ArticleHealth economics review2025
A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-inhaler extrafine beclomethasone/formoterol/glycopyrronium bromide against other SITTs in adult patients with uncontrolled asthma in England.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn patients with asthma uncontrolled by a medium or high-strength (MS/HS) inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus long-acting β2-agonist (LABA), according to Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines, a maintenance therapy option is the addition of a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) via single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT). Evidence has previously been published on the cost-effectiveness of a SITT extra fine formulation of beclomethasone, formoterol and glycopyrronium bromide (BDP/FOR/GLY) vs. dual ICS/LABA combination, using data from two 52-week clinical trials (TRIMARAN and TRIGGER). However, there is limited evidence on the comparative cost-effectiveness of SITTs. The current analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY versus other SITTs, in the UK setting.
methodsMarkov cohort state-transition model was developed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of BDP/FOR/GLY Medium Strength (MS) vs. fluticasone, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) MS and, BDP/FOR/GLY High Strength vs. FF/UMEC/VI HS and vs. indacaterol acetate, glycopyrronium bromide, and mometasone (IND/GLY/MF) HS. A network meta-analysis was performed to estimate comparative efficacy of BDP/FOR/GLY against other SITTs. The model analyzed cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), net monetary benefit (NMB), and was developed from the perspective of England National Health Service (NHS) and Prescribed Specialized Services expenditure (2022 costs). Uncertainty of the inputs was estimated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.
resultsBDP/FOR/GLY MS was projected to be a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI MS (£5,121 less costly, gained 0.065 additional QALYs). Similarly, BDP/FOR/GLY HS was a dominant treatment alternative against FF/UMEC/VI HS (£143, 0.003 additional QALYs) and IND/GLY/MF HS (£692 less costly, gained 0.023 additional QALYs). BDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS had 77.1%, 51.3%, and 61.2% likelihoods to be cost-effective vs. FF/UMEC/VI MS, FF/UMEC/VI HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS at the defined willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, respectively.
conclusionsBDP/FOR/GLY MS and HS were a dominant treatment alternative compared with FF/UMEC/VI, both MS and HS, and IND/GLY/MF HS in patients with asthma uncontrolled by ICS/LABA.
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.