develop the statistical risk equations for clinical endpoints, and costs were calculated using a health state approach (by dyspnea severity). Utilities for QALY calculation were estimated using patient baseline characteristics within a regression fit to Spanish observational data. Treatment effect, expressed as change from baseline in FEV

resultsUMEC/VI was associated with small improvements in QALYs (+ 0.029) over a 3-year time horizon, compared with TIO/OLO, alongside cost savings of €393/patient. The ITT scenario analysis and sensitivity analyses had similar results. All probabilistic simulations resulted in UMEC/VI being less costly and more effective than TIO/OLO.

conclusionUMEC/VI dominated TIO/OLO (more effective and less expensive). These results may aid payers and decision-makers in Spain when making judgements on which long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β

Indexed as

BenzoxazinesBenzyl AlcoholsChlorobenzenesCost-Benefit AnalysisNational Health ProgramsPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuinuclidinesTiotropium BromideAgedCross-Over StudiesDrug CombinationsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesBenzoxazinesBenzyl AlcoholsChlorobenzenesDrug CombinationsGSK573719QuinuclidinesTiotropium Bromidetiotropium-olodaterolvilanterolBronchodilatorsChronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseCost effectivenessEconomic evaluationHealth resourcesLAMA/LABANational Healthcare System perspectiveQALYSpainUtility

Identifiers

PMID30458866
PMCPMC6245710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.