ArticleERJ open research2022
Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial.
Article in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of single-inhaler triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Thailand.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Economic Analysis of New Single-Inhaler Triple Therapies in Patients with COPD in the UK.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Triple Therapy with Budesonide/ Glycopyrronium/ Formoterol Fumarate versus Dual Therapy in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Spain.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 μg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 μg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 μg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective.
methodsPatient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters.
resultsCompared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained
conclusionsFF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.
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.