Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast: a cost-effective comparison for asthma.

Willem R Pieters, Koo K Wilson, Heather C E Smith, Johannes J Tamminga, Seema Sondhi
{"title":"Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast: a cost-effective comparison for asthma.","authors":"Willem R Pieters,&nbsp;Koo K Wilson,&nbsp;Heather C E Smith,&nbsp;Johannes J Tamminga,&nbsp;Seema Sondhi","doi":"10.2165/00151829-200504020-00007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objective: </strong>Asthma, owing to its chronic nature, is associated with a substantial economic burden. Healthcare providers need to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative asthma treatment options to ensure that they obtain the best value for money from the resources they control. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in combination with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Direct healthcare resource data were prospectively collected during a double-blind, randomized, 12-week clinical study of inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100 microg twice daily (n = 356) and inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily plus oral montelukast 10mg daily (n = 369). Resources were costed in Dutch guilders (NLG) from the perspective of The Netherlands healthcare system using 1999/2000 prices, but have been presented in US dollars and euros. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of successfully treated weeks (based on mean morning PEF values). Secondary measures were episode-free days, symptom-free days, and symptom-free nights.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast as measured by the proportion of successfully treated weeks mean 63.3% vs 39.0%; median difference 25%; p < 0.001). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was also more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast according to the secondary effectiveness measures. The mean total direct daily healthcare costs per patient were 16% higher with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast than with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate mainly due to higher drug costs in the former group (2.25 US dollars vs 1.94; 1.92 euro vs 1.66, respectively; the NLG was fixed against the euro at a rate of 1 euro = NLG2.2 on 31 December 1998; 1 US dollars = NLG1.883, June 2003; 1 US dollars= 0.848 euro, June 2003). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was dominant over fluticasone propionate plus montelukast and sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a more cost-effective treatment option than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast for patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled by ICS.</p>","PeriodicalId":87162,"journal":{"name":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","volume":"4 2","pages":"129-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2165/00151829-200504020-00007","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Treatments in respiratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2165/00151829-200504020-00007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

Introduction and objective: Asthma, owing to its chronic nature, is associated with a substantial economic burden. Healthcare providers need to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative asthma treatment options to ensure that they obtain the best value for money from the resources they control. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in combination with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy.

Study design and methods: Direct healthcare resource data were prospectively collected during a double-blind, randomized, 12-week clinical study of inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100 microg twice daily (n = 356) and inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily plus oral montelukast 10mg daily (n = 369). Resources were costed in Dutch guilders (NLG) from the perspective of The Netherlands healthcare system using 1999/2000 prices, but have been presented in US dollars and euros. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of successfully treated weeks (based on mean morning PEF values). Secondary measures were episode-free days, symptom-free days, and symptom-free nights.

Results: Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast as measured by the proportion of successfully treated weeks mean 63.3% vs 39.0%; median difference 25%; p < 0.001). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was also more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast according to the secondary effectiveness measures. The mean total direct daily healthcare costs per patient were 16% higher with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast than with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate mainly due to higher drug costs in the former group (2.25 US dollars vs 1.94; 1.92 euro vs 1.66, respectively; the NLG was fixed against the euro at a rate of 1 euro = NLG2.2 on 31 December 1998; 1 US dollars = NLG1.883, June 2003; 1 US dollars= 0.848 euro, June 2003). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was dominant over fluticasone propionate plus montelukast and sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust.

Conclusion: Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a more cost-effective treatment option than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast for patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled by ICS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松与丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特:治疗哮喘的成本效益比较
前言和目的:哮喘由于其慢性性质,是一项重大的经济负担。医疗保健提供者需要比较替代哮喘治疗方案的成本效益,以确保他们从他们控制的资源中获得最佳的资金价值。本研究的目的是比较沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松联合丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特对吸入性皮质类固醇(ICS)单药治疗无法控制的症状性哮喘患者的成本-效果。研究设计和方法:在一项为期12周的双盲随机临床研究中,前瞻性地收集直接医疗资源数据,该研究采用吸入沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松50/100微克每日2次(n = 356)和吸入丙酸氟替卡松100微克每日2次+口服孟鲁司特10mg每日(n = 369)。从荷兰医疗保健系统使用1999/2000价格的角度来看,资源以荷兰盾(NLG)计算,但以美元和欧元表示。主要有效性指标是成功治疗周数的比例(基于平均早晨PEF值)。次要指标为无发作天数、无症状天数和无症状天数。结果:沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松比丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特有效率:治疗周平均成功率63.3% vs 39.0%;中位数差25%;P < 0.001)。根据次要有效性指标,沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松也比丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特更有效。丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特组患者平均每日总直接医疗费用比沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松组高16%,主要原因是前者的药物费用较高(2.25美元vs 1.94美元;分别为1.92欧元和1.66欧元;1998年12月31日,尼日利亚里拉对欧元的汇率固定为1欧元= 2.2尼日利亚里拉;2003年6月,美元兑尼日利亚兰特1.883;1美元兑0.848欧元,2003年6月)。增量成本-效果分析显示,沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松优于丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特,敏感性分析显示这些结果是可靠的。结论:沙美特罗/丙酸氟替卡松比丙酸氟替卡松加孟鲁司特对ICS控制的症状性哮喘患者更具成本效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Nosocomial pneumonia : rationalizing the approach to empirical therapy. Managing asthma in expectant mothers. New strategies for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in sickle cell disease : the rationale for arginine therapy. Antioxidant strategies in respiratory medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1