Adding formoterol to budesonide in moderate asthma--health economic results from the FACET study

Should we apply a treatable traits approach to asthma care?

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence for adopting a "treatable traits" approach to asthma management.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar.

STUDY SELECTIONS

The above-mentioned databases were searched for randomized, controlled phase III or IV trials of adults containing the word "asthma" in the title published in the previous 10 years and for all articles containing the title words "treatable AND trait(s)," "asthma AND biomarker(s) OR smoking OR obesity OR laryngeal OR management" published within the previous 5 years. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English. Our search identified 257 articles for consideration. We also manually searched the reference lists of studies identified and searched the websites of the British Thoracic Society, European Respiratory Society, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Global Initiative for Asthma for specific guidance related to asthma management.

RESULTS

The "treatable traits" are described within 3 domains of pulmonary, extrapulmonary, or behavioral and lifestyle traits. We consider whether treatment should be targeted toward these traits where they are present in asthma patients, based on currently available evidence, rather than increasing treatment in response to symptoms in line with current step-up, step-down asthma management guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We advocate that a treatable traits approach should be applied more broadly to the assessment and management of inadequately controlled asthma, rather than a step-up, step-down approach based on patient symptoms. This approach should be focused on the 2 treatable pulmonary traits of T_H2 inflammation and airflow obstruction along with smoking cessation, in the first instance.

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by significant morbidities and mortality, with a large impact on socio-economic resources and a considerable burden on health-care systems. In the standard care of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are a reliable and often cost-effective choice, especially if based on the single inhaler therapy (SIT) strategy; however, in a subset of patients it is not possible to reach an adequate asthma control. In these cases, it is possible to resort to other pharmacologic options, including corticosteroids (OCS) or biologics. Unfortunately, OCS are associated with important side effects, whilst monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) allow excellent results, even if far more expensive. Up to now, the economic impact of asthma has not been compared with equivalent indicators in several studies. In fact, a significant heterogeneity of the cost analysis is evident in literature, for which the assessment of the real cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies is remarkably complex. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of asthma strategies, especially of biologics, attention must be paid on phenotyping and identification of predictors of response. Several studies were included, involving comparative analysis of drug treatments for asthma, comparative analysis of the costs and consequences of therapies, measurement and evaluation of direct drug costs, and the reduction of health service use. The initial research identified 389 articles, classified by titles and abstracts. A total of 311 articles were excluded as irrelevant and 78 articles were selected. Pharmacoeconomic studies on asthma therapies often report conflicting data also due to heterogeneous indicators and different populations examined. A careful evaluation of the existing literature is extremely important, because the scenario is remarkably complex, with an attempt to homogenize and interpret available data. Based on these studies, the improvement of prescriptive appropriateness and the reduction of the use of healthcare resources thanks to controller medications and to innovative therapies such as biologics partially reduce the economic burden of these treatments. A multidisciplinary stakeholder approach can also be extremely helpful in deciding between the available options and thus optimizing healthcare resources.

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO). Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3 years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3 years of budesonide/formoterol entry. Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.

Measurement of exhaled nitric oxide concentration in asthma: a systematic review and economic evaluation of NIOX MINO, NIOX VERO and NObreath

BACKGROUND

High fractions of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in the breath of patients with symptoms of asthma are correlated with high levels of eosinophils and indicate that a patient is likely to respond to inhaled corticosteroids. This may have a role in the diagnosis and management of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the hand-held electrochemical devices NIOX MINO(®) (Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden), NIOX VERO(®) (Aerocrine) and NObreath(®) (Bedfont Scientific, Maidstone, UK) for the diagnosis and management of asthma.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches were carried out between March 2013 and April 2013 from database inception. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. Trial registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were also searched in March 2013. All searches were updated in September 2013.

REVIEW METHODS

A rapid review was conducted to assess the equivalence of hand-held and chemiluminescent FeNO monitors. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy and management efficacy were conducted. A systematic review of economic analyses was also conducted and two de novo health economic models were developed. All three reviews were undertaken according to robust high-quality methodology.

RESULTS

The rapid review (27 studies) found varying levels of agreement between monitors (Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement up to ±10 parts per billion), with better agreement at lower FeNO values. Correlation was good (generally r > 0.9). The diagnostic accuracy review identified 22 studies in adults (all ages) and four in children. No studies used NObreath or NIOX VERO and seven used NIOX MINO. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy varied widely. FeNO used in combination with another test altered diagnostic accuracy only slightly. High levels of heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Limited observations included that FeNO may be more reliable and useful as a rule-in than as a rule-out test; lower cut-off values in children and in smokers may be appropriate; and FeNO may be less reliable in the elderly. The management review identified five randomised controlled trials in adults, one in pregnant asthmatics and seven in children. Despite clinical heterogeneity, exacerbation rates were lower in all studies but not generally statistically significantly so. Effects on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use were inconsistent, possibly because of differences in management protocols, differential effectiveness in adults and children and differences in population severity. One UK diagnostic model and one management model were identified. Aerocrine also submitted diagnostic and management models. All had significant limitations including short time horizons and the selective use of efficacy evidence. The de novo diagnostic model suggested that the expected difference in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains between diagnostic options is likely to be very small. Airway hyper-responsiveness by methacholine challenge test is expected to produce the greatest QALY gain but with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with FeNO (NObreath) in combination with bronchodilator reversibility of £1.125M per QALY gained. All remaining options are expected to be dominated. The de novo management model indicates that the ICER of guidelines plus FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone in children is expected to be approximately £45,200 per QALY gained. Within the adult subgroup, FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone is expected to have an ICER of approximately £2100 per QALY gained. The results are particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding changes in ICS use over time, the number of nurse visits for FeNO monitoring and duration of effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the evidence base impose considerable uncertainty on all analyses. Equivalence of devices was assumed but not assured. Evidence for diagnosis is difficult to interpret in the context of inserting FeNO monitoring into a diagnostic pathway. Evidence for management is also inconclusive, but largely consistent with FeNO monitoring resulting in fewer exacerbations, with a small or zero reduction in ICS use in adults and a possible increased ICS use in children or patients with more severe asthma. It is unclear which specific management protocol is likely to be most effective. The economic analysis indicates that FeNO monitoring could have value in diagnostic and management settings. The diagnostic model indicates that FeNO monitoring plus bronchodilator reversibility dominates many other diagnostic tests. FeNO-guided management has the potential to be cost-effective, although this is largely dependent on the duration of effect. The conclusions drawn from both models require strong technical value judgements with respect to several aspects of the decision problem in which little or no empirical evidence exists. There are many potential directions for further work, including investigations into which management protocol is best and long-term follow-up in both diagnosis and management studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004149.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Impact of exhaled nitric oxide measurements on treatment decisions in an asthma specialty clinic

BACKGROUND

Asthma management in an outpatient setting is best accomplished by clinical evaluation coupled with spirometry and symptom evaluation, but these assessments do not provide information about airway inflammation. Exhaled nitric oxide (fraction of exhaled nitric oxide [FeNO]) measures T-helper cell type 2-mediated airway inflammation and may be a useful adjunct in asthma management.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of FeNO in the specialist management of asthma results in more effective and cost-effective treatment decisions.

METHODS

Fifty subjects 7 to 60 years old with established asthma participated in this observational study. Subjects were evaluated by clinical examination, spirometry, and symptom assessment using the Asthma Control Test, and clinicians estimated airway inflammation and made treatment decisions based on these assessments. Then, FeNO was measured, and changes in therapy based on FeNO levels were documented. The estimated cost impact of using FeNO was calculated presuming ongoing FeNO use in patient management.

RESULTS

Without FeNO, the clinician's assessment of airway inflammation was incorrectly classified in 50% of subjects. FeNO results substantially altered treatment decisions in more than one third of subjects, notably medication augmentation in 10 (20%) and medication decreases in 8 (16%). Use of FeNO in addition to standard of care was estimated to save $629 per subject per year.

CONCLUSION

Measurement of FeNO augments routine clinical assessment of asthma by measuring airway inflammation. Knowledge of FeNO affects medication treatment decisions to augment or decrease pharmacotherapy, which has important long-term asthma management implications, most notably the potential to lower the costs and morbidity associated with asthma exacerbation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01729247.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of beclomethasone/formoterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by acute symptomatic episodes with variable severity and duration. Pharmacological asthma management aims to achieve and maintain control without side effects, thus improving quality of life and reducing the economic impact. Recently, a clinical trial showed the non-inferiority of beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/F) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma. However, this study did not provide evidence on costs and did not quantify quality-of-life parameters.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of BDP/F versus FP/S in patients with moderate to severe asthma from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A Markov model (MM) was used, with five health states for the different levels of asthma control: successful control, sub-optimal control, outpatient-managed exacerbation, inpatient-managed exacerbation, and death. Model data were derived from the ICAT SE study and from expert panels. Three outcomes were considered: time spent in successful control state, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

The model shows that BDP/F treatment led to a slight increase of weeks in successful control compared with FP/S, with a lower cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis highlights that in 64% and 68% of the Monte Carlo simulations, BDP/F outperformed FP/S in terms of weeks in successful control and QALYs. Considering the expected cost of the two strategies, in 90% of simulations BDP/F was the least expensive choice. In particular, BDP/F was cost saving as compared with FP/S in about 63% and 59% of simulations as shown by the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Overall, from the Italian NHS perspective, BDP/F treatment is associated with a reduction in cost and offers a slight increase of effectiveness in terms of weeks spent in successful control and QALYs.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of therapy in asthma

Background:

Asthma’s cost-effectiveness is a major consideration in the evaluation of its treatment options. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of asthma medications.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OHE-HEED, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessments Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Web of Science and reviewed references from key articles between 1990 and Jan 2008.

Results:

A total of 49 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Maintenance therapy with inhaled corticosteroids was found to be very cost-effective and in uncontrolled asthmatics patients currently being treated with ICS, the combination of an ICS/LABA represents a safe, cost-effective treatment. The simplified strategy using budesonide and formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy was also found to be as cost-effective as salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol. Omalizumab was found to be cost-effective. An important caveat with regard to the published literature is the relatively high proportion of economic evaluations which are funded by the manufacturers of specific drug treatments.

Conclusion:

Future studies should be completed independent of industry support and ensure that the comparator arms within studies should include dosages of drugs that are equivalent.

An economic evaluation of NIOX MINO airway inflammation monitor in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FENO), a marker of eosinophilic airway inflammation, is easily measured by noninvasive means. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of FENO measurement using a hand-held monitor (NIOX MINO), at a reimbursement price of 23 pound sterling, for asthma diagnosis and management in the UK.

METHODS

We constructed two decision trees to compare FENO measurement with standard diagnostic testing and guideline recommendations for management. For asthma diagnosis, we compared FENO measurement with lung function and reversibility testing, bronchial provocation and sputum eosinophil count. For asthma management, we evaluated the impact on asthma control, including inhaled corticosteroid use, exacerbations and hospitalizations, of monitoring with FENO measurement vs symptoms and lung function as in standard care. Resource use and health outcomes were evaluated over a 1-year time frame. Direct costs were calculated from a UK health-care payer perspective (2005 pound sterling).

RESULTS

An asthma diagnosis using FENO measurement cost 43 pound sterling less per patient as compared with standard diagnostic tests. Asthma management using FENO measurement instead of lung function testing resulted in annual cost-savings of 341 pound sterling and 0.06 quality-adjusted life-years gained for patients with mild to severe asthma and cost-savings of 554 pound sterling and 0.004 quality-adjusted life-years gained for those with moderate to severe asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Asthma diagnosis based on FENO measurement with NIOX MINO alone is less costly and more accurate than standard diagnostic methods. Asthma management based on FENO measurement is less costly than asthma management based on standard guidelines and provides similar health benefits.

[Inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: a medico-economic analysis of clinical trials]

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a chronic disease with a heavy economic burden in terms of public health on account of its clinical impact and consequences on quality of life and costs. Its management is based on pharmacological measures with inhaled corticosteroids playing a large role. The objective of this study was to undertake an analysis of the published literature of medico-economic trials of the use of inhaled corticosteroids.

METHODS

A review of the literature from 1990 to 2007 was undertaken with separate analyses of studies of inhaled steroids alone and those looking at combined preparations.

RESULTS

The costs of asthma vary greatly depending on the clinical management. Analysis of the published clinical trials showed that the addition of inhaled steroids increased the total cost. When efficacy is taken into account the economic results are acceptable for developed societies. The use of inhaled steroids as maintenance therapy, or maintenance and symptomatic therapy, was always cost effective.

CONCLUSION

These results are based on data from clinical trials. They need to be confirmed by large scale observational studies using validated criteria of effectiveness.

Economic evaluation of FE(NO) measurement in diagnosis and 1-year management of asthma in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FE(NO)) is a marker for airway inflammation in asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of FE(NO) measurement at a reimbursement price of euro34 using NIOX MINO, a portable non-invasive FE(NO) monitor, in asthma diagnosis and management.

METHODS

Two decision trees were constructed to capture the different alternatives and consequences in asthma diagnosis and management, comparing FE(NO) measurement against standard diagnostics and treatment guidelines. The impact of asthma management with FE(NO) measurement on resource use and health outcomes was evaluated over a 1-year timeframe. A German payer perspective was chosen. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

Asthma diagnosis based on FE(NO) measurement results in a cost of euro38 per patient compared with euro26 for standard diagnostics. In mild to severe patients, asthma management with FE(NO) measurement instead of standard guidelines results in cost-savings of euro30 per patient and year. In a more severe population, management with FE(NO) measurement would save costs of euro160 per patient.

CONCLUSION

Asthma diagnosis based on FE(NO) measurement alone (exemplified with NIOX MINO) costs euro12 more per patient than standard diagnostic methods, while offering improved accuracy. The use of FE(NO) measurement in treatment decisions is less costly than asthma management based on standard guidelines and provides similar health benefits.

Long-acting beta2-agonists for chronic asthma in adults and children where background therapy contains varied or no inhaled corticosteroid

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common respiratory disease among both adults and children and short acting inhaled beta-2 agonists are used widely for 'reliever' bronchodilator therapy. Long acting beta-2 agonists (LABA) were introduced as prospective 'symptom controllers' in addition to inhaled corticosteroid 'preventer' therapy (ICS). In this updated review we have included studies in which patients were either not on ICS as a group, or in which some patients, but not all, were on ICS to complement previous systematic reviews of studies where LABA was given in patients uniformly receiving ICS. We have focussed particularly on serious adverse events, given previous concerns about potential risks, especially of death, from regular beta-2 agonist use.

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to determine the benefit or detriment on the primary outcome of asthma control with the regular use of LABA compared with placebo, in mixed populations in which only some were taking ICS and in populations not using ICS therapy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, most recently in October 2005. We searched bibliographies of identified RCTs for additional relevant RCTs and contacted authors of identified RCTs for other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies of at least four weeks duration, comparing a LABA given twice daily with a placebo, in chronic asthma. Selection criteria to this updated review have been altered to accommodate recently published Cochrane reviews on combination and addition of LABA to ICS therapy. Studies in which all individuals were uniformly taking ICS were excluded from this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers performed data extraction and study quality assessment independently. We contacted authors of studies for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies (representing 68 experimental comparisons) randomising 42,333 participants met the inclusion criteria. Salmeterol was used as long-acting agent in 50 studies and formoterol fumarate in 17. The treatment period was four to nine weeks in 29 studies, and 12 to 52 weeks in 38 studies. Twenty-four studies did not permit the use of ICS, and forty permitted either inhaled corticosteroid or cromones (in three studies this was unclear). In these studies between 22% and 92% were taking ICS, with a median of 62%. There were significant advantages to LABA treatment compared to placebo for a variety of measurements of airway calibre including morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), evening PEF and FEV1. They were associated with significantly fewer symptoms, less use of rescue medication and higher quality of life scores. This was true whether patients were taking LABA in combination with ICS or not. Findings from SMART (a recently published surveillance study) indicated significant increases in asthma related deaths, respiratory related deaths and combined asthma related deaths and life threatening experiences. The absolute increase in asthma-related mortality was consistent with an increase of around one per 1250 patients treated with LABA for six months, but the confidence intervals are wide (from 700 to 10,000). Post-hoc exploratory subgroups suggested that African-Americans and those not on inhaled corticosteroids were at particular risk for the primary end-point of death or life-threatening asthma event. There was also a suggestion of an increase in exacerbation rate in children. Pharmacologically predicted side effects such as headache, throat irritation, tremor and nervousness were more frequent with LABA treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

LABA are effective in the control of chronic asthma in the "real-life" subject groups included. However there are potential safety issues which call into question the safety of LABA, particularly in those asthmatics who are not taking ICS, and it is not clear why African-Americans were found to have significant differences in comparison to Caucasians for combined respiratory-related death and life threatening experiences, but not for asthma-related death.

Efficacy and safety of formoterol delivered through the Novolizer, a novel dry powder inhaler (DPI) compared with a standard DPI in patients with moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVE

Because of environmental concerns CFC-containing pressurised metered dose inhalers (pMDI) had to be replaced by dry powder inhalers (DPI). The Novolizer, a novel DPI has previously been shown to be as effective as the Turbuhaler in delivering budesonide. The objective of this study was to show non-inferiority of inhaled formoterol therapy delivered through the Novolizer compared to formoterol delivered through the Aerolizer in patients suffering from moderate to severe asthma.

METHODS

In this double-blind, double-dummy, multicentre study 392 patients were randomised and received a dose of 12 microg formoterol twice daily for 4 weeks either through the Aerolizer or the Novolizer. FEV1 after 4 weeks of treatment was the primary variable. Secondary variables were FVC, PEF, consumption of short-acting; 2 adrenoceptor agonists, asthma symptoms, tolerability and safety.

RESULTS

After 4 weeks of treatment, the mean trough FEV1 (95% CI) was 2.34 L (2.24-2.45) for the Novolizer and 2.31 L (2.21-2.41) for the Aerolizer. Non-inferiority was proven (p<0.0001, pre-defined; of 0.25 L). All secondary variables (incl. PEF) confirmed these findings. Treatment with both devices was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Inhalation of 12 microg formoterol twice daily via Novolizer was shown to be equally therapeutically effective compared to the inhalation via Aerolizer in the treatment of moderate to severe persistent asthma. Treatment via both inhalers was safe and well tolerated.

The use of inhaled formoterol in the treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the clinical efficacy and safety of formoterol when used to relieve symptoms of asthma and prevent exercise-induced bronchoconstriction (EIB).

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search was performed for articles published between 1997 and 2005 with the keywords formoterol, asthma, and long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist, with cross-referencing to identify peer-reviewed journal articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Published articles on the clinical use of formoterol for asthma or EIB were included as well as articles detailing the pharmacologic properties of the drug. To present a thorough review of the literature, published studies based on patient number, study design, or other measures of study quality were not excluded.

RESULTS

Formoterol is the only long-acting beta2-adrenergic agonist that combines a rapid onset of action (within 3 minutes) with a long duration of effect (approximately 12 hours). Clinically, as recommended by asthma treatment guidelines, formoterol in conjunction with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) is a preferred treatment for moderate to severe persistent asthma. Significant clinical data support the use of formoterol in combination with ICSs for the treatment of asthma, with studies demonstrating improved pulmonary function and symptom scores and decreased need for maintenance ICSs and short-acting beta2-adrenergic agonists (SABAs) as relief medication. Recent studies also demonstrate that use of formoterol as needed as relief medication is associated with a prolonged time to exacerbation, improved pulmonary function, and decreased asthma symptoms. When used as monotherapy, formoterol provides protection against EIB. Clinical data also demonstrate that formoterol is safe and well tolerated even in high doses, with an adverse event profile similar to that of SABAs.

CONCLUSION

Overall, formoterol is safe and effective as adjunct controller therapy for moderate and severe persistent asthma and as monotherapy for EIB.

The economic value of anti-IgE in severe persistent, IgE-mediated (allergic) asthma patients: adaptation of INNOVATE to Sweden

BACKGROUND

Severe allergic asthma patients may not be controlled even with guideline recommended care, including inhaled corticosteroids, long-acting beta-2 agonists, theophylline, oral steroids and anti-leukotrienes. They experience exacerbations requiring intensive healthcare use and which may be fatal. Omalizumab, a new monoclonal antibody for use in IgE-mediated allergic diseases, reduces exacerbations and daily symptoms in this patient population. The aim of this study is to estimate the cost effectiveness of adding omalizumab to optimized standard therapy (ST) in patients with severe persistent IgE-mediated (allergic) asthma.

METHODS

A Markov model comparing lifelong ST with a treatment period of omalizumab add-on therapy followed by ST, was developed based on efficacy data from the INNOVATE trial (28 weeks, N = 419) and Swedish life table and cost data. This model assumes that patients are at risk of having an exacerbation every 2 weeks and are at risk of dying from a clinically significant severe asthma exacerbation. Patients in a steady-state of having no exacerbations are defined to be in an 'optimized asthma control' state. Resource use data and utilities were obtained from INNOVATE and from a UK observational study. Costs from a societal perspective include estimates for drugs, routine care, exacerbations and costs in added years of life; benefits are expressed in QALYs. The response to omalizumab was evaluated after 16 weeks of trial, and non-responders stopped taking omalizumab for the remaining time.

RESULTS

Total lifetime discounted costs and QALYs on ST were 52,702 euros and 11.60. Omalizumab add-on therapy cost an additional 42,754 euros for 0.76 additional QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 56,091 euros. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates that the 95% CI around the ICER is [31,328 euros; 120,552 euros]. One-way analyses indicate that the results are sensitive to the exacerbation-related mortality rate, the time horizon and the discount rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the model and the assumptions used, our results suggest that omalizumab provides cost offsets, improves quality of life and may have an attractive ICER in treating the severe allergic asthma population.

Pharmacological management of mild or moderate persistent asthma

Patients with mild persistent asthma rarely see their doctor with symptoms of the disease. Partly as a result of this situation, mild asthma is generally undertreated. Findings of several large randomised clinical trials have shown benefits for this population of regular treatment with low doses of inhaled corticosteroids. Additional drugs are rarely needed, and although leukotriene modifiers are effective, they are less so than inhaled corticosteroids. People with moderate persistent asthma are not well controlled on low doses of inhaled corticosteroids. A combination of this drug and long-acting inhaled beta2 agonists provides improved control compared with doubling of the maintenance dose of inhaled corticosteroids. The combination of budesonide and formoterol has been assessed as both maintenance and reliever treatment. This approach further reduces the risk for severe exacerbations. With these strategies, most individuals can achieve good control of their asthma. For patients who do not achieve asthma control despite taking drugs, measurement of the inflammatory response in the airway in induced sputum could provide further information to guide treatment.

Single-inhaler combination therapy for asthma: a review of cost effectiveness

Clinical studies have shown that the combination of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) for patients with asthma is more effective than the use of ICS alone in equivalent or higher doses, as well as the use of other combinations. However, the relatively higher acquisition costs for the combination therapy require assessment of the value of the incremental costs, especially from a societal perspective. This review provides an overall assessment of the cost effectiveness of ICS plus LABA combination therapy for asthma. A systematic literature research was conducted in MEDLINE to identify studies published between January 1994 and September 2005. Cost-effectiveness studies derived from 11 clinical studies were identified. The ICS plus LABA combination was compared with ICS alone in eight studies, ICS plus a leukotriene antagonist in two studies, and a leukotriene antagonist alone in one study. All studies focused on measuring direct medical costs in a total of six different healthcare systems, and three studies conducted sensitivity analyses, including productivity costs. Outcomes were measured in treatment success (changes in lung function), episode-free days, and symptom-free days by evaluating short-term follow-up. The combination of ICS and LABA was found to be more efficacious and cost effective compared with ICS alone or alternative combinations of controller medications. Further considerations for measuring long-term outcomes and dose-response relationships might be required to provide further evidence on the cost effectiveness of combination therapy with ICS plus LABA.

Formoterol attenuates neutrophilic airway inflammation in asthma

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Airway neutrophil levels are increased in patients with severe asthma and during asthma exacerbations. Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs), such as formoterol, reduce the number of asthma exacerbations. While beta2-agonists may affect neutrophil function in vitro, it is uncertain whether they have effects on neutrophilic inflammation in asthmatic patients in vivo.

DESIGN

In a double-blind randomized crossover study, we evaluated the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with formoterol (Turbuhaler), 24 microg bid, compared to placebo on sputum neutrophil numbers and interleukin (IL)-8 levels in asthmatic patients. Therapy with budesonide (administered via Turbuhaler), 400 microg bid for 4 weeks, was added at the end as a "gold standard" antiinflammatory effect comparison.

PATIENTS

We studied 15 steroid-naïve nonsmoking patients who ranged from 19 to 51 years of age and had mild persistent asthma.

RESULTS

Formoterol therapy significantly reduced sputum IL-8 levels and neutrophil numbers compared to placebo. There was a significant correlation between the reduction in sputum IL-8 levels and the number of neutrophils, indicating that formoterol may attenuate neutrophilic airway inflammation by inhibiting IL-8 production.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that the LABA formoterol reduces neutrophilic airway inflammation in patients with mild asthma and that this might be beneficial in preventing asthma exacerbations.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone in moderate-persistent asthma

In this economic evaluation, conducted alongside a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, economic data were collected from 339 patients with moderate-persistent asthma randomized to receive twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg in a single inhaler (n=166) or fluticasone propionate 250 microg (n=173) for 12 weeks. The mean number of episode-free days (EFD) per patient was significantly greater in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (48.71 compared with 42.34, P=0.0185). Data on medication use, visits to healthcare professionals, and hospitalization were pooled across all six countries and combined with German and Dutch unit cost data to calculate total healthcare costs. Using German unit costs, budesonide/formoterol was associated with significantly lower total healthcare costs per patient over the 12-week period compared with fluticasone (euro 131 compared with euro 210, P=0.0043). Using Dutch unit costs, total healthcare costs were slightly numerically lower in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (euro 102 compared with euro 104), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is more effective than a higher microgram dose of fluticasone alone. It is cost-neutral and may provide cost-savings in some countries.

Combination therapy of long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists and corticosteroids for asthma

Twice-daily combination therapy of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) is now established as a most effective treatment for moderate to severe asthma and is available in a combined single inhaler. The benefits of combination therapy include better day-to-day control and a reduction in exacerbations compared with monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids at a lower dose. Total control of asthma, defined as no daytime or night-time symptoms, no use of rescue beta2-adrenoceptor agonists (beta2-agonists), no exacerbations and a peak flow rate of >80% predicted, may be achieved with the use of combined salmeterol/fluticasone in up to 41% of patients with moderate to severe asthma, compared with only 28% of patients treated with fluticasone alone. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol may provide better control when compared with fixed-dosing combination regimens. Other therapies combining effectively with inhaled corticosteroids include slow-release theophylline and leukotriene inhibitors, montelukast and zafirlukast, but LABA are the most efficacious. Molecular interactions between corticosteroids and beta2-adrenoceptors may underlie the clinical added benefits of combination therapy. Corticosteroids may increase the number of beta2-adrenoceptors and their coupling with Gs proteins, while beta2-agonists may induce glucocorticoid receptor nuclear translocation, activate transcription factor/enhancer binding protein C/EBPalpha together with corticosteroids, or phosphorylate corticosteroid receptors. The combination of corticosteroids and LABA potentiates inhibition of interleukin-8 and eotaxin release from human airway smooth muscle cells and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor release from epithelial cells, and also the inhibition of airway smooth muscle cell proliferation. It is important to determine whether there is a potentiating effect of combination therapy compared with corticosteroid treatment alone on airway inflammation and airway wall remodelling. Improvements in combination therapy include a once-daily preparation and possible combination of inhaled corticosteroids with newer drugs such as phosphodiesterase IV inhibitors.

An economic evaluation of combination treatment with budesonide and formoterol in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Patients with mild asthma may benefit from increasing their inhaled corticosteroid dose, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist, or both. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of these options. Patients aged > or = 12 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma (n = 1272) were randomised to twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide 100 microg, budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, budesonide 200 microg, or budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg for 12 months. Clinical variables included lung function, number of symptom-free days and number of severe exacerbations. Data on medication use, hospitalisation, visits to health professionals and time off work due to asthma were combined with Swedish unit cost data (1999) to estimate the mean annual cost per patient. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg had the greatest efficacy and effectiveness. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg was both more effective and less costly than budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, so a cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated for this comparison. The cost-effectiveness ratio for budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg compared with budesonide 200 microg alone was SEK 21 per symptom-free days gained. The combination of budesonide and formoterol in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma improved effectiveness at modest additional cost.

Cost advantages of combination asthma therapy

The addition of long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) therapy to 'low dose' inhaled corticosteroids improves asthma outcomes in terms of lung function, exacerbation rates, and quality of life measures in asthmatic patients who remain symptomatic on low-dose inhaled corticosteroids alone. Such treatment is now included in guidelines of asthma therapy on the basis of class A evidence from large placebo-controlled trials. Data on the cost-benefit of such treatment is less compelling, but suggests that for patients with mild asthma this clinical improvement is gained at the expense of an increase in direct costs (mostly drug costs), whereas for patients with more severe asthma there may be a cost benefit, largely from reduced costs of exacerbations. Recently, combination inhalers containing both LABA and corticosteroid in the same device have been introduced. Although it is said that a single inhaler (with some immediate symptom relief) may aid patient adherence, there are no firm data to support this, nor are there any cost-effectiveness data on this point. Overall, these devices have been priced at less than the two drugs given separately, but prospective studies evaluating costs in clinical settings are required.

The impact of exacerbations on the asthmatic patient's preference scores

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of exacerbations on mild to moderate asthmatic patients' preference-based, health-related, quality of life scores and also to describe the effect of these exacerbations on daily life. In a survey, 100 mild to moderate asthmatic patients in the United Kingdom were asked to rate three different health marker states on a scale between 0 (death) and 100 (perfect health), defined as: your asthma of today, a mild exacerbation, and a severe exacerbation of asthma. They were also asked to describe their symptoms and what they did when experiencing an exacerbation. During exacerbations the vast majority of asthmatic patients have significant symptoms and consume a considerable amount of health care resources, which often overlap. The health marker state "your asthma of today" was given a mean score of 81.0, a mild exacerbation a score of 62.1, and a severe exacerbation a score of 25.6, indicating a large impact on patients' daily life and their health-related quality of life. In conclusion, asthmatic patients are severely affected in their health and daily living by mild and severe exacerbations. Considerable effort should be made to reduce the number and severity of exacerbations.

One-year safety and efficacy of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler) for the treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

A budesonide/formoterol single inhaler has been developed for convenient treatment of patients whose asthma is inadequately controlled by inhaled glucocorticosteroids alone.

OBJECTIVES

To compare long-term safety and efficacy of budesonide/formoterol single inhaler with budesonide plus formoterol via separate inhalers in adults with asthma.

METHODS

In this open, randomized, parallel-group 6-month extension conducted in a subset of centres from a previous 6-month study, patients (n=321) received two inhalations bid of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) 160/4.5 microg delivered dose or corresponding doses of budesonide (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) plus formoterol (Oxis Turbuhaler) via separate inhalers.

RESULTS

Significantly fewer patients receiving budesonide/formoterol single inhaler withdrew compared with budesonide plus formoterol (9 vs. 19%, P=0.008). Incidence and severity of AEs were low and similar in both groups. No clinically important differences between groups, or changes, were identified in laboratory measurements, vital signs or ECG. Treatments produced similar improvements in lung function, ACQ scores and Mini AQLQ domains that were maintained throughout 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is as safe and effective in the long-term treatment of asthma as budesonide plus formoterol via separate inhalers. The lower number of withdrawals with budesonide/formoterol may reflect better adherence to treatment compared with budesonide plus formoterol.

Measuring costs and consequences in economic evaluation in asthma

Formal economic evaluation is playing an increasingly important role in health-care decision-making. This is shown by the requirement to present economic data to support applications for public reimbursement for new pharmaceuticals in Australia and the provinces of Canada, and by the appraisal process initiated by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in the U.K. This growing role of economic analysis applies as much to the field of asthma as anywhere. This paper provides a detailed review of applied economic studies in asthma. The review is used to explore a range of methodological issues in the field including the choice of perspective and maximand, whether to use disease-specific or generic measures of outcome and whether decision-makers should receive disaggregated cost and consequence data or results that focus on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. It is concluded that, given the heterogeneity in decision-makers' objectives and constraints, economic studies should be planned and executed in such a way as to maximize flexibility in how results are presented.

Inhaled long acting beta agonists for stable chronic asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a common respiratory disease among both adults and children and short acting inhaled beta-2 agonists are used widely for 'reliever' bronchodilator therapy. Long acting beta-2 agonists were introduced as prospective 'symptom controllers' in addition to inhaled corticosteroid 'preventer' therapy (ICS).

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to determine the benefit or detriment on the primary outcome of asthma control with the regular use of long acting inhaled beta-2 agonists compared with placebo.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We carried out searches using the Cochrane Airways Group trial register, most recently in October 2002. We searched bibliographies of identified RCTs for additional relevant RCTs and contacted authors of identified RCTs for other published and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised studies of at least two weeks duration, comparing a long acting inhaled beta-agonist given twice daily with a placebo, in chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers performed data extraction and study quality assessment independently. We contacted authors of studies for missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty five studies met the inclusion criteria, 56 parallel group and 29 cross over design. Salmeterol xinafoate was used as long acting agent in 60 studies and formoterol fumarate in 25. The treatment period was two to four weeks in 32 studies, and 12 to 52 weeks in 53 studies. 34 study groups used concurrent inhaled corticosteroid treatment, 21 studies did not permit their use and 35 permitted either inhaled corticosteroid or cromones. There were significant advantages to long acting beta-2 agonist treatment compared to placebo for a variety of measurements of airway calibre including morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (weighted mean difference (WMD) 26.78 L/min 95%CI 20.36 to 33.20), evening PEF (WMD 19.17 L/min 95%CI 11.63 to 26.73). They were associated with significantly fewer symptoms, less use of rescue medication and higher quality of life scores. The risk of exacerbation was lower in adults using regular inhaled corticosteroids.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Long acting beta-2 agonists are effective in the control of chronic asthma, and the evidence supports their use in addition to inhaled corticosteroids, as emphasised in current guidelines. Further research is needed on their use in children under 12 and in mild asthmatics not taking ICS.

Combined budesonide/formoterol turbuhaler treatment of asthma

OBJECTIVE

To provide product information; review and analyze the clinical literature studying combination therapy, budesonide, and formoterol in asthmatics; and to define the role for this therapy in asthma treatment.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1990-September 2001) was conducted to identify the primary literature. Bibliographies were reviewed for further relevant citations.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

All randomized, blinded, controlled studies at least 3 months in duration exploring the efficacy of the combination of budesonide and formoterol (in 1 or separate formulations) compared with other treatments were selected to be included in the review of clinical studies.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The combination of budesonide and formoterol was more effective than increasing the dose of budesonide in patients with moderate or severe persistent asthma and in patients with mild asthma not previously controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Milder corticosteroid-naïve asthmatics did not derive benefit compared with inhaled corticosteroids alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy in 1 device is a preferred treatment option in patients with moderate to severe persistent asthma and in those with milder asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids. Advantages of this product include rapid onset of action, long duration of action, and a wide dosing range to assist with titration. Further research is required to evaluate this therapy in asthmatic children <5 years old and in patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent asthma. Investigations into the effect of this combination product on other disease outcomes, such as quality of life and productivity, will further define the role for this drug therapy.

An update on the health economics of asthma and allergy

Health economics is receiving more attention as decision-makers--whether purchaser, physician, or patient--are looking for a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of adopting new healthcare strategies. In this article we review the recent advances in the health economics of asthma and allergy. In burden of illness studies, estimates of the economic burden of asthma and allergy were reported from countries and regions not previously detailing these costs. There were economic evaluations comparing medications and those that evaluated disease management programs. The recent studies of pharmaceuticals have focused on evaluating the cost-effectiveness of various controller medications for the treatment of asthma. Although mostly observational, such studies increase the evidence that these medications are relatively cost-effective. A few recent economic evaluations have been published examining disease management and education programs. These studies are generally long-term evaluations and have not shown consistent health economic impact. The field of health economics in asthma and allergy continues to evolve and aims to provide information to aid in decision making.

A cost-effectiveness study comparing the as-needed use of formoterol (Oxis) and terbutaline (Bricanyl) in patients with moderate to severe asthma

This study evaluated the economic and health-related consequences of the as-needed use of a long-acting beta2-agonist with fast onset (formoterol, Oxis Turbuhaler 4.5 microg) versus a short-acting beta2-agonist (terbutaline, Bricanyl Turbuhaler 0.5 mg) in patients with moderate to severe asthma. A multi-national (Sweden, Norway, The Netherlands and Greece), multi-centre (35 centres), randomized, double-blind clinical trial was conducted using 362 patients on inhaled steroids during a 12-week period. The effectiveness results were pooled and the total costs included estimates for beta2-agonists, inhaled steroids, oral steroids, physician visits and sick-leave. The 182 patients in the formoterol group had 14,404 days of exposure and 29 severe exacerbations, and the 180 patients in the terbutaline group had 13,655 days of exposure and 48 severe exacerbations. The terbutaline group had 62% more severe exacerbations than the formoterol group (P=0.039), based on exposure time. Per patient, the calculated total costs were SEK 3386 for the formoterol group and SEK 3709 for the terbutaline group over the 12-week period. The conclusion is that the use of Oxis Turbuhaler instead of Bricanyl Turbuhaler for as-needed treatment is a more effective treatment generating cost savings from a societal perspective.

Formoterol--where does it fit in the current guidelines?

Drugs available to treat asthma have improved considerably over the past three decades and understanding of the disease process is continually improving. However, the incidence of asthma is increasing and the cause(s) of this increase are not yet identified. Asthma is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. Poor compliance with medication is also an important consideration in how effective management strategies can be. The aim of current asthma treatment, according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), is to control the disease. However, two surveys, one in Europe and the other in the U.S.A. indicate that the objectives of treatment guidelines are not being met. Patients were shown to experience high rates of exacerbations and require many doses of reliever medication. There was also a large difference between patient and physician perceptions of treatment--this needs to be countered by improved education for both the general public and healthcare professionals. Formoterol, which is the only beta2-agonist to possess both fast- and long-acting properties, may help to improve patient compliance by allowing a single inhaler to be used for both maintenance and as-needed therapy. However, although formoterol is already widely used as maintenance therapy current treatment guidelines do not include the use of formoterol as first-line reliever medication. Evidence is increasing to support as-needed use and a large, randomized effect veness study in 18,000 patients across the world is ongoing to assess the safety and efficacy of formoterol as needed in a real-life setting. The results from the Real-Life Effectiveness of Oxis Turbuhaler (RELIEF) study should help to establish the position of formoterol as an effective first line reliever medication and ultimately lead to the inclusion of formoterol as needed in treatment guidelines.

Clinical outcome of adding long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids

Current asthma management guidelines state that where a patient is receiving a low to moderate dose of inhaled corticosteroids and is still experiencing symptoms the dose of corticosteroid should be increased and, if necessary, a long-acting bronchodilator should be added. Many studies have now shown that the addition of a beta2-agonist with long-acting properties is more effective at controlling asthma symptoms than increasing the dose of corticosteroid alone. The Formoterol and Corticosteroid Establishing Therapy (FACET) study was a 12-month study comparing exacerbation rates in patients treated with budesonide (100 microg or 400 microg) twice daily alone vs, treatment with budesonide (100 microg or 400 microg) twice daily plus formoterol 9 microg twice daily (delivered dose). The addition of formoterol reduced the rates of mild and severe exacerbations compared with budesonide alone, with the lowest rates seen in patients receiving high-dose budesonide and formoterol. There was no difference in the profile of exacerbations in any groups, indicating formoterol does not mask any signs of inflammation. The addition of formoterol to budesonide was also shown to result in improved lung function (as measured by peak expiratory flow rate and forced expiratory volume in 1 second), night-time awakenings and the use of as-needed medication when compared with an increase in the dose of budesonide. In all cases, increasing the dose of budesonide and addition of formoterol resulted in the most improvement and a significant increase in quality of life, measured by Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ), was noted. In conclusion, the addition of formoterol to established treatment with inhaled corticosteroids provides superior asthma control compared with an increase in the dose of corticosteroid alone.