Comparison of efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of montelukast-levocetirizine and montelukast-fexofenadine in patients of allergic rhinitis: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem. Almost 10%-25% of population worldwide is affected by AR. Oral/intranasal H1-antihistamine, decongestants, leukotriene receptor antagonists, and intranasal corticosteroids are the pillars in the management of AR. The combination therapy of montelukast with antihistaminic provides enhancing and complimentary effects, thereby reducing the symptoms effectively, but there are scanty data regarding the comparisons of combinations. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of montelukast-levocetirizine and montelukast-fexofenadine combination in patients of AR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy patients with AR participated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel, active-controlled, comparative 4-week trial. The patients between the age group of 18-65 years of either gender having moderate-severe intermittent or mild persistent AR were included in the study. The study inclusion criteria required the patients with total nasal symptom score (TNSS) of 5 or higher. The patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups with montelukast-levocetirizine (10 mg and 5 mg) in one group and montelukast-fexofenadine (10 mg and 120 mg) in another group. TNSS parameter was the main effectiveness parameter. RESULTS: Evaluation of TNSS revealed significant difference (P < 0.05) when compared from baseline to 4th week in both groups. The mean change of TNSS, i.e., 9.46 was significant (P < 0.05) in montelukast-fexofenadine group. The cost-effectiveness ratio was less in montelukast-levocetirizine group than in montelukast-fexofenadine group. CONCLUSION: The decrease in TNSS was more in montelukast-fexofenadine group, but the cost-effectiveness is more with montelukast-levocetirizine combination.

The costs of nonsedating antihistamine therapy for allergic rhinitis in managed care: an updated analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To update a prior study evaluating the use and costs of new-generation antihistamines for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in a managed care population. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective database review of rhinitis-related medical and pharmacy-related claims during a treatment period of 12 months. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed as having allergic rhinitis and had at least 1 prescription claim were identified from a database containing patient-level medical and pharmaceutical claims. The treatment patterns for patients meeting study criteria were documented for a 12-month period to describe how nonsedating antihistamines are being used in allergic rhinitis, and to assess the associated costs of various medications. Subanalyses of patients categorized by comorbidity status were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 105,696 patients were included in this updated analysis, covering calendar year 1999. Nonsedating antihistamines were used by 68% of the sample, with loratadine and fexofenadine being the most commonly prescribed agents. The mean annual rhinitis-specific charge for fexofenadine-treated patients was $409 (standard deviation [SD] 727), which was significantly lower compared with charges for loratadine-treated patients, $424 (SD 740), P = .0144, or cetirizine-treated patients, $444 (SD 625), P < .0001. This trend was also observed in comparisons of patient subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with our prior study, loratadine and cetirizine were generally associated with significantly higher treatment charges than fexofenadine. This result was observed across different stratifications of patients, including those with comorbid respiratory illness, concomitant use of nasal steroids, and asthma and/or sinusitis. These results provide further useful insights into the differential costs associated with the use of nonsedating antihistamines for allergic rhinitis treatment.

A descriptive analysis of the use and cost of new-generation antihistamines in the treatment of allergic rhinitis: a retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective database analysis was conducted to evaluate the use and cost of new-generation antihistamines (i.e., those that are nonsedating) in the treatment of allergic rhinitis in a managed care population. STUDY DESIGN: The study is a retrospective database review of medical and pharmacy-related claims linked by episodes of care. METHODS: Patients who had been diagnosed as having allergic rhinitis and had at least 1 prescription claim were identified from a database containing patient-level medical and pharmacy-related claims. The treatment patterns of patients with allergic rhinitis who met the study criteria were documented for a 12-month period in which the use of nonsedating antihistamines was described and the associated costs of various medications were assessed. Subanalyses of patients categorized by comorbidity status were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 202,426 patients participated in the study. Nonsedating antihistamines were used by 71% of the patients; the most commonly prescribed drugs were loratadine and fexofenadine. The mean annual charges per patient for the treatment of allergic rhinitis in the study population were $465.21 (standard deviation [SD], 548). The greatest departmental cost was that of pharmacy-related charges (mean, $236.02; SD, 233); the next highest cost was that of outpatient charges (mean, $216.31; SD, 396). Comparisons of departmental charges indicated the use of loratadine was associated with significantly higher treatment costs than that of fexofenadine in a number of patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, loratadine was associated with significantly higher treatment charges than was fexofenadine. This result was observed consistently across different stratifications of patients, including the presence of comorbid respiratory infection, concomitant use of nasal steroids, and the presence of asthma and/or sinusitis. These results provided useful insights into the differential costs associated with the use of nonsedating antihistamines in the treatment of rhinitis.

Impact of interventions designed to increase market share and prescribing of fexofenadine at HMOs.

The impact of interventions designed to shift prescribing from loratadine to fexofenadine at HMOs was studied. Pharmacy claims data for a six-month preintervention period at four HMOs were analyzed to identify all new and refill prescriptions for loratadine, fexofenadine, astemizole, and cetirizine. The interventions consisted of a mandatory lockout of loratadine in favor of fexofenadine (at HMO A), a voluntary switch to fexofenadine promoted through letters to both physicians and members (HMO B), and a voluntary switch promoted through letters to physicians only (HMO C). There was no intervention at HMO D. Pharmacy claims data for the six months after each intervention program was implemented were analyzed to determine changes in the market share and prescribing of the study drugs. After the intervention programs were implemented, the market share of fexofenadine increased from 18.9% to 65.2% at HMO A, from 14.8% to 21.0% at HMO B, and from 20.7% to 23.8% at HMO C. Loratadine's market share decreased from 62.3% to 8.7% at HMO A, from 67.5% to 58.6% at HMO B, and from 70.5% to 65.3% at HMO C. HMOs A, B, and C each had greater shifts in market share for fexofenadine and loratadine than the control HMO. Changes in prescribing followed a similar pattern for the 25 physicians at each HMO who had most frequently prescribed loratadine during the preintervention period. The average cost per antihistamine prescription decreased 22.3% at HMO A. Prescription costs continued to rise at HMOs B, C, and D. Mandating the use of fexofenadine produced a significant increase in its market share, reduced the cost of nonsedating antihistamines, and successfully influenced prescribing behavior. Voluntary programs had a more modest impact on market share and did not stop increases in prescription costs.

Treating allergic rhinitis with second-generation antihistamines.

Allergic rhinitis afflicts close to 40% of the nation's population and costs more than $1.8 billion a year. The toll exacted by this disorder has been greatly alleviated by nonsedating second-generation antihistamines loratadine, terfenadine, and astemizole. The three agents effectively reduce symptoms without the sometimes intolerable adverse effects of older drugs, but they are not completely equivalent. For example, terfenadine requires twice/day dosing, whereas the others can be given once/day. Astemizole has a slow onset and extremely prolonged duration of action. Both terfenadine and astemizole may have cardiotoxic effects (e.g., torsades de pointes) when serum concentrations rise due to overdosing or drug interactions. Cetirizine, a recently approved second-generation antihistamine, has sedative and anticholinergic effects, although to a lesser degree than the first-generation antihistamines.

Model for outcomes assessment of antihistamine use for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND: Drug selection for optimal treatment of common medical conditions may be difficult and involve many diverse factors. OBJECTIVE: The efficacy, safety, quality of life, and cost of treatment of seasonal allergic rhinitis with cetirizine, chlorpheniramine, or terfenadine were compared in a prospective, two-phase, randomized, single-blind clinical trial conducted in a managed care setting. METHODS: In phase I, which lasted 2 weeks, patients were randomized to receive one of the study drugs. In phase II, which lasted 4 weeks, the initial treatment was continued unless patients were dissatisfied, in which case they could be randomly assigned to receive another study drug. In both phases pseudoephedrine could be taken as needed. Patients kept daily diaries of symptoms and costs, and study drugs were evaluated at the end of each phase for efficacy, safety, and effect on quality of life by means of a validated questionnaire. A multiattribute outcomes assessment model for formulary decision making was used to rank the antihistamines. RESULTS: Physicians' and patients' assessments in phases I and II indicated that cetirizine and chlorpheniramine were significantly more effective than terfenadine (p < 0.05). Incidence of sedation in phase I and phase II was 40.5% and 16.7% for chlorpheniramine, 11.6% and 9.8% for cetirizine, and 6.7% and 5.1% for terfenadine, respectively. At the end of phase I, 28.9% of the patients treated with chlorpheniramine, 50% of the patients treated with terfenadine, and 69.4% of the patients treated with cetirizine were satisfied with their therapy and chose not to switch their medication. Quality of life scores improved most after treatment with cetirizine and least after treatment with terfenadine. CONCLUSION: The result of this trial indicate that antihistamine selection is best made with the use of a multiattribute evaluation that includes quality of life. In this study cetirizine was favored by patients and physicians most often, followed by chlorpheniramine and then terfenadine.

A comparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis.

This paper compares cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets within a sample of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms due to mountain cedar allergy. Efficacy was assessed using secondary data analysis of patient ratings of symptoms and their overall assessment of response to treatment within a previously conducted clinical trial. Costs include direct costs of the drugs used for therapy. Patients with documented mountain cedar allergy who were 12 years of age or older (N = 232) had been randomized to either receive intranasal fluticasone propionate, terfenadine, or placebo. The cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 micrograms once daily were more favorable than the ratios for terfenadine 60 mg twice daily. This relationship remained throughout the sensitivity analysis. Because intranasal fluticasone propionate is only available in a fixed package size, the number of efficacy-adjusted days of terfenadine therapy that could be purchased to reach break-even costs for a 30-day supply of fluticasone was calculated. Cost efficacy-adjusted days ranged from 11 to 18 days. If cost-efficacy adjustments are not conducted, the upper end of the range increases from 18 to 22 days, since 22 days of terfenadine could be purchased for the price of a 30-day supply of intranasal fluticasone propionate. Depending on which of the efficacy measures the reader believes, if patients use terfenadine for longer than 11 to 22 days, fluticasone propionate is the more cost-efficacious choice. Because most allergies are seasonal and allergy seasons typically last longer than 11 to 22 days, it is likely that fluticasone propionate will frequently be the more cost-efficacious choice in the patient population represented in this study.