ReviewInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Primary Care Across Europe: Expert Panel Consensus on the Consequences of Payer-Driven Access Rules and Call to Action.
Review in International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (SITT) for COPD: An Italian expert opinion paper on improving clinical outcomes and equity of therapeutic access.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition characterized by persistent airflow obstruction and respiratory symptoms. Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (SITT) has been shown to improve patient adherence, reduce exacerbations, and lower healthcare resource utilization in patients who are not controlled despite being on dual therapy or Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy (MITT). Despite evidence supporting SITT, payer-driven access rules across Europe sometimes limit its use in primary care, creating barriers to optimal COPD management. Purpose: Through expert consensus, the study seeks to generate a shared understanding of the unintended consequences of payer-driven access criteria for SITT in managing moderate-to-severe COPD in primary care. Methods: A targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to assess SITT initiation in primary care across Europe and examine the impact of access criteria. Semi-structured interviews were held with 14 experts from nine European countries, including clinicians, health economists, and patient advocacy representatives. A consensus generation workshop was conducted, where experts evaluated the findings and developed position statements to highlight the challenges posed by payer-driven access criteria. Results: The TLR identified variability in access to SITT in Europe, with several countries restricting its initiation to specialists, thus limiting primary care physicians' (PCPs) ability to prescribe SITT. The expert panel generated seven consensus points stating that enabling PCPs to step up or switch eligible patients to SITT has the potential to support care continuity, enhance clinical autonomy for PCPs, reduce reliance on potentially less effective treatment options, improve patient and healthcare system outcomes, avoid unnecessary referrals to specialists, enable prompt initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy for COPD in primary care and reduce access inequalities. Conclusion: Restrictions for SITT initiation in primary care may need to be revisited to mitigate their unintended health and cost consequences and improve equitable access to treatment. This should take into consideration each country's unique healthcare system.
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.