Access to affordable medicines and diagnostic tests for asthma and COPD in sub Saharan Africa: the Ugandan perspective.

BACKGROUND: Equitable access to affordable medicines and diagnostic tests is an integral component of optimal clinical care of patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In Uganda, we lack contemporary data about the availability, cost and affordability of medicines and diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD management. METHODS: Data on the availability, cost and affordability of 17 medicines and 2 diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD management were collected from 22 public hospitals, 23 private and 85 private pharmacies. The percentage of the available medicines and diagnostic tests, the median retail price of the lowest priced generic brand and affordability in terms of the number of days' wages it would cost the least paid public servant were analysed. RESULTS: The availability of inhaled short acting beta agonists (SABA), oral leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), inhaled LABA-ICS combinations and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in all the study sites was 75%, 60.8%, 46.9% and 45.4% respectively. None of the study sites had inhaled long acting anti muscarinic agents (LAMA) and inhaled long acting beta agonist (LABA)-LAMA combinations. Spirometry and peak flow-metry as diagnostic tests were available in 24.4% and 6.7% of the study sites respectively. Affordability ranged from 2.2 days' wages for inhaled salbutamol to 17.1 days' wages for formoterol/budesonide inhalers and 27.8 days' wages for spirometry. CONCLUSION: Medicines and diagnostic tests essential in asthma and COPD care are not widely available in Uganda and remain largely unaffordable. Strategies to improve access to affordable asthma and COPD medicines and diagnostic tests should be implemented in Uganda.

Health-care utilization and costs with fluticasone propionate and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in asthma patients at risk for exacerbations.

Although studies have established that adding long-acting beta agonists (LABA) to inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy among patients with inadequately controlled asthma is associated with better outcomes than increasing ICS dosage, outcomes with ICS versus fixed-dose ICS/LABA combination among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent use of rescue medication are unavailable. This study was designed to compare health-care utilization/costs among patients with recent asthma exacerbation or frequent rescue medication use who received fluticasone propionate (FP) alone versus fixed-dose FP/salmeterol combination (FSC). A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a large health insurance data set. Patients with one or more claims with asthma diagnosis, two or more prescriptions for FSC (250/50- or 100/50-mg formulations) or FP (220- or 110-mg formulations), and one or more asthma exacerbations or five or more short-acting beta agonist (SABA) prescriptions within 1 year before initial receipt of study medications were included. Health-care utilization/costs and controller therapy compliance were compared for patients receiving FSC versus FP using multivariate regression analysis controlling for FP dose and baseline characteristics. A total of 7779 patients met inclusion criteria (5769, FSC, and 2010, FP) with comparable mean follow-up (FSC, 685 days; FP, 670 days; p = 0.151). Controlling for FP dosage and baseline characteristics, FSC patients had lower risks of asthma-related exacerbations, fewer SABAs and systemic corticosteroids, higher costs of asthma medications and total asthma-related health care, and lower total asthma-related health-care costs excluding study medication cost. In asthma patients with recent exacerbation or frequent SABA use, receipt of FSC reduced asthma-related exacerbation risks and rescue medication use versus receipt of FP.

Cost-effectiveness of tiotropium versus salmeterol: the POET-COPD trial.

The aim of this study was to perform a 1-yr trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of tiotropium versus salmeterol followed by a 5-yr model-based CEA. The within-trial CEA, including 7,250 patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), was performed alongside the 1-yr international randomised controlled Prevention of Exacerbations with Tiotropium (POET)-COPD trial comparing tiotropium with salmeterol regarding the effect on exacerbations. Main end-points of the trial-based analysis were costs, number of exacerbations and exacerbation days. The model-based analysis was conducted to extrapolate results to 5 yrs and to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). 1-yr costs per patient from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective and the societal perspective were €126 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) €55-195) and €170 (95% UI €77-260) higher for tiotropium, respectively. The annual number of exacerbations was 0.064 (95% UI 0.010-0.118) lower for tiotropium, leading to a reduction in exacerbation-related costs of €87 (95% UI €19-157). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €1,961 per exacerbation avoided from the SHI perspective and €2,647 from the societal perspective. In the model-based analyses, the 5-yr costs per QALY were €3,488 from the SHI perspective and €8,141 from the societal perspective. Tiotropium reduced exacerbations and exacerbation-related costs, but increased total costs. Tiotropium can be considered cost-effective as the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios were below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Risk of asthma exacerbation, asthma-related health care utilization and costs, and adherence to controller therapy in patients with asthma receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol inhalation powder 100 µg/50 µg versus mometasone furoate inhalation powder.

OBJECTIVE: National asthma treatment guidelines recommend low/medium-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) as initial therapy in mild asthma patients. However, low doses of a fixed-dose combination of ICS and long-acting ß-agonists are sometimes used. This study compares asthma-related outcomes and health care utilization and costs in clinical practice in patients starting fluticasone propionate 100 µg and salmeterol 50 µg via Diskus (FSC) or mometasone furoate (MF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare asthma-related outcomes in asthma patients who received FSC or MF, using a large health insurance claims dataset spanning January 2004-December 2008. Patients with ≥1 claim with an asthma ICD-9-CM diagnosis code and ≥2 FSC or MF prescriptions were included, stratified into FSC or MF groups by study drug received first and matched using propensity score. RESULTS: A total of 18,283 patients met inclusion criteria (14,044 FSC and 4239 MF); 3799 matched pairs were identified (mean follow-up: FSC 548 days, MF 537 days). FSC patients had lower risk of asthma-related exacerbation (Hazard ratio = 0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.95, p = .002), defined as either asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits/hospitalizations or receipt of systemic corticosteroids (SCSs); fewer SCS claims (mean 0.28 vs. 0.33, p = .021); and fewer asthma-related physician office (PO) and hospital outpatient (HO) visits (mean 1.17 vs. 1.63, p < .001). However, asthma-related ED visits were higher with FSC (p = .004), and FSC patients had higher total costs of asthma-related health care ($953 vs. $862, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: In asthma patients initiating ICS therapy, MF had lower asthma-related ED visits. However, FSC may reduce the use of SCS and asthma-related PO/HO visits.

Evaluation of a high-dose continuous albuterol protocol for treatment of pediatric asthma in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of a high-dose continuous nebulized albuterol (CNA) protocol for treatment of asthma in the pediatric emergency department (ED). A secondary objective included a cost-benefit analysis of protocol use. METHODS: In this retrospective chart review, we compared cohorts of patients treated in our ED for acute asthma exacerbation before and after implementation of a CNA protocol. Patients between the ages of 2 and 21 years seen between March 1 and May 31, 2008 (preprotocol, n = 393), and March 1 to May 31, 2009 (postprotocol, n = 373), were included. Safety data included medication-related adverse effects as well as serum potassium and glucose levels. Efficacy data included ED length of stay, disposition, return visits, time to first albuterol treatment, and corticosteroid administration. Cost analysis included the cost of medications and respiratory therapy time. RESULTS: Postprotocol patients more often received CNA (57.9% vs 25.2%, P < 0.01). No significant adverse effects, including tachyarrhythmia and symptomatic hypokalemia, were found in either group. Serum potassium levels were higher in the postprotocol group (3.9 mEq/L [n = 34] vs 3.5 mEq/L [n = 28], P < 0.01). Emergency department stay was longer in the postprotocol group (217.8 minutes vs 187.2 minutes, P < 0.01). Emergency department disposition was similar in both groups. The mean cost per patient was higher in the postprotocol group ($327.21 vs $277.95, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We found the CNA protocol to be safe. Superior efficacy to a traditional treatment approach was not demonstrated. The mean cost of treatment was higher in the postprotocol group. Further prospective studies should be conducted to confirm the findings of this retrospective, observational study.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of switching asthma patients from fluticasone-salmeterol to extra-fine particle beclometasone-formoterol: a retrospective matched observational study of real-world patients.

BACKGROUND: Efficacy trials suggest that extra-fine particle beclometasone dipropionate-formoterol (efBDP-FOR) is comparable to fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SAL) in preventing asthma exacerbations at a clinically equivalent dosage. However, switching from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR has not been evaluated in real-world asthma patients. AIMS: The REACH (Real-world Effectiveness in Asthma therapy of Combination inHalers) study investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching typical asthma patients from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR. METHODS: A retrospective matched (1:3) observational study of 1,528 asthma patients aged 18-80 years from clinical practice databases was performed. Patients remaining on FP-SAL (n=1,146) were compared with those switched to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosage (n=382). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups for the year before and after the switch. Non-inferiority (at least equivalence) of efBDP-FOR was tested against FP-SAL by comparing exacerbation rates during the outcome year. RESULTS: efBDP-FOR was non-inferior to FP-SAL (adjusted exacerbation rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.37)). Switching to efBDP-FOR resulted in significantly better (p<0.05) odds of achieving overall asthma control (no asthma-related hospitalisations, bronchial infections, or acute oral steroids; salbutamol ≤200µg/day) and lower daily short-acting ß2-agonist usage at a lower daily ICS dosage (mean -130µg/day FP equivalents; p<0.001). It also reduced mean asthma-related healthcare costs by £93.63/patient/year (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Asthma patients may be switched from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower ICS dosage with no reduction in clinical effectiveness but a significant reduction in cost.

Observational study on the impact of initiating tiotropium alone versus tiotropium with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination therapy on outcomes and costs in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: This retrospective cohort study compared the risks of exacerbations and COPD-related healthcare costs between patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) initiating tiotropium (TIO) alone and patients initiating triple therapy with fluticasone-salmeterol combination (FSC) added to TIO. METHODS: Managed-care enrollees who had an index event of ≥ 1 pharmacy claim for TIO during the study period (January 1, 2003-April 30, 2008) and met other eligibility criteria were categorized into one of two cohorts depending on their medication use. Patients in the TIO+FSC cohort had combination therapy with TIO and FSC, defined as having an FSC claim on the same date as the TIO claim. Patients in the TIO cohort had no such FSC use. The risks of COPD exacerbations and healthcare costs were compared between cohorts during 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: The sample comprised 3333 patients (n = 852 TIO+FSC cohort, n = 2481 TIO cohort). Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.772; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.641, 0.930) and any exacerbation (hazard ratio 0.763; 95% CI 0.646, 0.949) and a nonsignificant reduction in COPD-related adjusted monthly medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy with FSC added to TIO compared with TIO monotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the adjusted risks of moderate exacerbation and any exacerbation over a follow-up period of up to 1 year. These improvements were gained with triple therapy at roughly equal cost of that of TIO alone.

Observational study of the outcomes and costs of initiating maintenance therapies in patients with moderate exacerbations of COPD.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data describing patients with moderate COPD exacerbations and evaluating comparative effectiveness of maintenance treatments in this patient population. The study examined COPD patients with moderate COPD exacerbations. COPD-related outcomes were compared between patients initiating fluticasone propionate-salmeterol 250/50 mcg (FSC) vs anticholinergics (ACs) following a moderate COPD exacerbation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used a large administrative claims database (study period: 2003-2009) to identify and describe patients with an initial, moderate COPD exacerbation. A descriptive analysis of patients with moderate COPD exacerbations was done evaluating maintenance treatment rates, subsequent COPD exacerbation rates, and COPD-related costs during a 1-year period. A cohort analysis compared COPD exacerbation rates and associated costs during a variable-length follow-up period between patients initiating maintenance therapy with FSC or ACs. COPD exacerbations were reported as rate per 100 patient-years, and monthly costs were reported (standardized to USD 2009). COPD exacerbation rates between cohorts were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models, and costs were analyzed using generalized linear models with log-link and gamma distribution. RESULTS: 21,524 patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were identified. Only 25% initiated maintenance therapy, and 13% had a subsequent exacerbation. Annual costs averaged $594 per patient. A total of 2,849 treated patients (FSC = 925; AC = 1,924) were eligible for the cohort analysis. The FSC cohort had a significantly lower rate of COPD exacerbations compared to the AC cohort (20.8 vs 32.8; P = 0.04). After adjusting for differences in baseline covariates, the FSC cohort had a 42% significantly lower risk of a COPD exacerbation (HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.91). The FSC cohort incurred significantly higher adjusted pharmacy costs per patient per month by $37 (95% CI: $19, $72) for COPD-related medications vs the AC cohort. However, this increase was offset by a significant reduction in adjusted monthly medical costs per patient for the FSC vs the AC cohort ($82 vs $112; P < 0.05). Total monthly COPD-related costs, as a result, did not differ between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of patients with a moderate COPD exacerbation were subsequently treated with maintenance therapy. Initiation of FSC among those treated was associated with better clinical and economic outcomes compared to AC.

Tiotropium versus long-acting beta-agonists for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Tiotropium and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) are both accepted in the routine management for people with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There are new studies which have compared tiotropium with LABAs, including some that have evaluated recently introduced LABAs. OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative clinical effects of tiotropium bromide alone versus LABA alone, upon measures of quality of life, exacerbations, lung function and serious adverse events, in people with stable COPD.To critically appraise and summarise current evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with tiotropium compared to LABA in people with COPD. SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register of trials and economic evaluations from searching NHS EED and HEED (date of last search February 2012). We found additional trials from web-based clinical trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and full economic evaluations if they compared effects of tiotropium alone with LABAs alone in people with COPD. We allowed co-administration of standard COPD therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, then extracted data on study quality and outcomes. We contacted study authors and trial sponsors for additional information. We analysed data using the Cochrane Review Manager(RevMan 5.1) software. MAIN RESULTS: Seven clinical studies totalling 12,223 participants with COPD were included in the review. The studies used similar designs and were generally of good methodological quality. Inclusion criteria for RCTs were similar across the included studies, although studies varied in terms of smoking history and COPD severity of participants. They compared tiotropium (which was delivered by HandiHaler in all studies) with salmeterol (four studies, 8936 participants), formoterol (one study, 431 participants) and indacaterol (two studies, 2856 participants). All participants were instructed to discontinue anticholinergic or long-acting beta(2)-agonist bronchodilators during treatment, but could receive inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) at a stable dose. Study duration ranged from 3 to 12 months. We extracted data for 11,223 participants. In general, the treatment groups were well matched at baseline. Overall, the risk of bias across the included RCTs was low.In the analysis of the primary outcomes in this review, a high level of heterogeneity amongst studies meant that we did not pool data for St George's Respiratory Questionnaire quality of life score. Subgroup analyses based on the type of LABA found statistically significant differences among effects on quality of life depending on whether tiotropium was compared with salmeterol, formoterol or indacaterol. Tiotropium reduced the number of participants experiencing one or more exacerbations compared with LABA (odds ratio (OR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.93). For this outcome, there was no difference seen among the different types of LABA. There was no statistical difference in mortality observed between the treatment groups.For secondary outcomes, tiotropium was associated with a reduction in the number of COPD exacerbations leading to hospitalisation compared with LABA treatment (OR 0.87; 95% 0.77 to 0.99), but not in the overall rate of all-cause hospitalisations. There was no statistically significant difference in forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV(1)) or symptom score between tiotropium and LABA-treated participants. There was a lower rate of non-fatal serious adverse events recorded with tiotropium compared with LABA (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99). The tiotropium group was also associated with a lower rate of study withdrawals (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99).We identified six full economic evaluations assessing the cost and cost-effectiveness of tiotropium and salmeterol. The studies were based on an economic model or empirical analysis of clinical data from RCTs. They all looked at maintenance costs and the costs for COPD exacerbations, including respiratory medications and hospitalisations. The setting for the evaluations was primary and secondary care in the UK, Greece, Netherlands, Spain and USA. All the studies estimated tiotropium to be superior to salmeterol based on better clinical outcomes (exacerbations or quality of life) and/or lower total costs. However, the authors of all evaluations reported there was substantial uncertainty around the results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with COPD, the evidence is equivocal as to whether or not tiotropium offers greater benefit than LABAs in improving quality of life; however, this is complicated by differences in effect among the LABA types. Tiotropium was more effective than LABAs as a group in preventing COPD exacerbations and disease-related hospitalisations, although there were no statistical differences between groups in overall hospitalisation rates or mortality during the study periods. There were fewer serious adverse events and study withdrawals recorded with tiotropium compared with LABAs. Symptom improvement and changes in lung function were similar between the treatment groups. Given the small number of studies to date, with high levels of heterogeneity among them, one approach may be to give a COPD patient a substantial trial of tiotropium, followed by a LABA (or vice versa), then to continue prescribing the long-acting bronchodilator that the patient prefers. Further studies are needed to compare tiotropium with different LABAs, which are currently ongoing. The available economic evidence indicates that tiotropium may be cost-effective compared with salmeterol in several specific settings, but there is considerable uncertainty around this finding.

Pitfalls associated with the therapeutic reference pricing practice of asthma medication.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic reference pricing (TRP) based on the WHO daily defined dose (DDD) is a method frequently employed for the cost-containment of pharmaceuticals. Our objective was to compare average drug use in the real world with DDD and to evaluate whether TRP based on DDD could result in cost savings on maintenance medication and the total direct health expenditures for asthma patients treated with Symbicort Turbuhaler (SYT) and Seretide Diskus (SED) in Hungary. METHODS: Real-world data were derived from the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund database. Average doses and costs were compared between the high-dose and medium-dose SYT and SED groups. Multiple linear regressions were employed to adjust the data for differences in the gender and age distribution of patients. RESULTS: 27,779 patients with asthma were included in the analysis. Average drug use was lower than DDD in all groups, 1.38-1.95 inhalations in both SED groups, 1.28-1.97 and 1.74-2.49 inhalations in the medium and high-dose SYT groups, respectively. Although the cost of SED based on the DDD would be much lower than the cost of SYT in the medium-dose groups, no difference was found in the actual cost of the maintenance therapy. No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of total medical costs. CONCLUSIONS: Cost-containment initiatives by payers may influence clinical decisions. TRP for inhalation asthma drugs raises special concern, because of differences in the therapeutic profile of pharmaceuticals and the lack of proven financial benefits after exclusion of the effect of generic price erosion. Our findings indicate that the presented TRP approach of asthma medications based on the daily therapeutic costs according to the WHO DDD does not result in reduced public healthcare spending in Hungary. Further analysis is required to show whether TRP generates additional expenditures by inducing switching costs and reducing patient compliance. Potential confounding factors may limit the generalisability of our conclusions.

[Cost effectiveness of treatment with salmeterol/fluticasone compared to montelukast for the control of persistent asthma in children]. / Costo-efectividad del tratamiento de salmeterol/fluticasona en comparación con leucotrieno montelukast para el control del asma infantil.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of SFC compared with MON for the control of persistent asthma in children. METHODS: We conducted an economic evaluation on a 12-week prospective randomized open-label parallel-group comparison of SFC versus MON in children with symptomatic asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting ß2-agonists. Asthma-related medication, unscheduled physician contacts and hospitalizations were collected prospectively. The main effectiveness measure was percentage of asthma-controlled week with no short-acting ß2-agonist use during the study period. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2010 unit cost prices, and only direct costs were considered, all costs are reported in US dollar. . The model was made fully probabilistic to reflect the joint uncertainty in the model parameters. RESULTS: Over the whole treatment period, the median percentages of asthma-controlled weeks were 83.3% in the SFC group and 66.7% in the MON group (SFC-MON difference, 16.7%; 95% CI, 8.3-16.7; P < 0.001 in favor of SFC). The mean total cost of the SFC regimen was $ 2,323 compared with $ 3,230 for the MON regimen. The SFC was the dominant strategy (both more effective and less expensive) using the SFC was associated with an incremental cost per additional asthma-controlled of $ (5,467). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with MON, SFC may be cost saving from the Mexican health care perspective for the treatment of pediatric patients with asthma. SFC provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations, frequent asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of SFC because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.

Usage of spacers in respiratory laboratories and the delivered salbutamol dose of spacers available in Australia and New Zealand.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Purchase and disinfection costs together with medication delivery factors may influence the choice of drug delivery options. This study assessed salbutamol delivery habits used in respiratory laboratories and quantified the delivered salbutamol dose of locally available spacers. METHODS: An online survey was used to obtain data on disinfection processes, costs and delivery device choices. The delivered dose of six commercial spacers was assessed. Particle size distribution of salbutamol (Ventolin, GSK, 100µg/actuation) from six spacers of each type was measured by quantifying the amount of drug (µg) deposited on each stage of an Anderson Cascade Impactor (ACI) using UV spectrophotometry. Clinical conditions were simulated using a flow volume simulator (FVS) and delivery of salbutamol via a pressurized metered dose inhaler and spacer to a low-resistance filter was measured. RESULTS: Fifty survey responses were obtained, with 37 (74%) using ≥1 type of spacer of which 92% processed single use spacers. The most commonly used spacers were Volumatic (n=24), Breath-a-tech (n=8) and Space Chamber (n=7). The median disinfection cost was $2.45. Delivered salbutamol dose varied significantly and ranged from 16.98 to 38.28 µg with the ACI and 22.56 to 58.82 µg with the FVS. Using the FVS, small-volume spacers delivered similar doses (22.56 to 28.46 µg), while large-volume spacers delivery was more varied (24.31 to 58.82 µg). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respiratory laboratories had not updated re-processing policies to comply with new regulations. The delivered salbutamol dose varied significantly and this might effect the choice of preferred spacer type.

Outcomes and costs associated with initial maintenance therapy with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol xinafoate 250 microg/50 microg combination versus tiotropium in commercially insured patients with COPD.

PURPOSE: To compare, in commercially-insured individuals 240 years old, the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations and COPD-related health care utilization and costs in patients initiating maintenance treatment with fluticasone propionate/salmeterol xinafoate 250 microg/50 microg (FSC) with those in patients initiating treatment with tiotropium bromide (TIO). DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. METHODOLOGY: The risk of COPD exacerbation (moderate, severe, and any), COPD-related health care utilization, and COPD-related costs (overall and by service setting) were assessed over 12 months after the initiation of treatment with FSC or TIO in commercially-insured patients > or =40 years old diagnosed with COPD. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: After adjusting for covariates, treatment with FSC compared with treatment with TIO was associated with a 14% reduction in risk of severe exacerbation (p = 0.0406), defined as the occurrence of a COPD-related hospitalization; with less health care utilization across several categories of care; with 25% lower COPD-related medical costs ($1814 versus $2258 per patient, p < 0.0001); and with 10% lower COPD-related total costs ($2991 versus $3304 per patient, p < 0.0001) over a 12-month follow-up period. Pharmacy costs were equivalent between FSC and TIO. CONCLUSION: Initiation of maintenance therapy with FSC compared with TIO was associated with significant reductions in the risk of severe exacerbations, health care utilization, and COPD-related medical and total costs. Considered in the context of other findings, these data suggest that earlier maintenance treatment with FSC offers clinical and economic benefits over maintenance treatment with TIO.

Is treatment with ICS and LABA cost-effective for COPD? Multinational economic analysis of the TORCH study.

The TOwards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) study was a 3-yr multicentre trial of 6,112 patients randomised to salmeterol (Salm), fluticasone propionate (FP), a Salm/FP combination (SFC) or placebo (P). Here the cost-effectiveness of treatments evaluated in the TORCH study is assessed. For four regions, 3-yr all-cause hospitalisation, medication and outpatient care costs were calculated. The sample was restricted to the 21 countries (n = 4,237) in which European quality of life five-dimension (EQ-5D) data were collected in order to estimate the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Regression models were fitted to survival, study medication cost, other medication cost and EQ-5D data in order to estimate total cost, number of QALYs and cost per QALY, adjusted for missing data and region. SFC had a trial-wide estimate of cost per QALY of 43,600 US dollars (USD) compared with P (95% confidence interval 21,400-123,500 USD). Estimates for Salm versus P (197,000 USD) and FP versus P (78,000 USD) were less favourable. The US estimates were greater than those from other regions; for SFC versus P, the cost per QALY was 77,100 (46,200-241,700) USD compared to 24,200 (15,200-56,100) USD in Western Europe. Compared with P, SFC has a lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio than either FP or Salm used alone, and is, therefore, preferred to these monotherapies on the grounds of cost-effectiveness.

Adding salmeterol to fluticasone propionate or increasing the dose of fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma.

The National Asthma Education and Prevention Program guidelines recommend two options for patients uncontrolled on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) alone: add a long-acting bronchodilator or increase the dose of the ICS. The purpose of this study was to compare asthma-related exacerbations and asthma control in asthma patients receiving fluticasone propionate (FP) monotherapy with an increased dose of FP compared with maintaining the dose and adding salmeterol (SAL) via a single device (FP/SAL combination [FSC]). A retrospective observational study was performed using health insurance claims spanning from January 2001 to August 2006 ("study period"). Subjects were > or =12 years of age, with asthma (International Classification of Diseases [ICD] 493.xx), and were stepped up from FP 44 microg to either FP 110 microg (FP110) or FP 100 microg/SAL 50 microg (FSC), or from FP110 to either FP 220 microg or FP 250 microg/SAL 50 microg (FSC). There were 1744 subjects identified, 557 (32%) increased FP and 1187 (68%) added SAL. The cohorts were relatively similar, and after adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients who added SAL to their same dose of FP had 41% lower odds of an asthma exacerbation (odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.46-0.76; p < 0.001), 36% fewer prescriptions for a short-acting beta-agonist (rate ratio = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.58-0.70; p < 0.001), and a 32% increase in ICS refill persistence compared with increasing the dose of FP. In asthma patients who are not adequately controlled with ICS (FP), adding SAL as FSC is associated with lower risk of an asthma-related exacerbation and better asthma control compared with increasing the dose of ICS (FP).

Stepping down to fluticasone propionate or a lower dose of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination in asthma patients recently initiating combination therapy.

Clinical guidelines recommend add-on therapy with long-acting beta2-agonists (LABA) in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma whose disease is not adequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) alone. For those achieving control with add-on therapy, careful reduction in ICS dose followed by withdrawal of LABA is recommended. This study was designed to compare asthma-related outcomes in patients receiving fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) who stepped down to a lower dose of FSC versus those who stepped down to fluticasone propionate (FP) at the same dose of FP. A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using two large health insurance claims databases spanning from January 2000 to June 2007. Subjects were age > or =12 and <65 years, had a diagnosis of asthma (International Classification of Diseases [ICD-493.xx]), and who within 1 year of initiating FSC either stepped down to a lower dose of FSC ("FSC patients") or to FP only at the same dose of FP ("FP patients"). FSC and FP patients were matched based on propensity scores to control for potential differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and preindex asthma-related and costs. Of 4350 subjects identified, 3881 stepped down to a lower dose of FSC and 469 stepped down to FP. After matching, there were 447 pairs of FSC and FP patients. FSC patients had 30% fewer prescriptions for short-acting beta-agonists, a 26% lower risk of receiving systemic corticosteroids, and a 48% lower risk of asthma-related hospitalization or Emergency Department visit during follow-up. Stepping down to FP monotherapy is associated with worsening asthma symptoms and greater risk of severe asthma-related exacerbations compared with staying on FSC at a lower ICS dose.

Economic analyses comparing tiotropium with ipratropium or salmeterol in UK patients with COPD.

AIMS: This study presents a cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis comparing cost and outcomes for UK patients with COPD treated with either tiotropium, ipratropium or salmeterol. METHODS: A previously-published COPD cost-effectiveness model was adapted for the UK, then used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. Additional epidemiological data were used to estimate the budget impact of switching patients from ipratropium or salmeterol to tiotropium. RESULTS: In England, the estimated annual cost per patient on tiotropium was pound1350, on salmeterol was pound1404, and on ipratropium was pound1427; in Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (S/W/NI) these costs were pound1439, pound1565, and pound1631, respectively. Tiotropium patients experienced better quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) across all comparisons, and this option was therefore dominant compared to salmeterol and ipratropium. The probability of tiotropium being dominant ranged from 72% to 87% across comparisons. At a willingness to pay threshold of pound20,000 per QALY, tiotropium had at least a 97% chance of being cost-effective. The estimated annual saving per primary care trust (PCT) of switching patients from salmeterol and ipratropium to tiotropium in England was pound230,000 and in S/W/NI was pound160,000. CONCLUSIONS: Tiotropium is a cost-effective alternative to ipratropium and salmeterol, and switching COPD patients from ipratropium and salmeterol to tiotropium could result in considerable cost savings for PCTs along with improvements in quality-of-life.

[Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy vs. fluticasone propionate in Japanese asthmatic patients].

We commenced to estimate the economic impact of salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) therapy compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) therapy for asthma control in Japanese patients. A Markov model with five health states, developed by Price in 2002, was used. 1-week transition probabilities among status of asthma management were obtained from literature and epidemiological data from public data base. Direct cost for treatment was estimated from Japan medical fee schedule. Cost and effectiveness were not discounted due to 12-week simulation by the model. Univariate sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the main variables affecting cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic analysis was also undertaken to discuss statistical argument and to provide information for decision-making. In this analysis, the model was run over a 12-week period of time using transition probabilities. The results showed that treatment with SFC resulted in a higher proportion of totally controlled weeks per patient than treatment with FP (65.0 vs. 49.5%; incremental effectiveness by 15.5%), and lower mean direct asthma management costs ( yen168 702 vs. yen227 820). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, conducted to assess robustness of the above base case result, showed that in the 95% of cases SFC was dominant (more effective and less costly) to FP. It suggested that SFC will be the most cost-effective therapy for asthma control. It would, however, be required to further evaluate cost-effectiveness of SFC in long-term observation.

Metered-dose inhalers vs nebulization for the delivery of albuterol in pediatric asthma exacerbations: A cost-effectiveness analysis in a middle-income country.

OBJECTIVES: Although the benefits of albuterol delivered via metered-dose inhalers with a spacer (MDI+S) have been increasingly recognized, the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S compared to nebulization (NEB) is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of MDI+S vs NEB for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC). The main outcome of the model was the avoidance of hospital admission. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to NEB, using MDI+S for the delivery of albuterol was associated with lower total costs (US$96.68 vs US$121.41 average cost per patient) and a higher probability of hospital admission avoided (0.9219 vs 0.8900), thus leading to dominance. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with NEB, the use of MDI+S for delivering albuterol for the treatment of pediatric asthma exacerbations is the preferred strategy because it is associated with a lower probability of hospital admission at lower total treatment costs.

Retrospective claims study of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol fixed-dose combination use as initial asthma controller therapy in children despite guideline recommendations.

BACKGROUND: According to current asthma treatment guidelines, single-entity inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) should be used as initial controller therapy in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma. Long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) can be added to therapy for those patients whose asthma is not well controlled with a single-entity ICS. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine whether the claims history for children in a US insured population indicate proper fluticasone propionate/ salmeterol (FPS) fixed-dose combination use in accordance with recommended asthma guidelines and a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory and black box warning regarding LABA use. A comparison of study-drug charges was also conducted. METHODS: Data from a US commercial insurance database were used in this retrospective study to evaluate pharmacy and medical claims for children between October 2004 and September 2006 (ie, the index period). An index date corresponding to the date of the first FPS claim was assigned to each patient. Eligible patients were aged 4 to 11 years and had >/=1 pharmacy claim for FPS during the index period. Those patients receiving 1 FPS prescription dose strength on the index date who were continuously enrolled for benefits during the preindex period (ie, the 365 days before the index date) were included in the study. Disease severity was assigned based on asthma-related pharmacy (frequency and/or incidence of oral corticosteroid, LABA, montelukast, and >365 doses of a short-acting beta(2)-agonist) and medical (asthma-related urgent care clinic or emergency department visits or hospitalizations) claim histories during the preindex period. RESULTS: A total of 13,306 patients between the ages of 4 and 11 years on the index date were included in the study; their mean (SD) age was 8.9 (1.9) years. The majority of the patients were male (60.7%). Of the total FPS claims, 55.2% were for patients with no evidence of pharmacy or medical claims in the 365 days before the first FPS claim that would warrant ICS/LABA combination therapy according to asthma treatment guidelines. There were no large changes in preindex ICS claims over the course of the study in response to an FDA-issued advisory and black box warning regarding the use of LABAs. Median drug charges for single-entity ICS use were $98 compared with $168 for FPS therapy. CONCLUSIONS: ICS/LABA combination treatment was used as initial therapy in 55.2% of children with mild to moderate asthma in this claims database population, contrary to the recommendations of current asthma treatment guidelines. The FDA advisory and black box warning for LABA use had little observed impact on the number of single-entity ICS claims.