Comparison of patient-reported outcomes during treatment with adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler in patients with asthma.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of patient-reported outcomes is important in evaluating the impact of asthma treatment. This study was conducted to compare effects of adjustable- and fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler with fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler regimens on patient-reported outcomes in patients aged > or =18 years with moderate to severe asthma. METHODS: In this phase III, randomized, open-label study, 1225 patients were randomized 2:1 to fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg x 2 inhalations (320/9 mug) twice daily or fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol 250/50 microg twice daily for 1 month. In the subsequent 6 months, patients receiving fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol continued therapy, whereas those receiving fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol were randomized 1:1 to fixed-dose or adjustable-dose budesonide/formoterol (adjustable from 320/9 microg twice daily to 320/9 microg once daily or 640/18 microg twice daily). RESULTS: Mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment in the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardized) overall and individual domain scores and the Asthma Control Questionnaire score were clinically important (> or =0.5 points) for all treatments. Patients in both budesonide/formoterol groups reported greater treatment satisfaction on the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure questionnaire than patients in the fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler group for the attributes of timely relief of symptoms (p < or = .037) and feel medication working (p < or = .020). Onset of Effect Questionnaire scores showed a greater percentage of patients perceiving onset of effect with budesonide/formoterol regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (p < or = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment regimens did not differ regarding improvements in asthma-specific quality of life and asthma control. Questions related to perceived rate of onset and feeling medication working in the Asthma Treatment Satisfaction Measure and Onset of Effect Questionnaire generally elicited somewhat more favorable responses with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler regimens versus fixed-dose fluticasone propionate/salmeterol dry powder inhaler.

Subacute lack of asthma control and acute asthma exacerbation history as predictors of subsequent acute asthma exacerbations: evidence from managed care data.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring indicators of subacute lack of asthma control (SALAC) may help to reduce asthma morbidity. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether SALAC, independent of current asthma exacerbations, is associated with subsequent acute asthma exacerbations. METHODS: Administrative claims data from PharMetrics/IMS Health were used to identify patients 12 years or older continuously enrolled in a participating U.S. health plan from 2001 to 2004 with >or=1 asthma claim (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 493.x), no chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cystic fibrosis claims, and >or=1 prescription for an asthma medication during 2001-2004. SALAC was defined as more than 4 asthma-related physician visits (or >or=2/quarter) or more than 5 short-acting beta((2))-adrenergic agonist prescriptions during 2001. Effect of asthma control category (Exacerbation Only [EO], SALAC Only [SO], Both Exacerbation and SALAC [Both], Neither Exacerbation nor SALAC [Neither]) in 2001 on acute asthma exacerbations (hospitalization, emergency department visit, or short-term oral corticosteroid use) during 2002-2004 was assessed using logistic regression, adjusting for gender, age, health plan type, and region. RESULTS: Of 11,779 patients, 8% were assigned to the EO group, 26% to SO, 12% to Both, and 54% to Neither in 2001. The incidence of exacerbations in 2002-2004 was higher for Both (61.8%) versus EO (55.0%) and for SO (37.3%) versus Neither (31.9%). The risk of exacerbation in 2002-2004 was increased significantly (p < .0001) for Both (3.394; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.009, 3.827), EO (2.503; 95% CI = 2.176, 2.879), and SO (1.277; 95% CI = 1.166, 1.399) versus Neither. CONCLUSION: In this study, the risk of subsequent exacerbation was greatest in patients with both SALAC and acute asthma exacerbations, followed by those with exacerbations only and those with SALAC only. SO identified an additional 26% of asthma patients at increased risk for subsequent exacerbation. The results from this study demonstrate that SALAC indicators and a history of acute asthma exacerbations are independent predictors of future acute asthma exacerbations and highlight the important role of subacute asthma worsening in predicting and preventing future asthma exacerbations.

Comparing outcomes in patients with persistent asthma: a registry of two therapeutic alternatives.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials have demonstrated improved efficacy of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (100/50 mcg) in a single device (FSC) compared with montelukast (10 mg) (MON). This study was designed to assess asthma control, asthma-related quality of life, asthma-related emergency department (ED) visit/hospitalization, treatment-related satisfaction, and productivity losses in patients newly started on FSC or MON. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who were newly prescribed FSC or MON during a regularly scheduled office visit were enrolled in a prospective observational study by nearly 500 physicians from eight managed care plans. Patient survey data were collected at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, and 12, to measure study outcomes. ED visits/inpatient stays were reported from commercial claims data. Multivariate analyses assessed 12-month outcomes, controlling for several baseline patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 1414 patients >or= 15 years old were enrolled in the registry (FSC, n = 1061; MON, n = 353), 90% of which completed a 12-month survey. FSC patients had significantly greater improvement in both asthma control and quality of life, and reported significantly higher satisfaction with their medication (p = 0.003) and fewer days at work/school with asthma symptoms (p = 0.04) than MON. Other parameters of productivity losses such as missed work/school days due to asthma were not significantly different between the two groups. FSC use was also significantly associated with a lower risk of an asthma-related ED visit/hospitalization compared with MON (odds ratio = 0.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.92). CONCLUSION: In a 12-month office-based observational study, patients age 15 and older with persistent asthma, newly started on FSC, improved in symptom, quality of life, treatment, and utilization-related outcomes compared with patients newly started on MON. These results should be interpreted in light of the inherent limitations of non-randomized, uncontrolled studies.

Use of ICS/LABA on Asthma Exacerbation Risk in Patients Within a Medical Group.

BACKGROUND: Asthma medication ratio (AMR) ≥ 0.5 has been shown to predict asthma exacerbations. This study explores the impact of increasing or decreasing inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA) use over a 7-year period on achieving an AMR of ≥ 0.5. OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess the impact of increasing use of ICS/LABAs on changes in a modified AMR (mAMR) and (b) examine asthma risk over time as measured by an mAMR over a 7-year period, adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study using pharmacy and medical claims from a medical group from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2010. All patients with ≥ 1 asthma diagnosis (ICD-9-CM, 493.xx) with ≥ 1 inhaled asthma medication dispensed in each year of eligibility were included. The mAMR = total ICS controllers dispensed/(total ICS controllers dispensed + albuterol dispensed). The proportion of ICS/LABA use was determined as the number of ICS/LABA canisters dispensed/(total of ICS/LABA + ICS dispensed). Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the effect of incremental change in ICS/LABA use on mAMR over 7 years, adjusting for differences in resource utilization, time, and asthma medication use.  RESULTS: Nine hundred ninety patients (mean age [± SD] 34.7 years [± 18.2], 61.7% female) met all criteria. Overall, mean mAMR increased over time, while mean albuterol use decreased over time. Adjusting for covariates, we found that a 10% increase in ICS/LABA use was associated with a 9% increase (adjusted OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.06-1.12) in the likelihood of achieving an mAMR ≥ 0.5, while a 50% increase in ICS/LABA use was associated with a 53% increase (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.31-1.80) in the likelihood of achieving an mAMR ≥ 0.5. CONCLUSIONS: Increase in ICS/LABA use over time in a population of asthma patients was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of achieving an mAMR ≥ 0.5.

Relation between tumour necrosis factor polymorphism TNFalpha-308 and risk of asthma.

Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) alpha affects immune response and airway inflammation, which are characteristics of asthma. Genetic factors may impact TNFalpha levels, and several polymorphisms in the TNF gene cluster on chromosome 6p21 have been associated with TNFalpha production and potential increased risk of asthma. The present paper evaluates the relation between two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the TNF gene cluster and asthma risk. The SNPs investigated here are guanine (G) to adenosine (A) substitutions in the TNFalpha and lymphotoxin alpha (LTalpha) genes. The TNFalpha SNP is at position -308 in the promoter region (TNFalpha-308), while the LTalpha SNP is in the first intron NcoI recognition sequence (LTalpha-NcoI). (For both SNPs the G allele is denoted as 1, and the A allele 2.) We determined TNFalpha-308 and LTalpha-NcoI genotypes in 511 individuals: 236 asthma cases and 275 non-asthmatic controls. Data were analysed by logistic regression of asthma status on the genotypes and potential confounders. TNFalpha-308*2 was positively associated with asthma, and this relation was strengthened when restricting cases to individuals reporting acute asthma: the adjusted odds ratio (OR) comparing carriers of one or two TNFalpha-308*2 alleles versus none was 1.86 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03-3.34, P=0.04). Further restricting the subjects to those with a family history of asthma, and those of European-American ancestry strengthened the association even more: adjusted OR=3.16 (95% CI=1.04-9.66; P=0.04). LTalpha-NcoI*1 was weakly associated with asthma, and analysis of both genes suggests that only the TNFalpha-308*2 allele increases risk of asthma.

Two-year retrospective economic evaluation of three dual-controller therapies used in the treatment of asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma-related health-care utilization and expenditures for patients prescribed one of three dual-controller therapies: fluticasone plus salmeterol, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) [excluding fluticasone] plus salmeterol, and ICS plus a leukotriene modifier (LTM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Asthma-related medical claims from two major health plans were obtained for the 12 months before and after the initiation of dual therapy. A total of 1,325 patients > or = 12 years old with no claims for COPD or respiratory tract cancer were selected from the approximately 3.5 million lives covered. Multivariable regression was used to assess differences in asthma-related expenditures. To compensate for positive skew, all cost variables were log-transformed. RESULTS: Risk-adjusted total asthma-related costs for the fluticasone-plus-salmeterol cohort (n = 121), the ICS-plus-salmeterol cohort (n = 844), and the ICS-plus-LTM cohort (n = 360) [corrected] were $975, $1,089, and $1,268, respectively. Risk-adjusted pharmacy costs were $813, $841, and $996, respectively. Generalized linear modeling, controlling for baseline covariates, indicated that compared to ICS-plus-LTM therapy, fluticasone-plus-salmeterol therapy was associated with a significant reduction in asthma-related total (p = 0.0014) and pharmacy (p = 0.001) costs. Similar results were found when the ICS-plus-salmeterol group and the ICS-plus-LTM group were compared (p = 0.0001). The number of inpatient, outpatient, and emergency department visits and their corresponding costs were lower for the fluticasone-plus-salmeterol cohort, but were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Results from managed-care practice suggest that treatment with fluticasone plus salmeterol, and more broadly ICS plus salmeterol, yield important cost savings when compared to treatment with ICS plus LTM.

Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease, the two main components of which are inflammation and bronchoconstriction. Fluticasone propionate (FP) and salmeterol, a strategy that treats both main components of asthma, has been recently compared with FP plus montelukast in a randomised clinical trial. The present study reports economic evaluation of these two strategies. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost effectiveness when persistent asthma is treated with FP/salmeterol 100/50 microg twice daily administered via a single Diskus inhaler device versus treatment with FP 100 microg twice daily via a Diskus inhaler plus oral montelukast 10mg once daily. STUDY DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed by applying cost unit data to resource utilisation data collected prospectively during a US randomised, double-blind, 12-week trial of FP/salmeterol (n = 222) versus FP + montelukast (n = 225). Patients were > or =15 years of age and were symptomatic despite inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Efficacy measurements in this analysis included improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and symptom-free days. Direct costs included those related to study drugs, emergency room department visits, unscheduled physician visits, treatment of drug-related adverse events (oral candidiasis), and rescue medication (salbutamol [albuterol]). The study assumed a US third-party payer's perspective with costs in 2001 US dollars. RESULTS: Treatment with FP/salmeterol resulted in a significantly higher proportion (p < 0.001) of patients who achieved a > or =12% increase in FEV(1) than treatment with FP + montelukast (54% [95% CI 47%, 61%] vs 32% [95% CI 26%, 38%]). Lower daily costs and greater efficacy of FP/salmeterol resulted in a cost-effectiveness ratio of US6.77 dollars (95% CI US5.99 dollars, US7.66 dollars) per successfully treated patient in the FP/salmeterol group compared with US14.59 dollars (95% CI US12.12 dollars, US17.77 dollars) for FP + montelukast. In addition, FP/salmeterol achieved similar efficacy in terms of symptom-free days compared with FP + montelukast (31% [95% CI 26%, 35%] vs 27% [95% CI 23%, 32%]), but at a significantly lower daily per-patient cost (US3.64 dollars [95% CI US3.60, US3.68 dollars] vs US4.64 dollars [95% CI US4.56 dollars, US4.73 dollars]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the stability of the results over a range of assumptions. CONCLUSION: From a US third-party payer's perspective, these findings suggest that treating the two main components of asthma (inflammation and bronchoconstriction) with FP/salmeterol may not only be a more cost-effective strategy but may actually lead to cost savings compared with the addition of montelukast to low-dose FP in patients with persistent asthma. The results were found to be robust over a range of assumptions.

Current approaches to asthma management: assessing clinical and economic evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To review the consistency of scientific, clinical, and economic evidence related to dual-controller therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and the inhaled long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) salmeterol in treating patients whose asthma is not controlled with ICS alone. DATA SOURCES: This article is based on a presentation given by the author at a symposium entitled. Optimizing Clinical and Economic Outcomes in Asthma Management. at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.s 2000 Educational Conference in San Diego, California, on October 5, 2000. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific research supports the complementary effect of ICSs and LABAs in preventing bronchoconstriction and inflammation. For patients using an ICS and still exhibiting symptoms, randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have shown that adding salmeterol resulted in greater clinical efficacy and fewer asthma exacerbations than either at least doubling the dose of ICS or adding a leukotriene modifier. Two studies comparing the clinical efficacy of adding either a LABA or leukotriene modifier to low-dose ICS therapy favored the former combination. The addition of a LABA has allowed a reduction of the steroid dose in patients with stable asthma without a decline in short-term asthma control. Whether the ICS dose reduction can be maintained long term without any deleterious effects remains unknown. While RCTs are useful for determining safety and clinical efficacy, their results may have limited applicability in general clinical practice. Retrospective cohort analysis using large administrative data sets from managed health plans is an alternative method for determining the economic outcomes of common dual-controller regimens. The economic benefits of ICS and salmeterol in 5 retrospective cohort analyses mirror the clinical results of the RCTs.

Identification of allergic disease among users of antihistamines.

OBJECTIVE: Patients exhibit a multitude of symptoms that may or may not be allergy related. In this study, we examined the consistency between results obtained by a multiallergen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) test and frequent use (3 months or more) of prescribed antihistamines. METHODS: A retrospective examination of 1-year prescription claims records from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, for 4,643 patients enrolled in a 115,000-member managed care organization who received 1 or more prescriptions for an oral antihistamine (loratadine, fexofenadine, or cetirizine). RESULTS: A total of 1,343 health plan enrollees who received an oral antihistamine prescription were continuously enrolled during the year 2000 and diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. Of these patients, 246 (18%) consented to a multiallergen- specific IgE test, and 159 patients (64.6%) had a negative IgE test result. A total of 163 patients were classified as frequent antihistamine users (3 or more antihistamine prescriptions), and 101 (62.0%) of these patients had negative test results. Our study demonstrated no relation between prescribed antihistamine use and patient sensitization status. CONCLUSIONS: Only 35.4% of the patients who used an oral antihistamine and were diagnosed with an allergy tested positive to the multiallergen-specific IgE test, and only 38% of the patients with records of frequent antihistamine use and who were diagnosed as allergic tested positive to the multiallergen-specific IgE test. Apparently, there are patients taking medications prescribed for allergic rhinitis who are, in fact, not allergic, which is both wasteful economically and not indicated medically. Additional evaluation may be advisable to support the clinical diagnosis of allergy for patients presenting with allergy-like symptoms who use antihistamines frequently.

Treatment with budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler in patients with asthma: a focus on patient-reported outcomes.

In the United States, budesonide/formoterol pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) is approved for treatment of asthma in patients aged ≥12 years whose asthma is not adequately controlled with an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or whose disease severity clearly warrants treatment with an ICS and a long-acting ß(2)-adrenergic agonist. This article reviews studies of budesonide/formoterol pMDI in patients with persistent asthma, with a particular focus on patient-reported outcomes (eg, perceived onset of effect, patient satisfaction with treatment, health-related quality of life [HRQL], global assessments, sleep quality and quantity), as these measures reflect patient perceptions of asthma control and disease burden. A search of PubMed and respiratory meetings was performed to identify relevant studies. In two pivotal budesonide/formoterol pMDI studies in adolescents and adults, greater efficacy and similar tolerability were shown with budesonide/formoterol pMDI 160/9 µg and 320/9 µg twice daily versus its monocomponents or placebo. In those studies, improvements in HRQL, patient satisfaction, global assessments of asthma control, and quality of sleep also favored budesonide/formoterol pMDI compared with one or both of its monocomponents or placebo. Budesonide/formoterol pMDI has a rapid onset of effect (within 15 minutes) that patients can feel, an attribute that may have benefits for treatment adherence. In summary, budesonide/formoterol pMDI is effective and well tolerated and has additional therapeutic benefits that may be important from the patient's perspective.

Inhaled corticosteroids vs leukotriene receptor antagonists: health care costs across varying asthma severities.

BACKGROUND: The burden of asthma is substantial, and the overall cost of its management is growing. OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma-related charges and resource utilization across disease severity levels in the year after initial asthma treatment with any inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). METHODS: This was a longitudinal, retrospective cohort study of claims data from managed care plans in the United States. All patients had a new prescription for an ICS or an LTRA between January 1999 and December 2000 and were enrolled in a managed care plan for at least 12 months before (preindex) and 12 months after (postindex) the initial claim. Asthma-related charges, hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, physician visits, and asthma medication use were compared between the 2 cohorts. Propensity scores were calculated to control for baseline differences in patient characteristics and types of health care coverage. RESULTS: Claims from 31,860 patients were evaluated. Total postindex asthma-related charges were significantly lower in the ICS cohort than in the LTRA cohort (dollars 613 vs dollars 902, respectively; P < .001), as were asthma-related pharmacy charges (dollars 305 vs dollars 564, respectively; P < .001). Results were consistent for all propensity subclasses and all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this cohort study suggest that, across varying disease severities, treating asthma with an ICS as initial controller therapy leads to less health care resource utilization than does using an LTRA as initial therapy.

Asthma-related exacerbations, therapy switching, and therapy discontinuation: a comparison of 3 commonly used controller regimens.

BACKGROUND: Asthma control is the goal of therapeutic interventions. In observational studies, the use of short-acting beta-agonists (SABAs) is a surrogate for symptoms and emergency department or hospital events for exacerbations. OBJECTIVE: To compare asthma exacerbations, medication switch, and use of SABAs among 3 treatment cohorts: fluticasone propionate and salmeterol as a single inhaler (FSC), fluticasone and salmeterol as separate inhalers (FP + SAL), and fluticasone propionate alone (FP). METHODS: Administrative claims data from approximately 10 million individuals from April 2000 to December 2002 were examined. Patients 15 years or older with claims for asthma, SABAs, and study medications were included in the study. Asthma-related medical and pharmacy claims were evaluated. Multivariate regression techniques were used to model the outcomes of interest, controlling for patient characteristics. RESULTS: The odds of a hospitalization or emergency department event were significantly lower for the patients receiving FSC (n=1013) compared with those receiving FP (n=1130) (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.93) and those receiving FP + SAL (n=271) (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.95). Patients receiving FSC also had a significantly lower risk of switch or discontinuation of index medication and lower rates of postindex SABA use. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, patients receiving FSC had lower rates of asthma-related symptoms and exacerbations as measured by SABA refills and hospitalization, respectively, when compared with patients receiving either FP or FP + SAL. This observational examination of medical and pharmacy claims data adds to the clinical reports that demonstrate the increased effectiveness of FSC when compared with FP or FP + SAL.

Effect of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol in a single device, fluticasone propionate, and montelukast on overall asthma control, exacerbations, and costs.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroids are the most effective class of anti-inflammatory agents and are recommended for patients with persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of (1) fluticasone propionate, 100 microg, and salmeterol, 50 microg; (2) fluticasone propionate, 100 microg; and (3) montelukast, 10 mg, as first-line maintenance treatment for persistent asthma. METHODS: Combined analysis of 4 clinical trials, 2 that compared fluticasone propionate-salmeterol with montelukast and 2 that compared fluticasone propionate with montelukast as initial asthma therapy. RESULTS: The 4 studies had a total of 1,910 patients 15 years or older with symptomatic asthma previously treated with inhaled short-acting beta2-agonists alone. At the end point, there were significantly greater increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 second with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (0.57 L; P < or = .004) vs fluticasone propionate (0.48 L) and montelukast (0.31 L) and significantly greater increases in morning peak expiratory flow rate (84.9 L/min; P < .001) vs fluticasone propionate (56.0 L/min) and montelukast (36.1 L/min). Fluticasone propionate-salmeterol significantly increased the percentage of symptom- and rescue-free days and significantly reduced albuterol use vs fluticasone propionate and montelukast (P < or = .04 for both). Patients treated with fluticasone propionate and montelukast had 2.6 and 3.6 greater risk, respectively, of having an asthma-related exacerbation vs fluticasone propionate-salmeterol users. In addition, mean daily exacerbation costs per treated patient were dollars 0.41 for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol, dollars 4.60 for fluticasone propionate, and dollars 7.57 for montelukast, whereas mean daily costs per patient exacerbation for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol, fluticasone propionate, and montelukast were dollars 29, dollars 128, and dollars 154, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with symptomatic asthma previously treated with short-acting beta2-agonists only who require maintenance therapy are likely to have greater clinical benefits, lower risk of an asthma exacerbation, and reduced exacerbation-related costs when initiating therapy with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol vs fluticasone propionate or montelukast.