Cost effectiveness of fluticasone and budesonide in patients with moderate asthma

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.

Economic burden of asthma: implications for outcomes and cost-effectiveness analyses

Asthma is a disease of chronic airway inflammation. It is of importance to clinicians and health systems because the hospitalization and death rate due to asthma have increased since 1980. Cost of illness studies have estimated that the total cost of asthma (direct and indirect costs) exceed USD 10 billion annually, in the USA. Since 1985, the proportion of asthma costs in hospitals have decreased and the proportion of costs due to asthma medications have increased. However, approximately half of direct medical costs of asthma are due to hospitalizations. The mean direct cost of asthma per year per patient has been estimated to be approximately USD 1,100. As the implementation of national and international guidelines continues, future costs for asthma will likely come from the treatment and management of the disease. Adequate assessments of treatment and cost-effectiveness analysis are important. Recommendations promoting the use of cost-effective anti-inflammatory medications are crucial to efficiently managing asthma.

Inhaled corticosteroids or long-acting beta-agonists alone or in fixed-dose combinations in asthma treatment: a systematic review of fluticasone/budesonide and formoterol/salmeterol

BACKGROUND

Inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are recommended treatment options for asthma.

OBJECTIVE

This review compares the clinical effectiveness and tolerability of the ICSs fluticasone propionate and budesonide and the LABAs formoterol fumarate and salmeterol xinafoate administered alone or in combination.

METHODS

A systematic review of the clinical studies available on MEDLINE (database period, 1950-September 2009) was conducted to assess English-language randomized controlled trials in children and adults with asthma. Treatment outcomes included lung function, symptom-free days (SFDs), use of rescue/reliever medications, asthma exacerbations, and tolerability profile.

RESULTS

Use of fluticasone was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control than budesonide. Similarly, formoterol was associated with significantly greater improvement in lung function and better asthma symptom control (as measured by less rescue medication use and more SFDs) compared with salmeterol. Single inhaler combination regimens (budesonide/ formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol) were frequently more effective in improving all treatment outcomes than either monotherapy alone. Across all comparisons, a review of studies in adults and children did not find statistically significant differences in outcomes between the ICS and LABA therapies considered in this research. In general, no differences in tolerability profiles were reported between the ICS and LABA options, although the risk for growth retardation was lower with fluticasone than budesonide and with budesonide/formoterol than with budesonide monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review, fluticasone and formoterol appear to provide improved therapeutic benefits versus budesonide and salmeterol, respectively. Both fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/ formoterol combination therapies appeared to be associated with greater improvements in outcomes measures than the corresponding ICS and LABA monotherapies.

Fluticasone versus beclomethasone or budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2007) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-one studies (14,602 participants) representing 74 randomised comparisons met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was fair. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater end of treatment FEV1 (0.04 litres (95% CI 0 to 0.07 litres), end of treatment and change in morning PEF, but not change in FEV1 or evening PEF. This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. FP led to fewer symptoms and less rescue medication use. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in morning PEF, evening PEF, and FEV1 over BDP or BUD. The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There were no significant differences incidence of hoarseness, pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing sore throat and when given at the same daily dose leads to increased hoarseness. There are concerns about adrenal suppression with Fluticasone given to children at doses greater than 400 mcg/day, but the randomised trials included in this review did not provide sufficient data to address this issue.

Inhaled fluticasone versus inhaled beclomethasone or inhaled budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children

BACKGROUND

Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and budesonide (BUD) are commonly prescribed inhaled corticosteroids for the treatment of asthma. Fluticasone propionate (FP) is newer agent with greater potency in in-vitro assays.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy and safety of Fluticasone to Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group trial register (January 2004) and reference lists of articles. We contacted trialists and pharmaceutical companies for additional studies and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997 to 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials in children and adults comparing Fluticasone to either Beclomethasone or Budesonide in the treatment of chronic asthma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using RevMan analyses 1.0.1.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty six studies (12, 119 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. Dose ratio 1:2: FP produced a significantly greater FEV1 (0.14 litres, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.22), morning PEF (11.10 L/min, 95%CI 3.12 to 19.09 L/min) and evening PEF (9.31 L/min, 95%CI 5.12 to 13.5 L/min). This applied to all drug doses, age groups, and delivery devices. No difference between FP and BDP/BUD were seen for trial withdrawals. Symptoms and rescue medication use were widely reported but few trials provided sufficient data for analysis. When given at half the dose of BDP/BUD, FP led to a greater likelihood of pharyngitis. There was no difference in the likelihood of oral candidiasis. Plasma cortisol and 24 hour urinary cortisol was measured frequently but data presentation was limited. Dose ratio 1:1: FP produced a statistically significant difference in am PEF (9.58 L/min (95% CI 5.20 to 13.97)), pm PEF (7.41 L/min (95% CI 2.61 to 12.22)), and FEV1 (0.09 L (0.02 to 0.17)). The effects on exacerbations were mixed. There was an increase in the incidence of hoarseness, but no significant difference in pharyngitis, candidiasis, or cough.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluticasone given at half the daily dose of beclomethasone or budesonide leads to small improvements in measures of airway calibre, but it appears to have a higher risk of causing hoarseness when given at the same daily dose. Future studies should attempt to establish the relative efficacy of inhaled steroids delivered with CFC-free propellants.

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone as a dominant economic asthma therapy

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma treatment have become mainstay of therapy for patients with persistent asthma. Numerous inhaled corticosteroids are available but to date no prospective cost-effectiveness studies have been reported using exclusively US patients and costs. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of HFA-bectomethasone (QVAR) compared to CFC-beclomethasone (Vanceril) using data from a year-long prospective randomized, open label, parallel multicenter trial. Eligibility criteria required patients to have been on a stable dose of CFC-BDP prior to enrollment. Patients were randomized to either HFA-BDP at approximately half their previous daily dose of CFC-BDP or to continue CFC-BDP Effectiveness data, in terms of symptom-free days (SFDs), were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the viewpoint of managed care. Patients receiving HFA-BDP reported a greater increase (median = 22.1) in the number of SFDs than those receiving CFC-BDP (median = 14.3) (P = 0.03). Total costs of care were less for patients taking HFA-BDP (median = dollars 668) compared to CFC-BDP (median = dollars 977). The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollars -5.77 (95% CI: dollars -68.08 to dollars -4.08). The results of this analysis indicate that HFA-BDP was a dominant therapy (more effective, less costly) compared to CFC-BDP.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of inhaled corticosteroids in asthma: a review of the analytical standards

PURPOSE

To determine whether published cost-effectiveness studies on inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma adhered to basic analytical standards as defined in health economic textbooks and in guidelines assessing and comparing efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Original cost-effectiveness studies published between 1990 and 2000 in general medical or economic journals were reviewed to assess the adherence to five fundamental methodological principles: (1) design of the study, (2) choice of perspective and corresponding costs, (3) choice of outcome measure, (4) marginal cost analysis, and (5) sensitivity analysis and discussion about external validity. For each principle, the studies were ranked as high, medium or low quality.

RESULTS

Most of the 18 studies included were ranked medium on the first two principles. The studies adhered to a higher degree to the remaining three principles. Only three studies were high ranked in all five principles. The number of principles fulfilled increased over time. Studies comparing pharmaceutical products from competing companies were typically short-term studies, designed for other purposes than health economic analyses, and, in general, did not use therapeutically equivalent dosing.

CONCLUSIONS

Attention should be drawn to the study design, the weak correspondence between perspective and costs, and especially to the impact of bias in health economic results when comparing different doses of ICSs.

Cost-efficacy comparison of inhaled fluticasone propionate and budesonide in the treatment of asthma

BACKGROUND

The results of a recent meta-analysis comparing 2 inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide, demonstrated that FP had an improved efficacy-to-safety ratio compared with budesonide. However, limited data are available on the relative economic benefits of these 2 regimens.

OBJECTIVE

This pharmacoeconomic analysis used individual patient data from studies in the meta-analysis to compare the relative cost-efficacy of 2 asthma regimens from the perspective of a US third-party payer.

METHODS

This analysis included all 7 studies in the meta-analysis that compared budesonide with FP dosed at approximately half the dose of budesonide and that included measurement of daily morning peak expiratory flow (PEF).

RESULTS

The total daily per-person cost of asthma management was higher for patients treated with budesonide than with FP ($3.00 vs $2.25, respectively). Treatment with FP had greater cost-efficacy than treatment with budesonide, based on a range of outcome measures that included improvement in morning PEF, symptom-free days, and episode-free days. The daily cost per effectively treated patient (an increase in PEF of > or = 10%) was $5.62 with FP and $10.05 with budesonide. The cost per symptom-free day was $4.36 with FP, compared with $6.67 with budesonide. The cost per episode-free day was $5.60 with FP and $9.42 with budesonide. The pharmacoeconomic difference continued to favor FP as the criteria for success were made more stringent and the cost of budesonide was lowered.

CONCLUSION

Based on data from the 7 randomized, controlled trials, treatment of asthma with FP was more effective and less expensive, using US health care assumptions and costs, than treatment with budesonide.

Fluticasone propionate: a potent inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma

Fluticasone propionate (FP) is a potent inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) for the treatment of asthma. It is currently marketed in both the United States (as Flovent) and Europe (as Flixotide). Fluticasone is available in both aerosolised metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder devices, with dosages ranging from 44-500 micrograms/puff. FP has been extensively studied in both children and adults; efficacy has been documented across the entire spectrum of asthma severity, including corticosteroid-dependent disease. Clinical data with FP strongly corroborates the in vitro pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies that FP is at least twice as potent as beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), budesonide (BUD) or triamcinolone acetonide (TAA). Both objective (lung function) and subjective (symptoms, beta-agonist use and quality of life) outcomes are improved with FP treatment. Extensive post-marketing surveillance with FP suggests that it is more cost-effective than BUD and flunisolide (FLU) when analysed by an overall healthcare cost perspective. Most of the benefits arise from decreased hospitalizations, emergency room visits and physician-office visits. Extensive safety data with FP documents no clinically meaningful effects on bone mass, nor impairment of growth velocity in children. Considering the efficacy and safety data along with the ability to optimise patient's asthma therapy using the delivery devices and strengths available, FP has become a leader in the ICS marketplace to date.

The cost-effectiveness of inhaled fluticasone propionate and budesonide in the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Inhaled corticosteroids form the mainstay of the treatment and management of asthma and the results of a meta-analysis comparing two of the most frequently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate and budesonide, administered in a clinically equivalent 1:2 dose ratio to 1980 patients with asthma, demonstrated that fluticasone propionate had an improved efficacy:safety ratio. However, limited data are available on the relative economic benefits of fluticasone propionate and budesonide. The database for clinically relevant parameters, for which the efficacy:safety meta-analysis had demonstrated statistical significance between the two corticosteroids, was used for this pharmacoeconomic analysis. Treatment with fluticasone propionate was more cost-effective than budesonide with respect to improvement in morning peak expiratory flow rate, successfully treated weeks, symptom-free days, symptom-free 24 h and episode-free days. The costs of treatment for fluticasone propionate and budesonide were 7.78 Pounds per week and 12.33 Pounds per week, respectively. The main contributing factor to the higher costs of budesonide was the higher cost of health care contacts, which were 4.53 Pounds per week for budesonide and 0.57 Pounds per week for fluticasone propionate. The pharmacoeconomic difference increased in favour of fluticasone propionate as the criteria for success were made more stringent. These results demonstrate that, for asthma patients requiring modification of therapy treatment with fluticasone propionate is more effective and also cheaper, in terms of overall health-care costs, than treatment with budesonide.

Inhaled fluticasone propionate: a review of its therapeutic efficacy at dosages < or = 500 microg/day in adults and adolescents with mild to moderate asthma

Fluticasone propionate is a corticosteroid with comparatively high receptor affinity and topical activity. Inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day provided effective corticosteroid maintenance treatment in patients with mild to moderate asthma in randomised, controlled clinical studies of 4 to 24 weeks in duration. Dosages of 50 to 250 microg twice daily produced consistent improvement in spirometric measures of lung function, reduced the frequency of as-needed beta2-agonist bronchodilator use, asthma symptom scores and night-time wakenings, and prevented asthma exacerbations compared with placebo. Fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily provided significantly greater improvements in lung function than nedocromil 4 mg 4 times daily, theophylline (5 to 15 mg/L) or zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily. Health-related quality of life improved significantly with fluticasone propionate 88 microg twice daily, but not zafirlukast 20 mg twice daily or placebo. In comparative trials in which fluticasone propionate was given at half the dosage of beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide or flunisolide, fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily produced equivalent or greater improvement in spirometric parameters and equivalent reductions in the use of as-needed beta2-agonists than beclomethasone dipropionate, budesonide or flunisolide. Fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice daily was generally more effective than triamcinolone acetonide 200 microg 4 times daily in two 24-week trials. The combination of inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =250 plus salmeterol < or =50 microg twice daily allowed for the use of lower dosages of the inhaled corticosteroid. The incidence of adverse events in patients receiving inhaled fluticasone propionate 50 to 250 microg twice daily was similar to that in beclomethasone dipropionate 168 to 500 microg twice daily and budesonide 100 to 600 microg twice daily recipients and greater than that in recipients of triamcinolone acetonide 200 microg 4 times daily in comparative trials. The incidence of oral candidiasis was < or =8% in patients treated with fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily or other agents. There was no evidence of clinically significant hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis suppression with fluticasone propionate < or =250 microg twice daily in comparative trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day is an effective antiinflammatory therapy for mild to moderate asthma in adolescents and adults. The drug is more effective than nedocromil, theophylline or zafirlukast and is at least as effective as other inhaled corticosteroids administered at twice the fluticasone propionate dosage. The addition of inhaled salmeterol allows the use of lower maintenance dosages of fluticasone propionate. The drug is well tolerated and there is no evidence of a clinically significant effect of this dosage on HPA axis function. Hence, fluticasone propionate < or =500 microg/day is a particularly suitable agent for patients with mild to moderate asthma.