| Title |
UK-specific cost-effectiveness of tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination versus other LAMA + LABA combinations in patients with COPD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s116546 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Abigail Tebboth, Andrew Ternouth, Nuria Gonzalez-Rojas |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of other long-acting muscarinic antagonist + long-acting β2 agonist combinations in comparison with Spiolto(®) Respimat(®) (tiotropium + olodaterol fixed-dose combination [FDC]) for maintenance treatment to relieve symptoms in adult patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A previously published individual-level Markov model was adapted for the perspective of the UK health care system, in line with recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Individuals progressed through the model based on their forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) value at baseline and the post-improvement FEV1 value. Changes in FEV1 were taken from a mixed treatment comparison. Costs were obtained from a published cost-utility analysis of tiotropium in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Duaklir(®) Genuair(®) (aclidinium bromide + formoterol fumarate FDC) and the free-dose combination of tiotropium + salmeterol were dominated by tiotropium + olodaterol FDC. The quality-adjusted life years and costs were identical for Ultibro(®) Breezhaler(®) (indacaterol + glycopyrronium FDC) and Anoro(™) Ellipta(®) (umeclidinium + vilanterol FDC) compared with tiotropium + olodaterol FDC, resulting in identical incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. This analysis shows tiotropium + olodaterol FDC to be a cost-effective option for the maintenance treatment of adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the UK. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 34 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 35% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2019.
All research outputs
#7,811,404
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#167
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,696
of 318,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.