Health economics of asthma: assessing the value of asthma interventions

Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A quality appraisal

This paper systematically and critically reviewed all published economic evaluations of drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A systematic search was conducted using relevant databases for economic evaluations to include all relevant English articles published between January 2008 to January 2020. After extracting the key study characteristics, methods and outcomes, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. A total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. Majority of studies were funded by the industry and reported favorable cost-effectiveness. Based on the QHES total scores, studies (n = 35) were found to be industry-funded with higher QHES mean 82.44 ± 8.69 as compared with nonindustry funding studies (n = 11) with mean 72.22 ± 17.67. The overall mean QHES scores were found to be higher 79.06 ± 11.84, representing high quality (75–100) compared to CHEERS scores (%) 75.03 ± 11.21. The statistical pairwise comparison between CHEERS mean (75.03 ± 11.21) and QHES mean (79.06 ± 11.84) were not statistically significant (P = 0.10) whereas, QHES score showed higher means as compared to CHEERS. This study suggests the overall quality of the published literatures was relatively few high-quality health economic evaluation demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis, and the majority of the literature highlights that methodological shortcoming.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Economic evidence for nonpharmacological asthma management interventions: A systematic review

Asthma management, education and environmental interventions have been reported as cost‐effective in a previous review (Pharm Pract (Granada), 2014;12:493), but methods used to estimate costs and outcomes were not discussed in detail. This review updates the previous review by providing economic evidence on the cost‐effectiveness of studies identified after 2012, and a detailed assessment of the methods used in all identified studies. Twelve databases were searched from 1990 to January 2016, and studies included economic evaluations, asthma subjects and nonpharmacological interventions written in English. Sixty‐four studies were included. Of these, 15 were found in addition to the earlier review; 53% were rated fair in quality and 47% high. Education and self‐management interventions were the most cost‐effective, in line with the earlier review. Self‐reporting was the most common method used to gather resource‐use data, accompanied by bottom‐up approaches to estimate costs. Main outcome measures were asthma‐related hospitalizations (69%), quality of life (41%) and utility (38%), with AQLQ and the EQ‐5D being the most common questionnaires measured prospectively at fixed time points. More rigorous costing methods are needed with a more common quality of life tool to aid greater replicability and comparability amongst asthma studies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Administering Rituximab for Steroid-Dependent Nephrotic Syndrome and Frequently Relapsing Nephrotic Syndrome: A Preliminary Study in Japan

With regard to the use of rituximab for patients with steroid-dependent nephrotic syndrome and frequently relapsing nephrotic syndrome, not only has the regimen not been clinically verified but also there is a lack of health economics evidence. Therefore, we conducted a prospective clinical study on 30 patients before (with steroids and immunosuppressants) and after introducing rituximab therapy. Relapse rates and total invoiced medical expenses were selected as the primary endpoints for treatment effectiveness and treatment costs, respectively. As secondary endpoints, cost-effectiveness was compared before and after administering rituximab in relation to previous pharmacotherapy. The observation period was 24 months before and after the initiation of rituximab. We showed that there was a statistically significant improvement in the relapse rate from a mean of 4.30 events before administration to a mean of 0.27 events after administration and that there was a significantly better prognosis in the cumulative avoidance of relapse rate by Kaplan–Meier analysis (p < 0.01). Finally, the total medical costs decreased from 2,923 USD to 1,280 USD per month, and the pre–post cost-effectiveness was confirmed as dominant. We, therefore, conclude that treatment with rituximab was possibly superior to previous pharmacological treatments from a health economics perspective.

Systematic Review and Quality Appraisal of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Pharmacologic Maintenance Treatment for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent chronic lung disease with considerable clinical and socioeconomic impact. Pharmacologic maintenance drugs (such as bronchodilators and inhaled corticosteroids) play an important role in the treatment of COPD. The cost effectiveness of these treatments has been frequently assessed, but studies to date have largely neglected the impact of treatment sequence and the exact stage of disease in which the drugs are used in real life.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review recently published articles that reported the cost effectiveness of COPD maintenance treatments, with a focus on key findings, quality and methodological issues.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in Embase, PubMed, the UK NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) and EURONHEED (European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases) and included all relevant articles published between 2011 and 2015 in either Dutch, English or German. Main study characteristics, methods and outcomes were extracted and critically assessed. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used as basis for quality assessment, but additional items were also addressed.

RESULTS

The search identified 18 recent pharmacoeconomic analyses of COPD maintenance treatments. Papers reported the cost effectiveness of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) monotherapy (n = 6), phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitors (n = 4), long-acting beta agonist/inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) combinations (n = 4), LABA monotherapy (n = 2) and LABA/LAMA combinations (n = 2). All but two studies were funded by the manufacturer, and all studies indicated favourable cost effectiveness; however, the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained was small. Less than half of the studies reported a COPD-specific outcome in addition to a generic outcome (mostly QALYs). Exacerbation and mortality rates were found to be the main drivers of cost effectiveness. According to the QHES, the quality of the studies was generally sufficient, but additional assessment revealed that most studies poorly represented the cost effectiveness of real-life medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of studies showed that pharmacologic COPD maintenance treatment is cost effective, but most studies poorly reflected real-life drug use. Consistent and COPD-specific methodology is recommended.

Economic Evidence for US Asthma Self-Management Education and Home-Based Interventions

The health and economic burden of asthma in the United States is substantial. Asthma self-management education (AS-ME) and home-based interventions for asthma can improve asthma control and prevent asthma exacerbations, and interest in health care-public health collaboration regarding asthma is increasing. However, outpatient AS-ME and home-based asthma intervention programs are not widely available; economic sustainability is a common concern. Thus, we conducted a narrative review of existing literature regarding economic outcomes of outpatient AS-ME and home-based intervention programs for asthma in the United States. We identified 9 outpatient AS-ME programs and 17 home-based intervention programs with return on investment (ROI) data. Most programs were associated with a positive ROI; a few programs observed positive ROIs only among selected populations (eg, higher health care utilization). Interpretation of existing data is limited by heterogeneous ROI calculations. Nevertheless, the literature suggests promise for sustainable opportunities to expand access to outpatient AS-ME and home-based asthma intervention programs in the United States. More definitive knowledge about how to maximize program benefit and sustainability could be gained through more controlled studies of specific populations and increased uniformity in economic assessments.

Measuring the cost of poor asthma control and exacerbations

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown an association between cost and poor asthma control. However, longitudinal studies of general populations are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost of poor asthma control and exacerbations across a broad spectrum of asthma patients.

METHODS

The Observational Study of Asthma Control and Outcomes (OSACO) was a prospective survey of persistent asthma patients in Kaiser Colorado in 2011-2012. Patients received a survey 3 times in one year, which included the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and questions on exacerbations. Self-reported exacerbations were compared to actual oral corticosteroid (OCS) use. Regression analyses examined the association of control (ACQ-5 scores) and exacerbations with healthcare expenditures, controlling for sociodemographics and smoking. Analyses of expenditures used Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with log-link.

RESULTS

2681 individuals completed at least one survey; 1799 completed all three. ACQ-5 scores were associated with higher all-cause and asthma-specific expenditures across all categories of costs (medical, outpatient, ER, pharmacy) except for inpatient expenditures. Each 1-point increase in the ACQ-5 score (i.e., worse control) was associated with a corresponding increase in all-cause annual healthcare and asthma-specific expenditures of $1443 and $927 ($US 2013). Asthma exacerbations with documented OCS use were associated with an increase of $3014 and $1626 over 4 months, while self-reported exacerbations were $713 and $506.

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate that poor asthma control and exacerbations are strongly associated with higher healthcare expenditures. Results also confirm that collection of validated measures of control such as the ACQ-5 may provide valuable information toward improving clinical and economic outcomes.

Systematic review of models used in economic analyses in moderate-to-severe asthma and COPD

BACKGROUND

Respiratory diseases exert a substantial burden on society, with newer drugs increasingly adding to the burden. Economic models are often used, but seldom reviewed.

PURPOSE

To summarize economic models used in economic analyses of drugs treating moderate-to-severe/very severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This study searched Medline and Embase from inception to the end of February 2015 for cost-effectiveness/utility analyses that examined at least one drug against placebo, another drug, or other standard therapy in asthma or COPD. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data with differences adjudicated via consensus discussion. Data extracted included model used and its qualities, validation methods, treatments compared, disease severity, analytic perspective, time horizon, data collection (pro- or retrospective), input rates and sources, costs and sources, planned sensitivity analyses, criteria for cost-effectiveness, reported outcomes, and sponsor.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 53 articles; 14 (25%) on asthma and 39 (75%) COPD. Markov models were commonly used for both asthma and COPD-related economic evaluations. Relatively few studies validated their model. For asthma-related studies, 10 examined inhaled corticosteroids and nine studied omalizumab. Placebo or standard therapy was the comparison in 11 studies and active drugs in the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies include validation of their models. Furthermore, controversy concerning some results was uncovered in this study, which needs to be avoided in the future.

Community Health Worker Home Visits for Medicaid-Enrolled Children With Asthma: Effects on Asthma Outcomes and Costs

OBJECTIVES

We sought to estimate the return on investment of a streamlined version of an evidence-based community health worker (CHW) asthma home visit program.

METHODS

We used a randomized parallel group trial of home visits by CHWs to Medicaid-enrolled children with uncontrolled asthma versus usual care.

RESULTS

A total of 373 participants enrolled in the study (182 in the intervention group and 191 in the control group, of whom 154 and 179, respectively, completed the study). The intervention group had greater improvements in asthma symptom-free days (2.10 days more over 2 weeks; 95% CI =  1.17, 3.05; P < .001) and caretakers' quality of life (0.43 units more; 95% CI = 0.20, 0.66; P < .001) and a larger reduction in urgent health care utilization events (1.31 events fewer over 12 months; 95% CI = -2.10, -0.52; P = .001). The intervention arm compared with the control arm saved $1340.92 for the $707.04 additional costs invested for the average participant. The return on investment was 1.90.

CONCLUSIONS

A streamlined CHW asthma home visit program for children with uncontrolled asthma improved health outcomes and yielded a return on investment of 1.90.

Economic evaluation of enhanced asthma management: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate and compare full economic evaluation studies on the cost-effectiveness of enhanced asthma management (either as an adjunct to usual care or alone) vs. usual care alone.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for published journal articles in English language from year 1990 to 2012, using the search terms '"asthma" AND ("intervene" OR "manage") AND ("pharmacoeconomics" OR "economic evaluation" OR "cost effectiveness" OR "cost benefit" OR "cost utility")'. Hand search was done for local publishing. Only studies with full economic evaluation on enhanced management were included (cost consequences (CC), cost effectiveness (CE), cost benefit (CB), or cost utility (CU) analysis). Data were extracted and assessed for the quality of its economic evaluation design and evidence sources.

RESULTS

A total of 49 studies were included. There were 3 types of intervention for enhanced asthma management: education, environmental control, and self-management. The most cost-effective enhanced management was a mixture of education and self-management by an integrated team of healthcare and allied healthcare professionals. In general, the studies had a fair quality of economic evaluation with a mean QHES score of 73.7 (SD=9.7), and had good quality of evidence sources.

CONCLUSION

Despite the overall fair quality of economic evaluations but good quality of evidence sources for all data components, this review showed that the delivered enhanced asthma managements, whether as single or mixed modes, were overall effective and cost-reducing. Whilst the availability and accessibility are an equally important factor to consider, the sustainability of the cost-effective management has to be further investigated using a longer time horizon especially for chronic diseases such as asthma.

Economic evidence on the health impacts of climate change in europe

BACKGROUND

In responding to the health impacts of climate change, economic evidence and tools inform decision makers of the efficiency of alternative health policies and interventions. In a time when sweeping budget cuts are affecting all tiers of government, economic evidence on health protection from climate change spending enables comparison with other public spending.

METHODS

The review included 53 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region. Literature was obtained using a Medline and Internet search of key terms in published reports and peer-reviewed literature, and from institutions working on health and climate change. Articles were included if they provided economic estimation of the health impacts of climate change or adaptation measures to protect health from climate change in the WHO European Region. Economic studies are classified under health impact cost, health adaptation cost, and health economic evaluation (comparing both costs and impacts).

RESULTS

A total of 40 relevant studies from Europe were identified, covering the health damage or adaptation costs related to the health effects of climate change and response measures to climate-sensitive diseases. No economic evaluation studies were identified of response measures specific to the impacts of climate change. Existing studies vary in terms of the economic outcomes measured and the methods for evaluation of health benefits. The lack of robust health impact data underlying economic studies significantly affects the availability and precision of economic studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evidence in European countries on the costs of and response to climate-sensitive diseases is extremely limited and fragmented. Further studies are urgently needed that examine health impacts and the costs and efficiency of alternative responses to climate-sensitive health conditions, in particular extreme weather events (other than heat) and potential emerging diseases and other conditions threatening Europe.

Cost-consequence analysis of multimodal interventions with environmental components for pediatric asthma in the state of Maryland

BACKGROUND

Applied environmental strategies for asthma control are often expensive, but may save longer-term healthcare costs. Whether these savings outweigh additional costs of implementing these strategies is uncertain.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate the expenditures and savings of environmental interventions for asthma in the state of Maryland. Direct costs included hospitalizations, emergency room, and clinic visits. Indirect expenditures included costs of lost work productivity and travel incurred during the usage of healthcare services. We used decision analysis, assuming a hypothetical cohort of the approximated 49,290 pediatric individuals in Maryland with persistent asthma, to compare costs and benefits of environmental asthma interventions against the standard of care (no intervention) from the societal perspective.

RESULTS

Three interventions among nine articles met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review: 1) environmental education using medical professionals; 2) education using non-medical personnel; and 3) multi-component strategy involving education with non-medical personnel, allergen-impermeable covers, and pest management. All interventions were found to be cost-saving relative to the standard of care. Home environmental education using non-medical professionals yielded the highest net savings of $14.1 million (95% simulation interval (SI): $-.283 million, $19.4 million), while the multi-component intervention resulted in the lowest net savings of $8.1 million (95% SI: $-4.9 million, $15.9 million). All strategies were most sensitive to the baseline number of hospitalizations in those not receiving targeted interventions for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited environmental reduction strategies for asthma are likely to be cost-saving to the healthcare system in Maryland and should be considered for broader scale-up in other economically similar settings.

Estimates of costs for housing-related interventions to prevent specific illnesses and deaths

Public health is embracing economic analyses in an effort to use limited resources in the most efficient manner. However, users of economic analyses in the public health arena should recognize the inherent strengths and weaknesses of different types of analysis, as well as understand how the inclusion or omission of certain costs or benefits might influence study results. For example, asthma is a chronic condition that can result in health care costs that accrue well beyond the duration of a housing intervention. Thus, an economic analysis that omits long-term health care costs can underestimate the total economic benefit of the housing intervention. This article contains reviews of economic articles on housing interventions published in PubMed, examines salient differences between studies, and discusses pertinent gaps in the literature. In addition, this article attempts to provide an overview of key economic evaluation methods in relation to housing interventions to a target audience of local and state public health practitioners. Specific housing-related health issues discussed include asthma, lead, and carbon monoxide poisoning and radon-related lung cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of multiple sclerosis disease-modifying therapies: a systematic review of the literature

Objective. To provide a current and comprehensive understanding of the cost-effectiveness of DMTs for the treatment of MS by quantitatively evaluating the quality of recent cost-effectiveness studies and exploring how the field has progressed from past recommendations. Methods. We assessed the quality of studies that met our systematic literature search criteria using the Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument. Results. Of the 82 studies that met our initial search criteria, we included 22 in this review. Four studies (18%) achieved quality category 2, three studies (14%) achieved quality category 3, and 15 studies (68%) achieved the highest quality category 4. 91% of studies were simulation models. 13 studies (59%) had quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as the primary outcome measure, included a societal perspective in the analysis, and utilized time horizons of 10 years to lifetime. Conclusions. To continue to improve the cost-effectiveness evidence of DMTs, we recommend: lifetime horizons, societal perspectives, and QALYs; supplemental evidence with shorter horizons, payer perspectives, and clinical outcomes to inform multiple decision makers; development of modeling and input standards for comparability; head-to-head RCTs between DMTs and long-term prospective studies; and comprehensive cost-effectiveness studies that compare all appropriate DMTs.

The costs and consequences of omalizumab in uncontrolled asthma from a USA payer perspective

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab, an anti-immunoglobulin E antibody, reduces exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled allergic asthma. The study objective was to estimate the costs and consequences of omalizumab compared to usual care from a US payer perspective.

METHODS

We estimated payer costs, quality-adjusted survival (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of omalizumab compared to usual care using a state-transition simulation model that included sensitivity analyses. Every 2 weeks, patients could transition between chronic asthma and exacerbation health states. The best available evidence informed the clinical and cost input estimates. Five years of omalizumab treatment followed by usual care was assumed to estimate a lifetime horizon. Omalizumab responders (60.5% of treated) were modeled as a separate scenario where nonresponders reverted back to usual care after 16 weeks of active treatment.

RESULTS

The mean lifetime discounted costs and QALYs were $83,400 and 13.87 for usual care and $174,500 and 14.19 for omalizumab plus usual care resulting in $287 200/QALY (95% interval: $219,300, $557, 900). The ICER was $172 300/QALY when comparing omalizumab to usual care in the responder scenario. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that the results were sensitive to the difference in treatment-specific utilities for the chronic state, exacerbation-associated mortality, omalizumab price, exacerbation rates, and response definition.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that adding omalizumab to usual care improves QALYs at an increase in direct medical costs. The cost-effectiveness of omalizumab is similar to other chronic disease biologics. The value increases when omalizumab response is used to guide long-term treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of corticosteroid inhaler devices in primary care asthma management: A real world observational study

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare real world cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered by metered dose inhaler (MDI), breath-actuated MDI (BAI), or dry powder inhaler (DPI) in asthma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective database study analyzed the direct health care costs and proportion of patients (aged 5-60 years) achieving asthma control over 1 year in two population groups: those starting ICS (initiation population) and those receiving a first increase in ICS dose (step-up population). Asthma control was defined as no unplanned asthma visits, oral corticosteroids, or antibiotics for lower respiratory infection; outcomes were adjusted for confounding variables. Cost-effectiveness of BAI and DPI were compared with MDI.

RESULTS

For the initiation population (n = 56,347), average annual health care costs per person (adjusted results), as compared with MDIs, were £9 higher (95% CI: -1.65 to 19.71) for BAIs and £32 higher (95% CI: 19.51 to 43.66) for DPIs. The probability of BAIs being the dominant strategy (more effective and less costly than MDIs) was 5% and of BAIs being more effective and more costly than MDIs was 94%. DPIs were consistently more effective and more costly than MDIs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £1711 (95% CI: 760 to 3,576) per additional controlled patient per year. For the step-up population (n = 9169), mean total health care costs per person, (adjusted) as compared with MDIs, were £1 higher (95% CI: -27.28 to 31.55) for BAIs and £73 higher (95% CI: 44.48 to 103.29) for DPIs. The probability of BAIs being dominant was 48% and of BAIs being more effective but more costly than MDIs was 52%; the probability of DPIs being more effective but more costly than MDIs was 96%.

CONCLUSION

The real world effectiveness of ICS inhalers may vary, and inhaler device selection for patients with asthma should take into consideration not only initial device cost but also the subsequent health care resource costs.

Montelukast in guidelines and beyond

In all asthma guidelines, preventive anti-inflammatory treatment is essential in all patients with persistent asthma. Inhaled corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment in the control of asthma, but other treatments may be used as a monotherapy in patients with mild asthma or as an add-on treatment in those with moderate-to-severe asthma. Leukotriene modifiers are the only validated preventive treatment for all age groups. This review discusses the place of montelukast, a leukotriene receptor antagonist, using guidelines and consensus reports on asthma and rhinitis: the US National Asthma Education and Prevention Program (NAEPP); the British Guideline on the Management of Asthma; the Global Initiative on Asthma (GINA); and Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA). This review includes new studies that have not yet been considered in guidelines.