The cost-effectiveness of as-needed budesonide/formoterol versus low-dose inhaled corticosteroid maintenance therapy in patients with mild asthma in the UK.

BACKGROUND: As-needed budesonide/formoterol is effective in patients with mild asthma for whom low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy is appropriate. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of this regimen versus maintenance low-dose ICS plus as-needed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA). METHODS: A probabilistic Markov cohort model was developed that simulated time within/outside severe asthma exacerbations, conducted from a UK NHS perspective with a 70-year time horizon. Clinical efficacy inputs were derived from the SYGMA 2 trial. Patients with mild asthma eligible for low-dose maintenance ICS therapy received as-needed budesonide/formoterol 200/6 µg or twice-daily budesonide 200 µg maintenance therapy plus as-needed terbutaline 0.5 mg. A severe exacerbation was defined as worsening asthma requiring systemic corticosteroid use alone/in combination with an emergency department visit, or hospitalisation for acute asthma. Utility values were derived from SYGMA 2 EQ-5D-5L data, and all-cause- and asthma-related mortality, reduction in utility of an exacerbation, and costs were based on published data. The base-case analysis discount rate was 3.5%. Model robustness was evaluated with one-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and two scenario analyses. RESULTS: On average, as-needed budesonide/formoterol was associated with a £292.99 cost saving and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.001 versus ICS + SABA. At a willingness-to-pay of £20,000/QALY, as-needed budesonide/formoterol had >85% probability of being cost-effective versus ICS + SABA. Key drivers were budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance annual exacerbation rates, mean daily budesonide/formoterol inhalations, and costs and outcomes discount rates. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare payer perspective, as-needed budesonide/formoterol is a cost-effective option for the treatment of mild asthma versus regular ICS.

Evaluation of newborn sickle cell screening programme in England: 2010-2016.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate England's NHS newborn sickle cell screening programme performance in children up to the age of 5 years. DESIGN: Cohort of resident infants with sickle cell disease (SCD) born between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2015 and followed until August 2016. PARTICIPANTS: 1317 infants with SCD were notified to the study from all centres in England and 1313 (99%) were followed up. INTERVENTIONS: Early enrolment in clinical follow-up, parental education and routine penicillin prophylaxis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Age seen by a specialist clinician, age at prescription of penicillin prophylaxis and mortality. RESULTS: All but two resident cases of SCD were identified through screening; one baby was enrolled in care after prenatal diagnosis; one baby whose parents refused newborn screening presented symptomatically. There were 1054/1313 (80.3%, 95% CI 78% to 82.4%) SCD cases seen by a specialist by 3 months of age and 1273/1313 (97%, 95% CI 95.9% to 97.8%) by 6 months. The percentage seen by 3 months increased from 77% in 2010 to 85.4% in 2015. 1038/1292 (80.3%, 95% CI 78.1% to 82.5%) were prescribed penicillin by 3 months of age and 1257/1292 (97.3%, 95% CI 96.3% to 98.1%) by 6 months. There were three SCD deaths <5 years caused by invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) sensitive to penicillin. CONCLUSION: The SCD screening programme is effective at detecting affected infants. Enrolment into specialist care is timely but below the programme standards. Mortality is reducing but adherence to antibiotic prophylaxis remains important for IPD serotypes not in the current vaccine schedule.