Cost-utility analysis of daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroids in mild-persistent asthma

Cost-utility analysis of palivizumab for preventing respiratory syncytial virus in preterm neonates and infants in Colombia

AIM

Palivizumab has proven effective in reducing hospitalizations, preventing severe illness, improving health outcomes, and reducing healthcare costs for infants at risk of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We aim to assess the value of palivizumab in preventing RSV infection in high-risk infants in Colombia, where RSV poses a significant threat, causing severe respiratory illness and hospitalizations.

METHODS

We conducted a decision tree analysis to compare five doses of palivizumab with no palivizumab. The study considered three population groups: preterm neonates (≤ 35 weeks gestational age), infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and infants with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (CHD). We obtained clinical efficacy data from IMpact-RSV and Cardiac Synagis trials, while we derived neonatal hospitalization risks from the SENTINEL-1 study. We based hospitalization and recurrent wheezing management costs on Colombian analyses and validated them by experts. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and performed 1,000 Monte Carlo simulations for probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Palivizumab is a dominant strategy for preventing RSV infection in preterm neonates and infants with BPD and CHD. Its high efficacy (78% in preventing RSV in preterm infants), the substantial risk of illness and hospitalization, and the high costs associated with hospitalization, particularly in neonatal intensive care settings, support this finding. The scatter plots and willingness-to-pay curves align with these results.

CONCLUSION

Palivizumab is a cost-saving strategy in Colombia, effectively preventing RSV infection in preterm neonates and infants with BPD and CHD by reducing hospitalizations and lowering healthcare costs.

The Use of Bacterial Lysate for the Prevention of Wheezing Episodes in Preschool Children: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although increasing recent evidence has shown the efficacy of bacterial lysate therapy for the prevention of wheezing episodes and asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients, evidence of its cost-effectiveness in preschool patients is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-utility of bacterial lysate therapy as an add-on to standard care of preschool children with recurrent wheezing.

METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the study, we used a Markov simulation model with 3 mutually exclusive nonabsorbent states (regular Markov chain). Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a recent systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses (5 randomized controlled trials, 433 children). Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national health care system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was quality-adjusted life-years. To assess the robustness of the model's results, we performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US $694.03 vs $830.71 average cost per patient) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9211 vs 0.9154 QALYs on average per patient), thus showing dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care for treating preschool children with recurrent wheezing is a dominant strategy because it showed a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

Cost Utility of Intermittent Inhaled Corticosteroids in Preschoolers with Viral-Triggered Wheeze

Background: Evidence has demonstrated that adding intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to treatment with short-acting b2-agonists (SABAs) in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent viral-induced wheezing (VIW) reduces the risk of severe exacerbations. However, there is concern about whether the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent ICS in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW. Methods: We constructed a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of intermittent ICS compared with SABA reliever therapy in preschoolers with viral-triggered wheezing in Colombia. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $5,180. Results: In an analysis of the Markov cohort model, we estimated a gain of 0.2 QALYs per patient per year on intermittent ICS compared with SABA and a reduction of cost per patient of USD $37 per year. This position of dominance negated the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. Conclusion: Adding intermittent ICS to treatment with SABAs in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW was found to be cost effective. These results could improve the use of health care resources, especially in settings with limited economic resources.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in Canada

BACKGROUND

The Global Initiative for Asthma recommends the use of as-needed low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)-formoterol as a preferred controller therapy for patients with mild asthma. These recommendations were based, in part, on evidence from the SYGMA 1 and 2 studies of as-needed budesonide-formoterol. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide-formoterol to low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) in patients with mild asthma.

METHODS

A Markov cohort model was designed that included three possible health states (non-exacerbation, severe exacerbation, and death) to compare as-needed budesonide-formoterol 200-6 μg to twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy (low-dose ICS) plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg (SABA). The deterministic base-case analysis used severe exacerbation, adverse event (AE), and healthcare resource use data from SYGMA 2, and was conducted from a Canadian public payer perspective with a 50-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 1.5% per annum. Moderate exacerbation was modelled on data from SYGMA 1 in sensitivity analyses. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 quality of life data. All-cause- and asthma-related mortality rates and costs (reported in 2019 Canadian dollars) were based on published data, using Canada-specific values where available. One-way deterministic sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and eight scenario analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol was the dominant treatment option in the base-case analysis, providing incremental cost savings of $9882 per patient and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.002 versus low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA over a 50-year time horizon. Using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY ($100,000/QALY), as-needed budesonide-formoterol had a 94% (95%) probability of being cost-effective compared with maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA. Cost-saving was mostly driven by lower overall medication and AE-related costs. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained the dominant treatment in sensitivity and scenario analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

As-needed budesonide-formoterol is a cost-saving option for the treatment of mild asthma from the perspective of the Canadian public payer compared with low-dose maintenance ICS plus as-needed SABA.

Cost-utility of omalizumab for the treatment of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe persistent pediatric allergic asthma in a middle-income country

OBJECTIVES

Although several randomized clinical trials performed in children 6 years and older with Omalizumab as add-on therapy have reported improvements in diverse clinical outcomes, the evidence regarding its cost effectiveness is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-utility analysis of adding omalizumab to standard treatment for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC).

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 5-year period. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from various sources, including systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia. The main outcome was the variable ''quality-adjusted life-years'' (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the cost-utility analysis showed that compared with the standard treatment strategy, the omalizumab strategy involved higher costs (US$72,142.3 vs. $20,243.4 average cost per patient) and greater gain in QALYs (0.8718 vs. 0.8222 QALYs on average per patient). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of omalizumab compared with standard treatment was US$82,748.1 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with standard treatment, omalizumab is not a cost-effective strategy for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Cost-utility analysis of an integrated care program for children with asthma in a medium-income country

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of an integrated care program (ASMAIRE Infantil Program [PAI]) for children with asthma compared with standard of care.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to compare an integrated care program compared to the standard of care in children with asthma in Bogota, Colombia. Baseline characteristics of the patients were established according to the distribution of patients in the PAI database. Other inputs were obtained from published meta-analysis, local registries, medical bills, general mortality data, and expert opinion. Costs were presented in 2017 Colombian pesos. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 5% per year. Incremental cost-utility ratios were presented for PAI compared with standard of care. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The model predicted that patients that are part of the PAI would accrue more QALYs than patients on standard of care. The incremental results suggest that the PAI is a cost-effective treatment (incremental cost-utility ratio of Colombian pesos $33 753 817/QALY) compared with standard of care. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to cost of care (with and without PAI) and costs of severe exacerbation. However, the PAI is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters.

CONCLUSION

Our model predicted that an integrated intervention for the management of asthma in pediatric patients improves QALYs, reduces number of disease related exacerbations compared to standard therapy and is cost-effective for the long-term control of the disease in Colombia.

The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK

BACKGROUND

As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting β2-agonist (SABA).

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 μg or twice-daily budesonide 200 μg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses.

RESULTS

On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates.

CONCLUSIONS

From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

Global Mapping of Research Trends on Interventions to Improve Health-Related Quality of Life in Asthma Patients

Globally, approximately 335 million people are being affected by asthma. Given that asthma is a chronic airway condition that cannot be cured, the disease negatively impacts physical health and results in losses of productivity of people experiencing asthma, leading to decrease in quality of life. This study aims at demonstrating the research trends worldwide and identifying the research gaps in interventions for improving quality of life of patients with asthma. Bibliometric approach and content analysis, which can objectively evaluate the productivity and research landscapes in this field, were utilized. In this study, we systematically quantified the development of research landscapes associated with interventions for improving quality of life of people experiencing asthma. Along with the gradual growth in the number of publications, these research topics have relatively expanded in recent years. While the understanding of the pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment of asthma has been well-established, recent research has showed high interest in the control and management of asthma. Findings of this study suggest the need for more empirical studies in developing countries and further investigation into the effects of environment factors on asthma outcomes, as well as the economic burden of asthma.

Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify and critique full economic evaluations (EEs) of childhood asthma treatments with the intention to guide researchers and commissioners of pediatric asthma services toward potentially cost-effective strategies.

METHODS

"MEDLINE," "Embase," "EconLit," "NHS EED," and "CEA" databases were searched to identify relevant EEs published between 2005 and May 2017. Quality of included studies was assessed with a published checklist.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified and comprised one cost-benefit analysis, 11 cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-minimization analysis, and six cost-utility analyses. Treatments included pharmaceutical (n = 11) and non-pharmaceutical (n = 7) interventions. Fourteen studies identified cost-effective strategies. The quality of the studies varied and there were uncertainties due to the methods and relevance of data used.

CONCLUSION

Good-quality economic evaluation studies of pediatric asthma treatments are lacking. EE of new technologies adapted to local settings is recommended and can result in cost savings.

A Systematic Review of Decision-Analytic Models for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Asthma Interventions

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the landscape of model-based economic studies in asthma and highlight where there is room for improvement in the design and reporting of studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the methodologies of model-based, cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma-related interventions was conducted. Models were evaluated for adherence to best-practice modeling and reporting guidelines and assumptions about the natural history of asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated based on their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). We also studied the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity in disease course, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-five models of asthma were included (33 Markov models, 10 decision trees, 2 closed-form equations). Novel biological treatments were evaluated in 12 studies. Some of the CHEERS' reporting recommendations were not satisfied, especially for models published in clinical journals. This was particularly the case for the choice of the modeling framework and reporting on heterogeneity. Only 13 studies considered any subgroups, and 2 explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Adherence to CHEERS requirements and the quality of models generally improved over time.

CONCLUSION

It would be difficult to replicate the findings of contemporary model-based evaluations of asthma-related interventions given that only a minority of studies reported the essential parameters of their studies. Current asthma models generally lack consideration of disease heterogeneity and do not seem to be ready for evaluation of precision medicine technologies.

Incorporating adherence in cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma: a systematic review

Aims: Non-adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes among patients with asthma. While cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly used to inform value assessment of the interventions, most do not take into account adherence in the analyses. This study aims to: (1) Understand the extent of studies considering adherence as part of the economic analyses, and (2) summarize the methods of incorporating adherence in the economic models. Materials and methods: A literature search was performed from the inception to February 2018 using four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, NHS EED, and the Tufts CEA registry. Decision model-based CEA of asthma were identified. Outcomes of interest were the number of studies incorporating adherence in the economic models, and the incorporating methods. All data were extracted using a standardized data collection form. Results: From 1,587 articles, 23 studies were decision model-based CEA of asthma, of which four CEA (17.4%) incorporated adherence in the analyses. Only the method of incorporating adherence by adjusting treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels was demonstrated in this review. Two approaches were used to derive the associations between adherence and effectiveness. The first approach was to apply a mathematical formula, developed by an expert panel, and the second was to extrapolate the associations from previous published studies. The adherence-adjusted effectiveness was then incorporated in the economic models. Conclusions: A very low number of CEA of asthma incorporated adherence in the analyses. All the CEA adjusted treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels, applied to the economic models.

Asthma Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Are We Using the Recommended Outcomes in Estimating Value?

BACKGROUND

Asthma medication cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) lack the qualitative assessment regarding whether they capture the National Institutes for Health (NIH) 2012 recommended outcomes necessary to allow robust cross-study comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the current asthma outcomes used in CEAs and recommend a direction for improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane, and NHSEED from January 2010 through December 2015. Key words included (1) cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, economic evaluation, health economics, or cost-benefit AND (2) asthma. All CEA studies evaluating 1 or more asthma medication were included. Authors assessed each CEA study with respect to asthma-specific NIH outcome recommendations including core (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, medication, interventions costs), supplemental (visit categories and work/school absence), and emerging (academic/job-related) asthma outcomes. Besides outcomes of each CEA, issues that could prevent robust cross-study comparison were identified and thematically summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 12 pre-NIH and 14 post-NIH recommendation CEAs were included. Eleven (91.7%) and 14 (100%) of the pre-/post-NIH studies included at least 1 core outcome, respectively. Of the 26 total studies, 7 (26.9%) included asthma-specific outpatient visit categories, 6 (23.1%) included asthma school or work absences, 5 (19.2%) included respiratory health care use, and none of the studies included emerging outcomes. Other issues that hamper cross-study comparison include lack of standardized cost data, time frames, quality-of-life measures, and incorporation of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of NIH-recommended asthma core outcomes has improved, there is still room for improvement in using supplemental and emerging outcomes. To allow robust cross-study comparisons, future work should focus on further standardizing of data sources and methods.

A cost-effectiveness threshold analysis of a multidisciplinary structured educational intervention in pediatric asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma educational interventions have been shown to improve several clinically and economically important outcomes. However, these interventions are costly in themselves and could lead to even higher disease costs. A cost-effectiveness threshold analysis would be helpful in determining the threshold value of the cost of educational interventions, leading to these interventions being cost-effective. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-effectiveness threshold analysis to determine the level at which the cost of a pediatric asthma educational intervention would be cost-effective and cost-saving.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a single uncontrolled before-and-after study performed with Colombian asthmatic children. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

A deterministic threshold sensitivity analysis showed that the asthma educational intervention will be cost-saving to the health system if its cost is under US$513.20. Additionally, the analysis showed that the cost of the intervention would have to be below US$967.40 in order to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the level at which the cost of a pediatric asthma educational intervention will be cost-effective and cost-saving for the health system in Colombia. Our findings could be a useful aid for decision makers in efficiently allocating limited resources when planning asthma educational interventions for pediatric patients.

Inhaled corticosteroids do not reduce initial high activity of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9 in exhaled breath condensates of children with asthma exacerbation: a proof of concept study

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are the key component of asthma treatment. However, it is unclear whether they could control the activity and level of matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-9, which is an important factor in asthma-associated inflammation and airway remodeling. Therefore, the aim of this proof of concept study was to analyze the influence of increased doses of ICS on MMP-9 in exhaled breath condensates (EBC) of patients with allergic asthma exacerbation. Apart from MMP-9, the assessment concerned selected inflammation markers – exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) and cytokines (IL-8 and TNF).

The study involved a small group (n = 4) of individuals with asthma exacerbation. The intervention concerned increased doses of ICS with β-mimetics for 4 weeks. In addition to clinical evaluation, eNO measurements and EBC collections were done before and after 4 weeks of intense ICS treatment. The biochemical assessment of EBC concerned MMP-9, IL-8 and TNF. The data were compared to results of healthy controls (n = 6).

The initial levels of eNO, MMP-9 and TNF in EBC were higher in the asthma group than in controls. In all subjects IL-8 levels were below the detection limit. After 4 weeks of ICS treatment in all patients we observed improvement of clinical and laboratory parameters. Interestingly, despite reduction of eNO and TNF, the activity of MMP-9/EBC remained on the initial level.

Practical relevance of our results is limited by a small group. Nevertheless, our data suggest that ICS, although sufficient to control symptoms and inflammatory markers, may be ineffective to reduce MMP-9/EBC activity in asthma exacerbation and, possibly, airway remodeling.

Pediatric pulmonology year in review 2015: Part 3

Our journal covers a broad range of research and scholarly topics related to children's respiratory disorders. For updated perspectives on the rapidly expanding knowledge in our field, we will summarize the past year's publications in our major topic areas, as well as selected publications in these areas from the core clinical journal literature outside our own pages. The current review (Part 3) covers articles on asthma, diagnostic testing/endoscopy, respiratory complications of neuromuscular disorders, and rare lung diseases. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2016;51:747-753. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

OBJECTIVE

To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based ("E"), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.

Cost-utility analysis of once-daily versus twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

Suboptimal adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICs) is an important cause of poor asthma control in pediatric patients. Among the factors that can be most easily changed for enhancing adherence to ICs is a reduction in the dosing frequency, from twice-daily dosing to once-daily dosing. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for pediatric asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily dosing strategy involved lower costs (US$1529.3 versus $1709.1 average cost per patient over 12 months) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.8284 versus 0.8084 QALYs on average per patient over 12 months), resulting in once-daily dosing strategy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily IC dosing for treating pediatric patients with persistent asthma is the dominant strategy because it involves a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment cost.

Cost-effectiveness of asthma therapy: a comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Asthma has an important impact in terms of both direct and indirect costs. In Europe, the disease costs € 19 000 million a year. Moreover, the cost is greater among patients with severe uncontrolled asthma and is even higher when the work productivity is also taken into account. Improved control of the disease results in cost savings. In this context, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility studies offer important information for clinicians in deciding the best treatment options for asthmatic patients and contribute to ensure an efficient use of the available healthcare resources.

METHODS

An English and Spanish literature search using electronic search engines (PubMed and EMBASE) was conducted in peer-review journals, from 2009 to June 2014. In order to perform the search for the most suitable and representative articles, key words were selected ("asthma", "cost-effectiveness", "cost-utility", "QALY", "cost-benefit", "economic impact of asthma" "healthcare cost", "asthma treatment" and "work productivity with asthma").

RESULTS

Two-hundred forty-three titles and abstracts were identified by the primary literature search. The full text of the potentially 76 eligible papers was reviewed, and 22 articles were qualified to be finally included.

CONCLUSIONS

This article provides a comprehensive review on the evidence of cost-effectiveness of asthma treatments derived from the published literature and offers an overall summary of the socioeconomic burden of asthma and its relationship with the degree of disease control. Management alternatives, such as the use of combination therapy with ICS/LABA or omalizumab, when administered according to their current therapeutic indications, have been shown to be cost-effective.