Economic assessment of adjustable maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed treatment in asthma

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.

Stepping down the dose of inhaled corticosteroids for adults with asthma

BACKGROUND

Asthma is a condition of the airways affecting more than 300 million adults and children worldwide. National and international guidelines recommend titrating up the dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to gain symptom control at the lowest possible dose because long-term use of higher doses of ICS carries a risk of systemic adverse events. For patients whose asthma symptoms are controlled on moderate or higher doses of ICS, it may be possible to reduce the dose of ICS without compromising symptom control.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the evidence for stepping down ICS treatment in adults with well-controlled asthma who are already receiving a moderate or high dose of ICS.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials from the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Airways Group and conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We searched all databases from their inception with no restriction on language. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We performed the most recent search in July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 12 weeks' duration and excluded cross-over trials. We looked for studies of adults (aged ≥ 18 years) whose asthma had been well controlled for a minimum of three months on at least a moderate dose of ICS. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with any other respiratory comorbidity.We included trials comparing a reduction in the dose of ICS versus no change in the dose of ICS in people with well-controlled asthma who a) were not taking a concomitant long-acting beta agonist (LABA; comparison 1), and b) were taking a concomitant LABA (comparison 2).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for included studies, extracted data on prespecified outcomes of interest and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; we resolved disagreements by discussion with a third review author. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis and analysed continuous data as mean differences (MDs). We used a random-effects model. We rated all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system and presented results in 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies, which randomised a total of 1654 participants (ICS dose reduction, no concomitant LABA (comparison 1): n = 892 participants, three RCTs; ICS dose reduction, concomitant LABA (comparison 2): n = 762 participants, three RCTs). All included studies were RCTs with a parallel design that compared a fixed dose of ICS versus a 50% to 60% reduction in the dose of ICS in adult participants with well-controlled asthma. The duration of the treatment period ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (mean duration 21 weeks; median duration 14 weeks). Two studies were performed in the setting of primary care, two were performed in the secondary care setting and two reported no information on setting.Meta-analysis was hampered by the small number of studies contributing to each comparison, combined with heterogeneity among outcomes reported in the included studies. We found the quality of synthesised evidence to be low or very low for most outcomes considered because of a risk of bias (principally, selective reporting), imprecision and indirectness. Although we found no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences between groups with respect to any of the primary or secondary outcomes considered in this review, the data were insufficient to rule out benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The strength of the evidence is not sufficient to determine whether stepping down the dose of ICS is of net benefit (in terms of fewer adverse effects) or harm (in terms of reduced effectiveness of treatment) for adult patients with well-controlled asthma. A small number of relevant studies and varied outcome measures limited the number of meta-analyses that we could perform. Additional well-designed RCTs of longer duration are needed to inform clinical practice regarding use of a 'stepping down ICS' strategy for patients with well-controlled asthma.

Addition of long-acting beta2-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed for children with asthma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of adding a LABA to an ICS in children and adolescents with asthma. To determine whether the benefit of LABA was influenced by baseline severity of airway obstruction, the dose of ICS to which it was added or with which it was compared, the type of LABA used, the number of devices used to deliver combination therapy and trial duration.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register until January 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same, or an increased, dose of ICS for at least four weeks in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included markers of exacerbation, pulmonary function, symptoms, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed studies independently for methodological quality and extracted data. We obtained confirmation from trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in this review a total of 33 trials representing 39 control-intervention comparisons and randomly assigning 6381 children. Most participants were inadequately controlled on their current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to ICS (1) versus the same dose of ICS, and (2) versus an increased dose of ICS.LABA added to ICS was compared with the same dose of ICS in 28 studies. Mean age of participants was 11 years, and males accounted for 59% of the study population. Mean forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) at baseline was ≥ 80% of predicted in 18 studies, 61% to 79% of predicted in six studies and unreported in the remaining studies. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but four studies.There was no significant group difference in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.28, 12 studies, 1669 children; moderate-quality evidence) with addition of LABA to ICS compared with ICS alone. There was no statistically significant group difference in hospital admissions (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.36, seven studies, 1292 children; moderate-quality evidence)nor in serious adverse events (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.85, 17 studies, N = 4021; moderate-quality evidence). Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA (23 studies, 471 children, RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.94; low-quality evidence). Compared with ICS alone, addition of LABA led to significantly greater improvement in FEV1 (nine studies, 1942 children, inverse variance (IV) 0.08 L, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.10; mean difference (MD) 2.99%, 95% CI 0.86 to 5.11, seven studies, 534 children; low-quality evidence), morning peak expiratory flow (PEF) (16 studies, 3934 children, IV 10.20 L/min, 95% CI 8.14 to 12.26), reduction in use of daytime rescue inhalations (MD -0.07 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02, seven studies; 1798 children) and reduction in use of nighttime rescue inhalations (MD -0.08 puffs/d, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.03, three studies, 672 children). No significant group difference was noted in exercise-induced % fall in FEV1, symptom-free days, asthma symptom score, quality of life, use of reliever medication and adverse events.A total of 11 studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy versus an increased dose of ICS with random assignment of 1628 children. Mean age of participants was 10 years, and 64% were male. Baseline mean FEV1 was ≥ 80% of predicted. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline inhaled steroid dose equivalent to 400 µg/d of beclomethasone equivalent or less.There was no significant group differences in risk of exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS versus a double dose of ICS (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.32, three studies, 581 children; moderate-quality evidence) nor in risk of hospital admission (RR 1.90, 95% CI 0.65 to 5.54, four studies, 1008 children; moderate-quality evidence).No statistical significant group difference was noted in serious adverse events (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.94, seven studies, N = 1343; moderate-quality evidence) and no statistically significant differences in overall risk of all-cause withdrawals (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37, eight studies, 1491 children; moderate-quality evidence). Compared with double the dose of ICS, use of LABA was associated with significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (MD 8.73 L/min, 95% CI 5.15 to 12.31, five studies, 1283 children; moderate-quality evidence), but data were insufficient to aggregate on other markers of asthma symptoms, rescue medication use and nighttime awakening. There was no group difference in risk of overall adverse effects, A significant group difference was observed in linear growth over 12 months, clearly indicating lower growth velocity in the higher ICS dose group (two studies: MD 1.21 cm/y, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.70).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but it was superior for improving lung function compared with the same or higher doses of ICS. No differences in adverse effects were apparent, with the exception of greater growth with the use of ICS and LABA compared with a higher ICS dose. The trend towards increased risk of hospital admission with LABA, irrespective of the dose of ICS, is a matter of concern and requires further monitoring.

Economic evaluation of BDP/formoterol fixed vs two single inhalers in asthma treatment

BACKGROUND

Asthma treatment costs are substantial, the largest proportion being incurred by medications. Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) is recommended in patients not adequately controlled by ICS alone. Aim of this study was to compare costs and health outcomes of a fixed ICS-LABA combination of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol fumarate (FF) vs the same drugs delivered via separate inhalers in Germany.

METHODS

A cost-minimization analysis, a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a threshold analysis were undertaken. Efficacy results were obtained from a recent clinical trial. Cost inputs include medical costs, physician costs, and hospital admission costs. Medical costs, health outcomes, and treatment costs were also varied to assess their impact on results.

RESULTS

Beclomethasone dipropionate/FF fixed combination was less costly compared to BDP + FF delivered as separate inhalers, costs totaling euro 525 and euro 637, respectively, over a 24-week treatment period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro-9.77 per additional day free of asthma symptoms. Equal cost-effectiveness ratios would still be obtained at a price of the fixed combination increased by 3.4-fold.

CONCLUSION

A cost-minimization analysis as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany based on different product price calculations show that BDP/FF fixed combination is superior to BDP + FF delivered via separate inhalers.

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.

Addition of long-acting beta-agonists to inhaled corticosteroids for chronic asthma in children

BACKGROUND

Long-acting ss(2)- agonists (LABA) in combination with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are increasingly prescribed in asthmatic children.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the safety and benefit of adding LABA to ICS with the same or an increased dose of ICS in children with persistent asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Asthma Trials Register (May 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials testing the combination of LABA and ICS versus the same or an increased dose of ICS for minimum of at least 28 days in children and adolescents with asthma. The main outcome was the rate of exacerbations requiring rescue oral steroids. Secondary outcomes included pulmonary function, symptoms, adverse events, and withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were assessed independently by two review authors for methodological quality and data extraction. Confirmation was obtained from the trialists when possible.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 25 trials representing 31 control-intervention comparisons were included in the review randomising 5572 children. Most of the participants were inadequately controlled on current ICS dose. We assessed the addition of LABA to the same dose of ICS and to an increased dose of ICS:(1) The addition of LABA to ICS was compared to same dose ICS, namely 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less in 16 of the 24 studies. The mean age of participants was 10 years and males accounted for 64% of the study populations. The mean FEV(1) at baseline was 80% of predicted or above in 10 studies; FEV(1) 61% to 79% of predicted in eight studies; and unreported in the remaining study. Participants were inadequately controlled before randomisation in all but seven studies. Compared to ICS alone, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in exacerbations requiring oral steroids (seven studies, RR 0.92 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40). Compared to ICS alone, there was a significantly greater improvement in FEV1 with the addition of LABA (nine studies; 0.08 Litres, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.11) but no statistically significant group differences in symptom-free days, hospital admission, quality of life, use of reliever medication, and adverse events. Withdrawals occurred significantly less frequently with the addition of LABA.(2) A total of seven studies assessed the addition of LABA to ICS therapy compared with an increased dose of ICS randomising 1021 children. The mean age of participants was 8 years with 67% of males. The baseline mean FEV(1) was 80% of predicted or above in 2 of the 3 studies reporting this characteristic. All trials enrolled participants who were inadequately controlled on a baseline dose equivalent to 400 mcg/day of beclomethasone or less. There was no group significant difference in the risk of an exacerbation requiring oral steroids with the combination of LABA and ICS compared to a double dose of ICS (two studies, RR 1.5 95% CI 0.65 to 3.48). The increased risk of hospital admission with combination therapy was also not statistically significant (RR 2.21 95% CI 0.74 to 6.64). Compared to double dose ICS, use of LABA was associated with a significantly greater improvement in morning PEF (four studies; MD 7.55 L/min 95% CI: 3.57 to 11.53) and evening PEF L/min (three studies, MD 5.5 L/min; 95% CI 1.21 to 9.79), but there were insufficient data to aggregate data on FEV(1), symptoms, rescue reliever use, and quality of life. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall risk of all cause withdrawals (five studies; RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.20. There was no group difference in the risk of overall adverse effects detected. Short term growth was significantly greater in children treated with combination therapy compared to double dose ICS (two studies: MD 1.2 cm/year; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.7).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with persistent asthma, the addition of LABA to ICS was not associated with a significant reduction in the rate of exacerbations requiring systemic steroids, but was superior for improving lung function compared to the same dose of ICS. Similarly, compared to a double dose ICS, the combination of LABA and ICS did not significantly increase the risk of exacerbations requiring oral steroids, but was associated with a significantly greater improvement in PEF and growth. The possibility of an increased risk of rescue oral steroids and hospital admission with LABA therapy needs to be further examined.

Health economics of asthma: assessing the value of asthma interventions

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and assess the quality of asthma intervention health economic studies from 2002 to 2007, compare the study findings with clinical management guidelines, and suggest avenues for future improvement of asthma health economic studies. Forty of the 177 studies met our inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of studies using The Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument (total score range: 0-100). Six studies (15%) had quality category 2, 26 studies (65%) achieved quality category 3, and the remaining eight (20%) studies were scored as the highest quality level, category 4. Overall, the findings from this review are in line with the Global Initiative for Asthma clinical guidelines. Many asthma health economic studies lacked appropriate long term time horizons to match the chronic nature of the disease and suffered from using effectiveness measures that did not capture all disease related risks and benefits. We recommend that new asthma simulation models: be flexible to allow for long term time horizons, focus on using levels of asthma control in their structure, and estimate both long term asthma specific outcomes like well-controlled time as well as generic outcomes such as quality adjusted survival.

The impact of GINA suggested drugs for the treatment of asthma on Health-Related Quality of Life: a GA(2)LEN review

Asthma represents a serious global health problem. People of all ages in countries throughout the world are affected by this chronic airway disorder that, when uncontrolled, can place severe limits on daily life and can even be fatal. Asthma cannot be removed, but asthmatic symptoms can be cured; as for many other chronic diseases, pharmacotherapy is important to reduce the risk of asthma-related mortality, decrease disability and improve symptoms and quality of life. The action of antiasthmatic drugs directly contributes to decrease symptoms severity, improve spirometric results, reduce airway hyperresponsiveness and prevent irreversible airway remodelling. Antiasthmatic therapy is necessary for long-term control of asthma symptoms. Asthma and antiasthmatic drugs can influence patient's quality of life: this is why healthcare systems have recently focused on research studies about Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) in asthmatic patients. Numerous validated questionnaires are available and many studies have been performed evaluating HRQL in people affected by asthma, thus testifying a great interest in this topic. The aims of the present review are to examine the scientific literature of the last 4 years (January 2004-December 2007) dealing with the impact of asthma treatments suggested by Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines on patients' quality of life, and to identify the unexplored or not fully investigated areas concerning this issue.

[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.

Comparison of adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler and fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in asthma patients

BACKGROUND

The adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol dry powder inhaler (DPI) has demonstrated similar or greater asthma control with less inhaled corticosteroid compared with the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol DPI.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy, tolerability, and resource use of maintenance therapy with the adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler and the fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol DPI.

METHODS

This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study of patients (N = 1225) 12 years and older with moderate-to-severe persistent asthma. After 10 to 14 days of current therapy, patients were randomized 2:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol (160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] twice daily) or fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (250/50 microg x 1 inhalation twice daily) for 1 month (treatment period 1), after which, the fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol group continued therapy and the fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol group was randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol or adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol (adjustable from 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] twice daily to 2 inhalations [320/9 microg] once daily or 4 inhalations [640/18 microg] twice daily) for 6 months (treatment period 2).

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in asthma exacerbations (primary variable), asthma symptoms, or lung function during the 7-month treatment period. Less study drug (inhalations per day, P < .001) was used with adjustable-dose versus fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustable-dose and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol showed no differences in asthma control or tolerability versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol.

Symbicort: a pharmacoeconomic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the published evidence on the pharmacoecomonics of Symbicort. Symbicort is a combination inhaler used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that contains budesonide and formoterol. In asthma, Symbicort can be used as fixed or adjustable dose maintenance therapy as well as for both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART).

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed was carried out to find all publications on the pharmacoeconomics of Symbicort. Additional studies were searched for in the reference lists of the papers retrieved and by searching tables of contents of relevant journals. A total of 13 studies on Symbicort in asthma and 2 studies on Symbicort in COPD were found.

RESULTS

Total costs were lower with Symbicort than with separate inhalers containing budesonide and formoterol. Adjustable dosing maintained control of asthma using less medication and was associated with lower treatment costs than fixed dosing with Symbicort or the combination of fluticasone/salmeterol. SMART improves asthma control, reduces exacerbations and reduces direct and indirect costs compared to fixed maintenance therapy with either Symbicort or fluticasone/salmeterol. In COPD, Symbicort offers clinical advantages over therapy with the monocomponents and these are achieved at little or no extra cost.

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.

Estudios de evaluación económica en salud

Clinical journals often publish economic evaluation studies of health technologies and programs. To improve the peer review process and, hence, the quality and validity of published studies, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) established publication guidelines for the publication of economic evaluations aimed at authors, reviewers and editors. The present article analyzes the opportunity of adopting the BMJ's or similar guidelines by Medicina Clínica and the probable effectiveness of this measure. The article concludes that although this initiative would probably improve the review process and the quality of the papers published, it might be worthwhile to review, up-date and adapt the BMJ guidelines to the Spanish context by means of a consensus-forming process. Finally, this article discusses the limitations of the peer review process in improving the quality and validity of economic evaluations and suggests some complementary measures, drawing on lessons and experiences from the field of clinical research.