Time trends in 30 day case-fatality following hospitalisation for asthma in adults in Scotland: a retrospective cohort study from 1981 to 2009

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol vs inhaled epinephrine in US adults with mild asthma

BACKGROUND

The management of mild asthma has lacked an over-the-counter (OTC) option aside from inhaled epinephrine, which is available in the United States. However, inhaled epinephrine use without an inhaled corticosteroid may increase the risk of asthma death.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol as a plausible alternative to inhaled epinephrine.

METHODS

We developed a probabilistic Markov model to compare OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol inhaler use vs inhaled epinephrine use in adults with mild asthma from a US societal perspective over a lifetime horizon, with a 3% annual discount rate (2022 US dollars). Inputs were derived from the SYmbicort Given as-needed in Mild Asthma (SYGMA) trials, published literature, and commercial costs. Outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), costs, incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), severe asthma exacerbations, well-controlled asthma days, and asthma-related deaths. Microsimulation was used to evaluate underinsured Americans living with mild asthma (n = 5,250,000).

RESULTS

Inhaled epinephrine was dominated (with lower QALYs gains at a higher cost) by both as-needed budesonide-formoterol (INMB, $15,541 at a willingness-to-pay of $100,000 per QALY) and the no-OTC inhaler option (INMB, $1023). Adults using as-needed budesonide-formoterol had 145 more well-controlled asthma days, 2.79 fewer severe exacerbations, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.23% for asthma-related death compared with inhaled epinephrine over a patient lifetime. As-needed budesonide-formoterol remained dominant in all sensitivity and scenario analyses, with a 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with inhaled epinephrine in probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

If made available, OTC as-needed budesonide-formoterol for treating mild asthma in underinsured adults without HCP management improves asthma outcomes, prevents fatalities, and is cost-saving.

High-Efficiency Particulate Air Filters for Preventing Wildfire-related Asthma Complications: A Cost-Effectiveness Study

Rationale: Air pollution caused by wildfire smoke is linked to adverse health outcomes, especially for people living with asthma. Objectives: To evaluate whether government rebates for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters, which reduce concentrations of smoke particles indoors, are cost effective in managing asthma and preventing exacerbations in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Methods: We used a Markov model to analyze health states for asthma control, exacerbation severity, and death over a retrospective time horizon of 5 years (2018-2022). Concentrations of wildfire smoke-derived particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ⩽2.5 μm (PM2.5) from the Canadian Optimized Statistical Smoke Exposure Model and relevant literature informed the model. The base-case analysis assumed continuous use of a HEPA filter. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) resulting from varying rebates were computed for each Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA). Measurements and Main Results: In the base-case analysis, HEPA filter use resulted in increased costs of $83.34 (SE, $1.03) and increased QALYs of 0.0011 (SE, 0.0001) per person. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio among BC HSDAs was $74,652/QALY (SE, $3,517), with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $40,509 to $89,206 per QALY in HSDAs. Across the province, the intervention was projected to prevent 4,418 exacerbations requiring systemic corticosteroids, 643 emergency department visits, and 425 hospitalizations during the 5-year time horizon. A full rebate was cost effective in 1 of the 16 HSDAs across BC. The probability of cost-effectiveness ranged from 0.1% to 74.8% across HSDAs. A $100 rebate was cost effective in most HSDAs. Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness of HEPA filters in managing wildfire smoke-related asthma issues in BC varies by region. Government rebates up to two-thirds of the filter cost are generally cost effective, with a full rebate being cost effective only in Kootenay Boundary.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mepolizumab Add-On in the Treatment of Severe Eosinophilic Asthma in Chile

OBJECTIVE

Asthma is one of the 4 leading causes of death worldwide. Severe asthma is associated with poor quality of life, decreased life expectancy, and higher health resources consumption such as the use of oral corticosteroids (OCSs). This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab as an add-on compared with the standard care of the Chilean public health system (combined inhaled corticosteroid therapy and a long-acting beta-agonist, short-acting beta-agonist, and OCS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was adapted to represent the day-to-day of patients with severe asthma over a lifetime horizon. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the second-order uncertainty of the model. In addition, a risk subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of mepolizumab across different risk populations.

RESULTS

Mepolizumab produces more benefits than standard of care alone (1 additional quality-adjusted life-year, a decrease of OCS usage, an approximated 11 avoided exacerbations) but it cannot be considered cost-effective in the light of the Chilean threshold (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: US dollars [USD] 105 967/quality-adjusted life-year vs USD 14 896). Despite this, cost-effectiveness increases in specific subgroups, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 44 819 in patients with eosinophil count ≥ 300 cell/mcL and exacerbation history of at least 4 exacerbations in the past year.

CONCLUSION

Mepolizumab cannot be considered a cost-effective strategy for the Chilean health system. Nevertheless, price discount in specific subgroups improves its cost-effectiveness profile significantly and may offer opportunities for access to specific subgroups.

Socioeconomic disparities in asthma health care utilization, exacerbations, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prior studies investigating the effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on asthma health care outcomes have been heterogeneous in the populations studied and methodologies used.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to systematically synthesize evidence investigating the impact of SES on asthma health care utilization, exacerbations, and mortality.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, and Web of Science for studies reporting differences in primary care attendance, exacerbations, emergency department attendance, hospitalization, ventilation/intubation, readmission, and asthma mortality by SES. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale, and meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. We conducted several prespecified subgroup analyses, including by health care system (insurance based vs universal government funded) and time period (before vs after 2010).

RESULTS

A total of 61 studies, comprising 1,145,704 patients, were included. Lower SES was consistently associated with increased secondary health care utilization including emergency department attendance (odds ratio [OR], 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.84), hospitalization (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.34-1.99), and readmission (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.19-1.44). Substantial associations were also found between SES and ventilation/intubation (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.13-2.73), although there was no association with primary care attendances (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51-1.24). We found evidence of borderline significance for increased exacerbations (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.98-1.42) and mortality (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.92-1.37) among more deprived groups. There was no convincing evidence that disparities were associated with country-level health care funding models or that disparities have narrowed over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a lower SES have substantially increased secondary care health care utilization. We found evidence suggestive of increased exacerbations and mortality risk, although CIs were wide. These disparities have been consistently reported worldwide, including within countries offering universally funded health care systems. Systematic review registration: CRD42020173544.

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.

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.

Mepolizumab for Treating Severe Eosinophilic Asthma: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company (GlaxoSmithKline) that manufactures mepolizumab (Nucala^®) to submit evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab for the treatment of severe eosinophilic asthma. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group (ScHARR-TAG) at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent evidence review group (ERG). The ERG produced a review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of mepolizumab as add-on to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and omalizumab, based upon the company's submission to NICE. The clinical-effectiveness evidence in the company's submission was based predominantly on three randomised controlled trials (DREAM, MENSA and SIRIUS) comparing add-on mepolizumab with placebo plus SoC. The relevant population was defined in terms of degree of asthma severity (four or more exacerbations in the previous year and/or dependency on maintenance oral corticosteroids [mOCS]) and degree of eosinophilia (a blood eosinophil count of ≥ 300 cells/µl in the previous year) based on post hoc subgroup analyses of the pivotal trials. Other subpopulations were considered throughout the appraisal, defined by different eosinophil measurements, number of exacerbations and dependency (or lack thereof) on mOCS. Statistically significant reductions in clinically significant exacerbations were observed in patients receiving mepolizumab compared with SoC meta-analysed across MENSA and DREAM in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population (rate ratio [RR] 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.62) as well as in the relevant population (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36-0.62). In terms of quality of life, differences on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire in MENSA for add-on subcutaneous mepolizumab 100 mg vs. placebo were 7 and 7.5 units in the modified ITT and relevant populations, respectively. A number of issues in the clinical evidence base warrant caution in its interpretation. The ERG noted that the definition of SoC used in the trials differed from that in clinical practice, where patients with severe uncontrolled asthma start treatment with a mOCS. The company's economic post-consultation analysis incorporating a confidential patient access scheme (PAS) estimated that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC was £27,418 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the relevant population if patients stopped mepolizumab after 1 year unless (1) the number of exacerbations decreased at least 50% or (2) a reduction in corticosteroids dose was achieved whilst maintaining asthma control. The ERG applied an age adjustment to all utilities and corrected the post-continuation assessment utilities, which resulted in an ICER for add-on mepolizumab compared with SoC of £29,163 per QALY gained. The ERG noted that this ICER was not robust for patients who continued treatment due to a corticosteroid dose reduction where exacerbations had decreased by less than 50%, because corticosteroid dose reduction was not allowed in the main trial in which the evidence was gathered (MENSA). The NICE appraisal committee (AC) concluded that add-on mepolizumab could be recommended as an option for treating severe refractory eosinophilic asthma in adults for the relevant population when the stopping rule suggested by the company was applied. The AC also concluded that the comparison between mepolizumab and omalizumab was not clinically relevant or methodologically robust.

Trends in asthma mortality in the 0- to 4-year and 5- to 34-year age groups in Brazil

Objective:

To provide an update on trends in asthma mortality in Brazil for two age groups: 0-4 years and 5-34 years.

Methods:

Data on mortality from asthma, as defined in the International Classification of Diseases, were obtained for the 1980-2014 period from the Mortality Database maintained by the Information Technology Department of the Brazilian Unified Health Care System. To analyze time trends in standardized asthma mortality rates, we conducted an ecological time-series study, using regression models for the 0- to 4-year and 5- to 34-year age groups.

Results:

There was a linear trend toward a decrease in asthma mortality in both age groups, whereas there was a third-order polynomial fit in the general population.

Conclusions:

Although asthma mortality showed a consistent, linear decrease in individuals ≤ 34 years of age, the rate of decline was greater in the 0- to 4-year age group. The 5- to 34-year group also showed a linear decline in mortality, and the rate of that decline increased after the year 2004, when treatment with inhaled corticosteroids became more widely available. The linear decrease in asthma mortality found in both age groups contrasts with the nonlinear trend observed in the general population of Brazil. The introduction of inhaled corticosteroid use through public policies to control asthma coincided with a significant decrease in asthma mortality rates in both subsets of individuals over 5 years of age. The causes of this decline in asthma-related mortality in younger age groups continue to constitute a matter of debate.

The pharmacotherapy preferred by doctors in treatment of patients diagnosed with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or allergic rhinitis and concomitant diseases: an epidemiological analysis

INTRODUCTION

The clinical course of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is influenced by the co-occurrence of other chronic diseases and their pharmacotherapy. There are no data associated with the doctors' pharmacotherapy preferences in treatment of patients with asthma, COPD or allergic rhinitis and concomitant diseases.

AIM

The assessment of doctors' preferences in pharmacotherapy of asthma, COPD or allergic rhinitis in relation to concomitant diseases.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

General practitioners, pulmonologists, allergists, laryngologists and paediatricians (n = 319) participated in a questionnaire survey concerning their preferences in pharmacotherapy of asthma, COPD and allergic rhinitis in relation to concomitant diseases enrolling 11,310 patients with asthma, COPD and allergic rhinitis.

RESULTS

The concomitant diseases were reported in 58.5% of patients with asthma, 80.8% of patients with COPD and 46.4% of patients with allergic rhinitis. Patients with asthma were most frequently treated with inhaled glucocorticosteroids. However, in the subgroups with concomitant diseases, an increased usage of inhaled long-acting β2-mimetics was noted. Regardless of comorbidities, patients with COPD were most frequently treated with inhaled long-acting β2-mimetics whereas patients with allergic rhinitis - with nasal glucocorticosteroids and third-generation antihistamines.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-occurrence of chronic diseases was most frequent among patients diagnosed with COPD. The treatment of asthma, COPD and allergic rhinitis is consistent with international recommendations and the occurrence of concomitant diseases did not significantly influence therapeutic preferences and decisions.

Challenges in the Management of Asthma in the Elderly

Recent literature has emphasized the clinical and socio-epidemiological significance of asthma in the elderly. However, why the disease burden remains high in this group is unclear. Elderly subjects usually have multiple chronic illnesses, and the role played by comorbidities in the context of asthma has been underappreciated. This review aims to summarize the literature associations between comorbidities and asthma in elderly patients. In addition, we discuss patient management issues.

Is non-invasive ventilation safe in acute severe asthma?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The effect of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in acute severe asthma is unclear and there are concerns regarding its safety.

METHODS

We undertook a 5-year case-control review of mortality and morbidity associated with NIV use in acute severe asthma and compared this with asthma requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and a control group with less severe asthma without ventilatory support.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-three patients had acute severe asthma of whom 30 were treated with NIV, 17 with IMV and 90 served as controls. The mean duration of NIV was 9.5 ± 7.3 h with inspiratory positive airway pressure and expiratory positive airway pressure of 11.9 ± 1.4 and 5.8 ± 1.2 cmH2 O respectively. Mortality was zero in the NIV and control groups, compared with 41% in the IMV group. None of the NIV or control groups required escalation to invasive ventilation. There were no instances of haemodynamic compromise in the NIV or control groups. Length of hospital stay was 121 ± 96 h in the NIV group and similar to the severe IMV group (136 ± 99 h, P > 0.05) and significantly longer than the control group (42 ± 40 h, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

NIV can be safely used in acute severe asthma although further work is needed to delineate the precise patient selection process.

Noninvasive ventilation in acute asthma

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has well-recognized benefits in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary edema. Its utilization in acute asthma, however, remains controversial. In this review, we describe the physiological basis to justify NIV use in acute asthma and contribute a critical appraisal of the available literature relating to this practice. A discussion of some of the more pertinent, clinically relevant practicalities is also provided. Original research articles were identified using the electronic PubMed database. Randomized controlled trials of NIV in the setting of acute asthma were selected. Retrospective observational studies were also included if they were considered to contribute to the literature review. The use of NIV in the acute asthma setting has been shown to be associated with improvements in important physiological variables including measures of airflow and respiratory rate, and lends support to further study in this field. Improvements in airflow may be a direct effect of applied positive airway pressure or an indirect effect secondary to better dispersal of aerosolized medication. Reductions observed in respiratory rate and dyspnea are likely influenced by the amount of pressure support provided. Evidence suggestive of any improvement in mortality, intubation rate, or hospital/intensive care unit length of stay, however, is lacking. Studies to date have been hampered by small numbers and a lack of demonstrable meaningful clinical outcomes. Data relating to mortality, endotracheal intubation rates, and hospital length of stay/admission should be sought in future large clinical trials.

Hospitalization rate and 30-day mortality among patients with status asthmaticus in Denmark: a 16-year nationwide population-based cohort study

Objective

Current data on hospitalization and prognosis of acute asthma and status asthmaticus are inconclusive. We aim to analyze the rate of first-time hospitalizations for status asthmaticus among patients of all ages, the proportion admitted to intensive care units (ICU), and the 30-day mortality over a 16-year period.

Methods

In this population-based cohort study, we used medical registries to identify all first-time status asthmaticus hospitalizations in Denmark from 1996 through 2011. Data on comorbidities were also obtained. We computed yearly hospitalization rates overall and by gender and age groups, and estimated the proportion requiring ICU admission. We estimated 30-day age- and gender-standardized mortality. We examined potential misclassification from acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by excluding patients with preexisting or concurrent COPD.

Results

Of the 5,001 patients identified with a first-time status asthmaticus hospitalization, 50.5% were male, 40.3% were <15 years old, and 12.4% had comorbidity. The hospitalization rate increased from 48.0 per 1,000,000 person-years (PY) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45.1–51.1 PY) during 1996–1999 to 70.1 per 1,000,000 PY (95% CI: 66.7–73.7 PY) during 2008–2011. This may be explained by an increased hospitalization rate of children. The standardized 30-day mortality risk declined from 3.3% (95% CI: 2.5%–4.1%) in 1996–1999 to 1.5% (95% CI: 0.9%–2.1%) in 2008–2011. During 2005–2011, 10.1% of status asthmaticus patients were admitted to the ICU. Hospitalization rates and mortality risk decreased by excluding 939 patients also registered with COPD, but overall temporal changes did not change.

Conclusion

From 1996 to 2011, status asthmaticus hospitalization rate increased but remained below 100 hospitalizations per 1,000,000 PY. Thirty-day mortality risk was halved to less than 2%.