MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7015294073

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Primary Care Across Europe: Expert Panel Consensus on the Consequences of Payer-Driven Access Rules and Call to Action

2025· article· en· W7015294073 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInhalation and Respiratory Drug Delivery
Canadian institutionsOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary carePopulationHealth careUniversity hospitalCall to actionPrimary health carePulmonologistPulmonary disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fabiano Di Marco,1 Orjola Shahaj,2 Arschang Valipour,3 Bertrand Legrand,4 Claudio Jommi,5 Claudio Micheletto,6 Claus Franz Vogelmeier,7 Daryl Freeman,8 Janwillem WH Kocks,9 Luis Alves,10 Myriam Calle Rubio,11 Rudi Peché,12 Susanna Palkonen Snr,13 Tonya Winders,14 Nicolas Roche15 1Department of Health Sciences, Università Degli Studi Di Milano, Milan, Italy; 2Aquarius Population Health, London, UK; 3Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, the Karl-Landsteiner-Institute for Lung Research and Pulmonary Oncology, Vienna, Austria; 4Lille University Hospital Centre, Lille University, Lille, France; 5Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Università degli Studi Del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy; 6Respiratory Division, Università Di Verona, Verona, Italy; 7Department of Pulmonology, University Hospital Marburg, Marburg, Germany; 8Norfolk Community Health and Care, Norwich, UK; 9Department of Pulmonology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands; 10EPIUnit Instituto de Saúde Pública, Universidade Do Porto, Porto, Portugal; 11Pulmonology Department, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Del Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Idissc), Madrid, Spain; 12Pulmonology Department, Charleroi, Belgium; 13European Federation of Allergy and Airways Diseases Patients Associations (EFA), Brussels, Belgium; 14Global Allergy & Airways Patient Platform, Vienna, Austria; 15Respiratory Medicine, Paris Cité University, Paris, FranceCorrespondence: Orjola Shahaj, Aquarius Population Health, Unit 16 Tileyard Studios, London, N7 9AH, UK, Tel +44 207 993 2930, Email orjola.shahaj@aquariusph.comBackground: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a prevalent condition characterized by persistent airflow obstruction and respiratory symptoms. Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (SITT) has been shown to improve patient adherence, reduce exacerbations, and lower healthcare resource utilization in patients who are not controlled despite being on dual therapy or Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy (MITT). Despite evidence supporting SITT, payer-driven access rules across Europe sometimes limit its use in primary care, creating barriers to optimal COPD management.Purpose: Through expert consensus, the study seeks to generate a shared understanding of the unintended consequences of payer-driven access criteria for SITT in managing moderate-to-severe COPD in primary care.Methods: A targeted literature review (TLR) was conducted to assess SITT initiation in primary care across Europe and examine the impact of access criteria. Semi-structured interviews were held with 14 experts from nine European countries, including clinicians, health economists, and patient advocacy representatives. A consensus generation workshop was conducted, where experts evaluated the findings and developed position statements to highlight the challenges posed by payer-driven access criteria.Results: The TLR identified variability in access to SITT in Europe, with several countries restricting its initiation to specialists, thus limiting primary care physicians’ (PCPs) ability to prescribe SITT. The expert panel generated seven consensus points stating that enabling PCPs to step up or switch eligible patients to SITT has the potential to support care continuity, enhance clinical autonomy for PCPs, reduce reliance on potentially less effective treatment options, improve patient and healthcare system outcomes, avoid unnecessary referrals to specialists, enable prompt initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy for COPD in primary care and reduce access inequalities.Conclusion: Restrictions for SITT initiation in primary care may need to be revisited to mitigate their unintended health and cost consequences and improve equitable access to treatment. This should take into consideration each country’s unique healthcare system.Keywords: COPD, single-inhaler triple therapy, payer, access, reimbursement, primary care, expert consensus

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.259
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.233
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2590.233
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0090.007
Research integrity0.0130.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.348
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicInhalation and Respiratory Drug DeliveryFrench-language works237,207