ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025
Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD: A German Healthcare Perspective.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Centered Value Elements in the Economic Evaluation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Targeted Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/GLY/FOR in Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD.BMC health services research · 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
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.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The INTREPID trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) using fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) offers clinical benefits versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in real-world clinical practice. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SITT with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for treating symptomatic COPD from a German healthcare perspective. Patients and Methods: Data from the INTREPID trial, including baseline characteristics, treatment effects (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD assessment test score mapping]), and discontinuation rates, along with German healthcare resource and drug costs (2023 Euros), were used to populate the GALAXY COPD model. The analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, with outcomes including life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios. The robustness of the analysis was assessed using scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic analyses. Results: Improved lifetime outcomes were predicted for FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT, providing additional LYs of 0.174 (95% range: 0.065, 0.322) and QALYs of 0.261 (0.186, 0.346) per patient, together with cost savings of €2,850 (€3,517, €2,220). Additionally, patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI were predicted to experience a reduction in exacerbations (-0.063), highlighting its dominance as the preferred treatment option. These findings remained consistent across one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses, highlighting the robustness of FF/UMEC/VI as a cost-effective solution for COPD management in Germany. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers clinical benefits and cost savings compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT, suggesting that it may reduce the burden of COPD in Germany and warranting consideration as a preferred treatment option by physicians.
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.