ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2026
Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab for COPD with type 2 inflammation.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2026. 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Approximately 20–40% of patients exhibit eosinophilic inflammation; a phenotype linked to higher exacerbation risk. Mepolizumab, an anti-IL-5 biologic, has shown clinical benefit in reducing exacerbations among eosinophilic COPD patients. Its cost-effectiveness, however, remains uncertain in low- and middle-income countries.
methodsA Markov model was developed to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab plus triple therapy versus triple therapy alone in eosinophilic COPD from the Colombian healthcare system perspective. Clinical effectiveness was informed by a meta-analysis of five randomized controlled trials. Costs and utilities were obtained from Colombian sources. A lifetime horizon, 5% discount rate, and willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $5,180 USD/QALY were applied. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsMepolizumab reduced exacerbation risk by 14% (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77–0.95). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $45,192 per QALY gained, exceeding the WTP threshold. Net monetary benefit favored standard care, and the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0% under base-case assumptions.
conclusionAlthough clinically effective, mepolizumab is not cost-effective in Colombia at current pricing. Price reductions and outcome-based reimbursement strategies are needed to improve economic viability.
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.