Quality-adjusted survival time without symptoms or toxicity of acalabrutinib with or without obinutuzumab in patients with treatment-naive chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Acalabrutinib monotherapy (A) and acalabrutinib plus obinutuzumab (A + O) demonstrated improved efficacy and safety versus chlorambucil plus obinutuzumab (C + O) among treatment-naive patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) in the ELEVATE-TN trial. The relative risk-benefit at a median follow-up of 47 months was assessed using Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms and Toxicity (Q-TWiST) methodology. Patient data were partitioned into 3 states: time with toxicity (TOX); time without symptoms or toxicity (TWiST); and time after relapse (REL). Mean Q-TWiST was estimated by summing the mean time in each state, multiplied by its respective utility weight. Patients receiving A or A + O experienced significantly longer Q-TWiST versus C + O when toxicity was defined as grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) (41.79 vs 34.56 months; 42.07 vs 34.56 months) and grade 2-4 AEs (35.07 vs 30.64 months; 34.21 vs 30.64 months). Overall, patients with treatment-naive CLL treated with A or A + O experienced significant gains in Q-TWiST compared with C + O.

Cost-effectiveness of acalabrutinib regimens in treatment-naïve chronic lymphocytic leukemia in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Clinical outcomes in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have improved with targeted therapy, including Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as acalabrutinib. METHODS: A semi-Markov model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for acalabrutinib ± obinutuzumab vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL (based on ELEVATE-TN). The model used direct costs and resource utilization from the US Medicare perspective and utility values sourced from literature. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Over a 30-year lifetime horizon, the model base case analysis suggested that acalabrutinib monotherapy had an incremental cost of $206,329 and 2.52 QALYs gained versus chlorambucil + obinutuzumab, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $81,960/QALY. Acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab had an incremental cost of $423,747 and 2.79 QALYs gained (ICER: $152,153/QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the probability of acalabrutinib monotherapy being cost-effective as 59% to 73% at a $100,000-to-150,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold; the probability of acalabrutinib + obinutuzumab being cost-effective ranged from 34% to 51%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the analysis is limited by uncertainty in postprogression survival outcomes, acalabrutinib monotherapy is likely cost-effective vs chlorambucil + obinutuzumab in treatment-naive CLL in the US Medicare setting.

Considerations for the Utility of Real-World Evidence Beyond Trial Data in Advanced NSCLC: The Case of Frontline Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Background: To extend the discussion on the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in conveying the clinical value of treatment beyond trial data, the primary objective of this study was to assess if efficacy gains in progression-free survival (PFS) observed in randomized controlled trials (RCT) correlate with efficacy gains in the real-world setting. For this, we assessed the treatment benefit of three tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in aNSCLC. Methods: Using matched cohorts identified in the Flatiron Health database (2011-2020), we mimicked the following cohorts of TKI versus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) from the following trials: (1) erlotinib, EURTAC; (2) afatinib, LUX-Lung 3; and (3) crizotinib, PROFILE 1014. Time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) hazard ratio (HR) was used as a proxy for PFS HR, the primary endpoint in the selected RCTs. HRs were calculated via Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Overall, 1,118 patients were included across the three RWE cohorts. Frontline TKI regimens had statistically significantly better real-world TTD than their matched PBC comparator group (HR 0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.44 for erlotinib; HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.32-0.55 for afatinib; HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.26-0.53 for crizotinib). The benefit in real-world OS was not different between TKIs and PBC patients, attributed to a high proportion of switching to subsequent therapy. Study findings of relative treatment benefit (HR) for real-world TTD and OS were deemed similar to those for PFS and OS from the pivotal RCTs. Conclusion: The relative treatment effect, measured as real-world TTD HR over the long term, was similar to trial-based PFS HR, implying that the clinical benefit of aNSCLC treatments conveyed in trials translated into the clinical setting. This is important, given that OS data interpretation is limited, even with longer follow-up. Additionally, our RWE analysis endorses TTD as a relevant endpoint to measure clinical benefit.

Welfare, QALYs, and costs - a comment.

What costs and what effects should be included in cost-effectiveness analysis from a welfare theoretic perspective? There is a broad agreement to include health-care costs and to measure the effects as Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs). However, a hot topic has been how to handle survivor consumption and leisure foregone. It is well established that the costs for these aspects should be included only if their associated benefits are also included. The key question is, then, if these benefits are included in QALYs. In a recent paper by Nyman (Health Econ., in press) it was argued that these benefits are not generally included in the empirical assessment of QALYs and that these costs therefore should be excluded. Even if this recommendation is correct, the reasons for it can be questioned. It is here instead argued that this decision should be based on theoretical - and not empirical - considerations. Thus, these costs should be excluded because QALYs are unlikely to be consistent with a utility function also including consumption and leisure. If so, then it becomes more important to instruct individuals not to include these benefits in their QALY assessments than to consider to what extent they may or may not be implicitly included. It is also demonstrated that these results have bearings on non-medical costs for the case when survival is not affected.

The burden of disrupting gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a database study in US and European cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Recent data indicate that among patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) there is a subgroup with a higher disrupting burden of illness in terms of symptom frequency and overall impact. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the burden of disrupting versus non-disrupting GORD on individuals, healthcare providers and society. METHODS: Data were obtained from European (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK) and US respondents in the 2007 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS). Respondents with GORD were classified as having disrupting or non-disrupting GORD based on self-reported symptom frequency, presence of night-time symptoms and medication usage. Disrupting GORD was defined as the presence of GORD symptoms on at least 2 days/week in addition to either night-time symptoms or use of prescribed/over-the-counter medication at least twice a week during the past month. RESULTS: Of 116 536 respondents included in the 2007 NHWS, 23% reported GORD symptoms; 39% of these were acknowledged as having disrupting GORD. These patients had higher healthcare resource utilization than those with non-disrupting disease. Respondents with disrupting GORD also had poorer health-related quality of life, greater impairments in health-related work productivity and absenteeism (all p < 0.05 vs non-disrupting GORD), and higher associated total medical costs. Overall, patients with physician-diagnosed GORD also had significantly lower health-related quality of life than self-diagnosed respondents (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: GORD is a common disease that places a substantial burden on affected individuals and society. A high proportion of patients have disrupting GORD, which has significant adverse potential from both a clinical and an economic perspective.

Cost effectiveness of high-dose intravenous esomeprazole for peptic ulcer bleeding.

Peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) is a serious and sometimes fatal condition. The outcome of PUB strongly depends on the risk of rebleeding. A recent multinational placebo-controlled clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00251979) showed that high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole, when administered after successful endoscopic haemostasis in patients with PUB, is effective in preventing rebleeding. From a policy perspective it is important to assess the cost efficacy of this benefit so as to enable clinicians and payers to make an informed decision regarding the management of PUB. Using a decision-tree model, we compared the cost efficacy of high-dose IV esomeprazole versus an approach of no-IV proton pump inhibitor for prevention of rebleeding in patients with PUB. The model adopted a 30-day time horizon and the perspective of third-party payers in the USA and Europe. The main efficacy variable was the number of averted rebleedings. Healthcare resource utilization costs (physician fees, hospitalizations, surgeries, pharmacotherapies) relevant for the management of PUB were also determined. Data for unit costs (prices) were primarily taken from official governmental sources, and data for other model assumptions were retrieved from the original clinical trial and the literature. After successful endoscopic haemostasis, patients received either high-dose IV esomeprazole (80 mg infusion over 30 min, then 8 mg/hour for 71.5 hours) or no-IV esomeprazole treatment, with both groups receiving oral esomeprazole 40 mg once daily from days 4 to 30. Rebleed rates at 30 days were 7.7% and 13.6%, respectively, for the high-dose IV esomeprazole and no-IV esomeprazole treatment groups (equating to a number needed to treat of 17 in order to prevent one additional patient from rebleeding). In the US setting, the average cost per patient for the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was $US14 290 compared with $US14 239 for the no-IV esomeprazole strategy (year 2007 values). For the European setting, Sweden and Spain were used as examples. In the Swedish setting the corresponding respective figures were Swedish kronor (SEK)67 862 ($US9220 at average 2006 interbank exchange rates) and SEK67 807 ($US9212) [year 2006 values]. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $US866 and SEK938 ($US127), respectively, per averted rebleed when using IV esomeprazole. For the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy was dominant (more effective and less costly than the no-IV esomeprazole strategy) [year 2008 values]. All results appeared robust to univariate/threshold sensitivity analysis, with high-dose IV esomeprazole becoming dominant with small variations in assumptions in the US and Swedish settings, while remaining a dominant approach in the Spanish scenario across a broad range of values. Sensitivity variables with prespecified ranges included lengths of stay and per diem assumptions, rebleeding rates and, in some cases, professional fees. In patients with PUB, high-dose IV esomeprazole after successful endoscopic haemostasis appears to improve outcomes at a modest increase in costs relative to a no-IV esomeprazole strategy from the US and Swedish third-party payer perspective. Whereas, in the Spanish setting, the high-dose IV esomeprazole strategy appeared dominant, being more effective and less costly.

On the welfare theoretic foundation of cost-effectiveness analysis-the case when survival is not affected.

This paper develops a welfare theoretic foundation for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) when survival is not affected. With this foundation, all costs and their corresponding utility-terms should be included. A key question, though, is whether these utility-terms are consistent with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) (utility) theory or not. The results show that health care costs and changes in the utility of health should be included. However, as QALYs do not capture the utility of changes in consumption (as this utility must be independent of health, according to QALY theory), the corresponding changes in consumption costs should be excluded. Regarding the costs for changes in absence from work, these should only be included if the utility of changes in the amount of leisure is included. As no QALY theory has been developed that includes this utility, it is unclear how to handle these costs (even if there are arguments for excluding them). For changes in productivity at work, though, there are robust arguments for the inclusion of these costs. Overall, it seems difficult to provide a clear basis for CEA in economic welfare theory when also including non-medical goods such as consumption and leisure.

Can managed care organizations partner with manufacturers for comparative effectiveness research?

OBJECTIVE: To describe 2 published pragmatic or practical clinical trials (PCTs) as case studies illustrating successful partnerships between managed care organizations (MCOs) and pharmaceutical manufacturers. STUDY DESIGN: In today's environment, there is increasing concern about the comparative effectiveness of medical interventions. Various opinion leaders and stakeholders lament the dearth of such evidence and are calling for the public and private sectors to invest up to billions of dollars to create better comparative evidence. METHODS: We selected 2 PCTs conducted at different points in the drug life cycle to highlight strengths, limitations, and policy implications. The phase IV study compared fluoxetine hydrochloride vs 2 generic tricyclic antidepressants in selected primary care clinics of a health maintenance organization from 1992 through 1994. The phase IIIb study compared daily budesonide via dry powder inhaler vs triamcinolone acetonide metered-dose inhaler in adult patients with persistent asthma in 25 MCOs from 1995 through 1998. RESULTS: Both PCTs were successfully sponsored and funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers in collaboration with MCOs and provided potentially useful evidence of real-world effectiveness and evidence of value to healthcare decision makers. CONCLUSIONS: Industry-sponsored PCTs in managed care are feasible when manufacturer and MCO incentives align and can provide real-world evidence of comparative effectiveness and value for money. These trials can be conducted successfully in the phase IIIb and phase IV environments.

On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations.

Economic evaluation in health care is still an evolving discipline. One of the current controversies in cost-effectiveness analysis regards the inclusion or exclusion of future non-medical costs (i.e. consumption net of production) due to increased survival. This paper examines the implications of a symmetry rule stating that there should be consistency between costs included in the numerator and utility aspects included in the denominator. While the observation that no quality-adjusted life year (QALY) instruments explicitly include consumption and leisure seems to give support to the notion that future non-medical costs should be excluded when QALYs are used as the outcome measure, a better understanding of what respondents actually consider when reporting QALY weights is required. However, the more fundamental question is whether QALYs can be interpreted as utilities. Or more precisely, what are the assumptions needed for a general utility model also including consumption and leisure to be consistent with QALYs? Once those assumptions are identified, they need to be experimentally tested to see whether they are at least approximately valid. Until we have answers to these areas for future research, it seems premature to include future non-medical costs.

Cost-effectiveness of early intervention with once-daily budesonide in children with mild persistent asthma: results from the START study.

The inhaled Steroid Treatment As Regular Therapy in early asthma (START) study has shown that early intervention with inhaled budesonide in mild persistent asthma improves clinical outcomes in both adults and children. The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of early treatment with budesonide Turbuhaler in children aged 5-10 yr who participated in START. Direct and indirect costs associated with asthma were determined for 1974 children participating in the double-blind, 3-year part of the study. Randomization was to placebo or to budesonide 200 microg once daily in each case in addition to usual asthma care. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated from the healthcare payer's and societal perspectives (using US prices). The addition of once-daily budesonide therapy to usual asthma care was associated with 16 additional symptom-free days (SFDs) per child over the 3-yr period (p < 0.001), with a substantial reduction (50%) in the mean number of days spent in hospital, and with reduced frequency of emergency room visits and missed school and caregiver work days. From the healthcare payer's perspective (direct costs), the increase in mean direct cost over 3 yr with budesonide was 169 dollars, which translated into an incremental cost of early intervention with budesonide in children of 10.50 dollars (95% CI 1.20-33.30 dollars) per SFD gained. From the societal perspective, there was a cost reduction over 3 yr of 192 dollars with budesonide relative to placebo. From a societal perspective, budesonide was therefore dominant. In conclusion, early intervention with once-daily budesonide added to usual asthma care in children with mild persistent asthma is cost-saving from a societal perspective and is acceptably cost-effective when viewed from a healthcare payer perspective.

Patient satisfaction with budesonide Turbuhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in a managed care setting.

Dissatisfaction with medication may negatively affect compliance and thus the effectiveness of the treatment. However, no prospective well-controlled studies have assessed the relative patient satisfaction with competing inhaled corticosteroids in a real-life setting. The objective of the current study was to compare the relative patient satisfaction with budesonide inhalation powder administered via Turbuhaler (AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE) (200 to 1600 microg/d using one of 3 dosing strengths: 100, 200, or 400 microg per inhalation) and triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler (200 to 1600 microg/d) among persons treated in managed care settings. A total of 945 subjects 18 years of age or older diagnosed with asthma and enrolled in 25 managed care organizations participated in this prospective, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, 12-month study. As part of the study, subjects completed a self-administered, 17-item patient satisfaction questionnaire that addressed 4 domains: side effects, knowledge/ease of use, convenience, and overall satisfaction. Questionnaire reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, and validity was examined by correlating subscale scores with symptom-free days and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire scores. The satisfaction questionnaire also included a previously validated section addressing patient compliance. Patients receiving budesonide had significantly higher scores for all four satisfaction subscales throughout the study period than did those receiving triamcinolone acetonide. Similarly, compliance scores were consistently higher for the budesonide group. The difference between the treatment groups in overall satisfaction scores at the end of the study was clinically meaningful. Patients treated with budesonide were significantly more satisfied and compliant with their inhaled corticosteroid regimen compared with patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide.

Good research practices for cost-effectiveness analysis alongside clinical trials: the ISPOR RCT-CEA Task Force report.

OBJECTIVES: A growing number of prospective clinical trials include economic end points. Recognizing the variation in methodology and reporting of these studies, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) chartered the Task Force on Good Research Practices: Randomized Clinical Trials-Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Its goal was to develop a guidance document for designing, conducting, and reporting cost-effectiveness analyses conducted as a part of clinical trials. METHODS: Task force cochairs were selected by the ISPOR Board of Directors. Cochairs invited panel members to participate. Panel members included representatives from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance plans. An outline and a draft report developed by the panel were presented at the 2004 International and European ISPOR meetings, respectively. The manuscript was then submitted to a reference group for review and comment. RESULTS: The report addresses issues related to trial design, selecting data elements, database design and management, analysis, and reporting of results. Task force members agreed that trials should be designed to evaluate effectiveness (rather than efficacy), should include clinical outcome measures, and should obtain health resource use and health state utilities directly from study subjects. Collection of economic data should be fully integrated into the study. Analyses should be guided by an analysis plan and hypotheses. An incremental analysis should be conducted with an intention-to-treat approach. Uncertainty should be characterized. Manuscripts should adhere to established standards for reporting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Trial-based cost-effectiveness studies have appeal because of their high internal validity and timeliness. Improving the quality and uniformity of these studies will increase their value to decision makers who consider evidence of economic value along with clinical efficacy when making resource allocation decisions.

Once-daily budesonide inhalation powder (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) improves health-related quality of life in adults previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

In the treatment of asthma, the conventional measures used to monitor a patient's progress and health status do not address the impact of functional impairments associated with the disease that may affect the patient's daily life. Unlike those measures, health-related quality of life (HRQL) reflects the physical, psychological, and social difficulties a patient perceives on a day-to-day basis. This study was conducted to determine the effects of once-daily budesonide inhalation powder via the Pulmicort Turbuhaler on the HRQL in adult patients with asthma previously treated with other inhaled corticosteroids. A total of 184 patients 18 to 70 years of age who previously received inhaled corticosteroids were enrolled in this double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter study. Patients were randomly assigned to budesonide 400 microg once daily or to placebo for 12 weeks. Each patient's HRQL was assessed at randomization and at weeks 4 and 12 with the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). More patients receiving budesonide than those receiving placebo reported statistically significant (P < or = .05) improvements in HRQL at weeks 4 and 12. With the exception of the domain pertaining to exposure to environmental stimuli, differences from placebo in overall AQLQ scores and individual domain scores were clinically important (> or = 0.5 units). In addition, 2.4 patients needed to be treated with once-daily budesonide for 1 patient to demonstrate clinically important improvement. Budesonide 400 microg administered once daily via the Pulmicort Turbuhaler provides statistically significant and clinically important HRQL benefit in adult patients with asthma previously receiving inhaled corticosteroids.

Effectiveness of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler for adults with persistent asthma in managed care settings.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and relative safety of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma. However, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness comparisons of available inhaled corticosteroids in real-life clinical settings are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the effectiveness and safety of budesonide administered via dry-powder inhaler versus that of triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adult patients with persistent asthma treated in a managed care setting. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-labe, 52-week study of adult patients (aged >or= 18 years) with persistent asthma enrolled in 25 US health plans. The primary study outcome was mean change from baseline to the end of treatment in symptom-free days. Secondary variables were changes from baseline in number of episode-free days, episode-free days at 52 weeks, forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)), forced vital capacity, asthma symptom scores, breakthrough bronchdilator use, patient discontinuations, and health-related quality of life. Patients were issued diaries in which to record use of study medication and concomitant asthma medication use, as well as daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity. Patients were assessed at weeks 4, 13, 26, 39, and 52. Safety was assessed based on adverse events and changes in laboratory tests, vital signs, and physical examinations. RESULTS: A total of 945 patients (344 men, 601 women; mean [SD] age, 46.8 [14] years) were enrolled; 631 received budesonide and 314 received triacinolane acetonide. Improvements in all effectiveness variables were observed with both treatments. The mean increase from baseline in the number of symptom-free days per month assessed at month 12 was 7.74 (95% CI, 6.81-8.66) for patients receiving budesonide and 3.78 (95% CI, 2.47-5.09) for patients receiving triamcinoline acetonide ( P<0.001). The estimated annual mean (SD) number symptom-free days for patients receiving budesonide was 141.1 (125.0) over the treatment phase, compared with 99.3 (112.1) for those receiving triamcinolone acetonide (P<0.001). Patients receiving budesonide demonstrated significant improvements (compared with those receiving triamcinolone acetonide) in overall quality of life, daytime and nighttime asthma symptom severity, breakthrough bronchodilator use, and FEV(1) (all P<0.001). Safety measures were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In these managed care settings, budesonide inhalation powder administered via dry-powder inhaler was significantly more effective than triamcinolone acetonide administered via pressurized metered-dose inhaler in the treatment of adults with persistent asthma.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early intervention with budesonide in mild persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: The Inhaled Steroid as Regular Therapy in Early Asthma (START) study reported that early intervention with budesonide in mild persistent asthma reduces severe asthmatic events and improves symptom outcomes and lung function in adults and children. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of early intervention with budesonide, as observed within the START study. METHODS: START was a randomized, 3-year controlled trial of budesonide in early onset mild asthma among 7165 subjects ages 5 to 66 years. Three age groups (5-10, 11-17, and >or=18 years) were studied separately and overall. Differences in the probability of emergency treatments, symptom-free days (SFDs), and costs of health care were determined. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated from the health care payer and societal perspectives. RESULTS: Compared with usual therapy, patients receiving budesonide experienced an average of 14.1 (SE, 1.3) more SFDs per year (P <.001), fewer hospital days (69%, P <.001), and fewer emergency department visits (67%, P <.05). From the health care payer perspective, the net cost of early use of budesonide was an additional US dollars 0.42 (SE, dollars 0.04) per day, and the resultant cost-effectiveness ratio was US dollars 11.30 (95% CI, US dollars 8.60-US dollars 14.90) per SFD gained. From the societal perspective, the cost offsets of lower absence from school or work reduced the net cost of early budesonide to US dollars 0.14 (SE, US dollars 0.07) per day and decreased the cost-effectiveness ratio to US dollars 3.70 (95% CI, US dollars 0.10-US dollars 8.00). Early intervention was more effective and cost saving in the youngest age group. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with budesonide appears to be cost-effective in patients with mild persistent asthma of recent onset.

Budesonide turbuhaler delivered once daily improves health-related quality of life in adult patients with non-steroid-dependent asthma.

Budesonide inhalation powder via the dry-powder multidose inhaler Turbuhaler (budesonide Turbuhaler) has been shown to improve lung function and symptoms in adults with asthma. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, we evaluated the effects of once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in 177 adults (aged 18-70 years) with non-steroid-dependent asthma. Patients were randomized to receive budesonide Turbuhaler (400 micrograms) once daily or placebo for 12 weeks. HRQL was assessed at baseline and weeks 4 and 12 using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). In addition to assessment based on the four AQLQ domains (activity limitations, asthma symptoms, emotional function, and response to exposure to environmental stimuli), AQLQ overall scores were analyzed for both treatment groups. Compared with placebo, patients using budesonide Turbuhaler once daily had statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvements from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 in AQLQ overall scores. Statistically significant improvements from baseline to weeks 4 and 12 in all four individual domains also were observed in the budesonide Turbuhaler group compared with placebo. Differences between the two treatment groups in mean changes from baseline in AQLQ overall, asthma symptoms, and emotional function reached the level required for patients to achieve a minimal important difference of change (> or = 0.5 U) at week 12. A retrospective analysis of the data showed that approximately 70% of patients treated with budesonide Turbuhaler experienced a minimal important difference of change in AQLQ overall scores. Overall, improvements in AQLQ correlated significantly (p < or = 0.04) with improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, morning peak expiratory flow measurements, asthma symptoms, and breakthrough bronchodilator use at the study end. Thus, patients with corticosteroid-naïve asthma can experience improved HRQL when using budesonide Turbuhaler.

Budesonide Turbuhaler delivered once daily improves health-related quality of life and maintains improvements with a stepped-down dose in adults with mild to moderate asthma.

BACKGROUND: Budesonide inhalation powder administered via Turbuhaler (budesonide Turbuhaler, AstraZeneca LP, Wilmington, DE) is proven efficacious and safe in the treatment of mild to severe asthma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler on health-related quality of life (HRQL) in adults with mild to moderate asthma. METHODS: In this double-blind, parallel-group study, 309 asthmatic patients between 18 and 70 years of age were randomized to receive once-daily treatment with budesonide 200 or 400 microg or placebo for 6 weeks. Patients initially receiving 400 microg budesonide had their dose reduced to 200 microg (400/200-microg group), and patients receiving 200 microg (200/200-microg group) or placebo continued to receive their assigned doses for a 12-week maintenance phase. HRQL was evaluated using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire at randomization, week 6, and week 18. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, patients initially receiving 400 and 200 microg budesonide Turbuhaler demonstrated significantly greater HRQL scores at week 6 (P < or = 0.001 and P < or = 0.010, respectively) that were maintained at week 18 (P < or = 0.001). Clinically important (> or = 0.5 unit) improvement in Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire overall at week 18 was demonstrated by 55% and 43% of patients in the 400/200-microg and 200/200-microg budesonide Turbuhaler groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild to moderate asthma, once-daily budesonide Turbuhaler 200 and 400 microg demonstrates statistically significant and clinically important improvements in HRQL that can be maintained with a low dose of 200 microg.