Cost effectiveness of adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium in COPD in four Nordic countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) Turbuhaler(®)+tiotropium (TIO) HandiHaler(®) vs. placebo (PBO)+TIO in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) eligible for inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-agonists (ICS/LABA). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the 12-week, randomised, double-blind CLIMB trial. The study included 659 patients with pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s ≤ 50% and ≥1 exacerbation requiring systemic glucocorticosteroids or antibiotics the preceding year. Patients received BUD/FORM 320/9 μg bid + TIO 18 μg qd or PBO bid + TIO 18 μg qd. Effectiveness was defined as the number of severe exacerbations (hospitalisation/emergency room visit/systemic glucocorticosteroids) avoided. A sub-analysis included antibiotics in the definition of an exacerbation. Resource use from CLIMB was combined with Danish (DKK), Finnish (€), Norwegian (NOK) and Swedish (SEK) unit costs (2010). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BUD/FORM + TIO vs. PBO + TIO were estimated using descriptive statistics and uncertainty around estimates using bootstrapping. Analyses were conducted from the societal and healthcare perspectives in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at €174/severe exacerbation avoided in Finland while BUD/FORM + TIO was dominant in the other countries. From the healthcare perspective, ICERs were DKK 1580 (€212), €307 and SEK 1573 (€165) per severe exacerbation avoided for Denmark, Finland and Sweden, respectively, while BUD/FORM + TIO was dominant in Norway. Including antibiotics decreased ICERs by 8-15%. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were overall robust. CONCLUSION: BUD/FORM + TIO represents a clinical and economic benefit to health systems and society for the treatment of COPD in the Nordic countries. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00496470).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".