ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2026
Economic evaluation of single-inhaler triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Thailand.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 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
introductionSingle-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) is known to be a cost-effective intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)in Western countries, but there is no such evidence for resource-limited countries. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of SITT compared with multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT) for COPD in Thailand.
methodsA Markov model with a lifetime horizon from a societal perspective was conducted with seven health states, including moderate, severe and very severe, with and without acute exacerbation (AE) and death. Two SITTs, fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) and budesonide/glycopyrrolate/formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR), were compared with MITT (salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with tiotropium (SAL/FP+TIO). A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify inputs. A quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated. A series of sensitivity analyses was performed.
resultsFF/UMEC/VI could improve QALY by 0.014 with an increased lifetime cost of 25 649 Thai baht (THB) ($727) compared with SAL/FP+TIO. In contrast, BUD/GLY/FOR had a lower QALY of -0.007 with an increased total lifetime cost of 34,151 THB ($968). The ICER for FF/UMEC/VI was 1,899,408 THB/QALY ($53,823), while BUD/GLY/FOR was dominated by SAL/FP+TIO. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that FF/UMEC/VI had a 1.1% chance of being cost-effective at the threshold of 160,000 THB ($4,533). We found that a 30% reduction in FF/UMEC/VI price could lead to a cost-effective option.
conclusionOur study indicated that SITTs are not cost-effective at the current price compared with the current MITT for COPD treatment. However, FF/UMEC/VI could be a promising option, with an approximately 30% price reduction.
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.