ArticleBMC health services research2026
Cost-Effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/GLY/FOR in Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD.
Article in BMC health services 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
backgroundCOPD is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and in Colombia. Although single-inhaler triple therapies have demonstrated superior clinical benefits in patients with previous exacerbations, their economic value in middle-income settings remains uncertain. Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus budesonide/glycopyrronium/formoterol (BUD/GLY/FOR) in Colombian patients with COPD.
methodsWe developed an individual-level microsimulation model to compare FF/UMEC/VI with BUD/GLY/FOR from the Colombian public payer perspective. The model incorporated GOLD-based progression, exacerbations, mortality, dynamic adherence functions, costs, and utilities derived from a Colombian cohort study.
resultsFF/UMEC/VI increased QALYs by 0.51 and saved USD 1,038 per patient, remaining dominant across deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Net monetary benefit (NMB) was higher with FF/UMEC/VI. After 10,000 microsimulations, FF/UMEC/VI showed > 95% probability of cost-effectiveness at Colombia's willingness to pay of USD 5,180/QALY.
conclusionsThis is the first economic evaluation of FF/UMEC/VI and BUD/GLY/FOR in Colombia, incorporating local real-world data and adherence. Results demonstrate that FF/UMEC/VI is a cost-effective and often dominant option, supporting its adoption in resource-limited settings.
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.