MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411458466 · doi:10.2147/copd.s492524

Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in COPD: A German Healthcare Perspective

2025· article· en· W4411458466 on OpenAlexaff
Kai Michael Beeh, Jing Claussen, Dhvani Shah, Alan Martin, Robyn Kendall, Priyadarsini Dasari, Afisi Ismaila, Stephen G. Noorduyn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of COPD · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsInhalerGermanCOPDMedicinePerspective (graphical)Health careIntensive care medicineInternal medicineAsthmaComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The INTREPID trial showed that once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) using fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) offers clinical benefits versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) for the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in real-world clinical practice. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SITT with FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for treating symptomatic COPD from a German healthcare perspective. Patients and Methods: Data from the INTREPID trial, including baseline characteristics, treatment effects (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD assessment test score mapping]), and discontinuation rates, along with German healthcare resource and drug costs (2023 Euros), were used to populate the GALAXY COPD model. The analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, with outcomes including life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-utility ratios. The robustness of the analysis was assessed using scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic analyses. Results: Improved lifetime outcomes were predicted for FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT, providing additional LYs of 0.174 (95% range: 0.065, 0.322) and QALYs of 0.261 (0.186, 0.346) per patient, together with cost savings of €2,850 (€3,517, €2,220). Additionally, patients receiving FF/UMEC/VI were predicted to experience a reduction in exacerbations (-0.063), highlighting its dominance as the preferred treatment option. These findings remained consistent across one-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic analyses, highlighting the robustness of FF/UMEC/VI as a cost-effective solution for COPD management in Germany. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers clinical benefits and cost savings compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT, suggesting that it may reduce the burden of COPD in Germany and warranting consideration as a preferred treatment option by physicians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of COPDSame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207