Trial reportInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2022
Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.
Trial report in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of single-inhaler triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Thailand.BMJ open respiratory research · 2026Article
- Excessive Short-acting Beta-agonists Prescriptions in COPD Treated with Triple Inhaler Therapy: A Possible Marker of Frequent Exacerbations. A Retrospective Cohort Study.Thoracic research and practice · 2026Article
- Integrating Disease Burden and Cost-Effectiveness for Value-Based Prioritisation of COPD Interventions: A Narrative Review.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Review
- 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 Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD: A German Healthcare Perspective.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Article
- Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Primary Care Across Europe: Expert Panel Consensus on the Consequences of Payer-Driven Access Rules and Call to Action.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2025Review
- Triple Therapy in COPD in Real Life: Is It Better to Use Single or Multiple Inhalers?Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Outcomes of patients with COPD switching from multiple-inhaler to once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy in a real-world primary care setting in England: a retrospective pre-post cohort study.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- Real-World Disease Burden and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with COPD and Asthma Using Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) in the United States.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2024Article
- Benefit of prompt initiation of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) in patients with COPD in England following an exacerbation: a retrospective cohort study.Respiratory research · 2023Article
- 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
- ERS International Congress 2021: highlights from the Respiratory Clinical Care and Physiology Assembly.ERJ open research · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Patients and Methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.
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.