Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40791926›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease2025

Economic Analysis of New Single-Inhaler Triple Therapies in Patients with COPD in the UK.

Rui Cai, Alan A Martin, Yuchen Ge, Nancy A Risebrough, Katrin Haeussler, Christopher Compton, David M G Halpin, Afisi S Ismaila

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rui CaiICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Alan A MartinValue Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3673-3383
Yuchen GeICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0009-0005-0267-8506
Nancy A RisebroughICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6572-3021
Katrin HaeusslerICON Health Economics, ICON plc, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3236-2028
Christopher ComptonGlobal Medical, GSK, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7564-5343
David M G HalpinUniversity of Exeter Medical School, College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2009-4406
Afisi S IsmailaValue Evidence and Outcomes, GSK, Collegeville, PA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2876-8308

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with a substantial economic burden in the UK. Although previous analyses have compared the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) versus dual therapy or multiple-inhaler triple therapy, there are no studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of individual SITTs versus other SITTs. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of SITT with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus other SITTs for the treatment of COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was populated with patient baseline characteristics from the IMPACT study and treatment effect data from a network meta-analysis, which compared FF/UMEC/VI with budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol fumarate (BUD/GLY/FOR; both 320 µg and 160 µg dosing; BUD320 and BUD160, respectively) and beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol fumarate/glycopyrrolate (BDP/FOR/GLY). UK healthcare resource unit and drug costs (Great British Pound, 2022) were applied, with costs and outcomes (except life years [LYs]) discounted at 3.5% annually. The base case was probabilistic (5000 iterations) with a lifetime horizon. Results: FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.620 (95% range: 0.255, 1.025) LYs and 0.283 (0.080, 0.501) quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) with a cost saving of £1620 (£158, £3243) versus BUD320/GLY/FOR, an additional 0.627 (0.261, 1.053) LYs and 0.309 (0.097, 0.533) QALYs at a cost saving of £1721 (£261, £3345) versus BUD160/GLY/FOR, and an additional 0.328 (0.063, 0.654) LYs and 0.230 (0.035, 0.437) QALYs at a cost saving of £1221 (-£541, £2796) versus BDP/FOR/GLY. FF/UMEC/VI was less costly and showed higher QALYs in 98.2%, 98.9%, and 93.6% of simulations versus BUD360/GLY/FOR, BUD160/GLY/FOR, and BDP/FOR/GLY, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective was 99.9%, 100%, and 99.3% versus BUD320/GLY/FOR, BUD160/GLY/FOR, and BDP/FOR/GLY, respectively. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, FF/UMEC/VI is a dominant (improved outcomes with cost savings) treatment option compared with other SITTs for the treatment of patients with COPD in the UK.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsBenzyl AlcoholsBronchodilator AgentsChlorobenzenesDrug CostsGlucocorticoidsLungMuscarinic AntagonistsNebulizers and VaporizersPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveQuinuclidinesAdministration, InhalationAgedAndrostadienesCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsAdrenergic beta-2 Receptor AgonistsAndrostadienesBenzyl AlcoholsBronchodilator AgentsChlorobenzenesDrug Combinationsfluticasone furoateGlucocorticoidsGlycopyrrolateGSK573719Muscarinic AntagonistsQuinuclidinesvilanterolchronic obstructive pulmonary diseasecost-effectivenessfluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterolGALAXY modelprobabilistic

Identifiers

PMID40791926
PMCPMC12338100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.