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.

Access to asthma medicines at the household level in eight counties of Kenya.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that about 4 million Kenyans, i.e., 10% of the country's population, have asthma. We aimed to evaluate access to asthma medicines at the household level in eight counties of Kenya, including factors associated with location of purchase. METHODS: Individuals with a diagnosis and prescription of asthma medicines were asked about the location of diagnosis, purchase of medicines, availability of medicines at home and costs of medicines per month. A logistic regression model explored the relationship between patient characteristics and the probability that the patient purchased asthma medicines at a public facility. RESULTS: Of 128 (15.2%) individuals with a diagnosis of asthma who were receiving treatment, only 57.0% had asthma medicines at home. The most frequently purchased asthma medicine was salbutamol, with one third of individuals taking it orally instead of by inhalation. The majority (55.4%) purchased asthma medicines at private pharmacies. Female patients and lower socio-economic status were predictors of purchasing asthma medicines at public facilities. CONCLUSIONS: The availability and affordability of asthma medicines remain significant barriers to access to care. Improving the availability and affordability of all asthma medicines in the public sector, including inhaled corticosteroids, offers the opportunity to reach vulnerable populations.

Impact of Copayment Changes on Children's Albuterol Inhaler Use and Costs after the Clean Air Act Chlorofluorocarbon Ban.

OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in children's albuterol use and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs in response to increased copayments after the Food and Drug Administration banned inhalers with chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) propellants. SETTING: Four health maintenance organizations (HMOs), two that increased copayments for albuterol inhalers that went from generic CFC-containing to branded CFC-free versions, and two that retained generic copayments for CFC-free inhalers (controls). We included children with asthma aged 4-17 years with commercial coverage from 2007 to 2010. DESIGN: Interrupted time series with comparison series. DATA: We obtained enrollee and plan characteristics from enrollment files, and utilization data from pharmacy and medical claims; OOP expenditures were extracted from pharmacy claims for two HMOs with cost data available. FINDINGS: There were no significant differences in albuterol use between the group with increased cost-sharing and controls with respect to changes after the policy change. There was a postpolicy increase of $6.11 OOP per month per child using albuterol among those with increased cost-sharing versus $0.36 in controls; the difference between groups was significant (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Increased copayments for brand-name CFC-free albuterol after the CFC ban did not lead to a decrease in children's albuterol use, but it led to a modest increase in OOP costs.

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.

Free asthma medications reduces hospital admissions in Brazil (Free asthma drugs reduces hospitalizations in Brazil).

BACKGROUND: Since June 2011, the Brazilian health system started providing asthma medications (beclomethasone and salbutamol), totally free of charge to patients with asthma. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the provision of free asthma medications on hospital admissions for asthma in Brazil, using a national hospitalization database (DATASUS), comparing the incidence of hospital admissions before and after the free supply of these drugs. METHODS: Admissions of patients with 1-49 years of age by the Brazilian public health system with the diagnosis of asthma were compared pre (2008-2010) and post (2012-2014) provision of free medicines (beclomethasone and salbutamol). The number of hospital admissions due to asthma and non-respiratory diseases, as well as the amount spent with asthma hospitalization, were obtained from DATASUS, the Brazilian government open-access public health database system. RESULTS: Admission rates for asthma significantly decreased from 90.09/100.000 (2008-2010) to 59.85/100.000 (2012-2014), when the period pre and post provision of free medicines were compared [OR 0.67 (CI 0.48-0.92)]. Non-respiratory admission rates remained stable, when both periods were also compared. CONCLUSION: Asthma hospitalization rates significantly decreased in the three-year period after the provision of free medicines to treat asthma. Our findings suggest that the provision of free medications for asthma may have a particular public health impact by its own in developing countries.

Access to essential medicines to treat chronic respiratory disease in low-income countries.

Chronic respiratory diseases (CRDs) affect hundreds of millions of people. The United Nations 2011 meeting on non-communicable diseases (NCDs) marked a turning point in addressing this burden. The targets established following this meeting incorporated specific measures to address the availability and affordability of essential medicines. These are aligned with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the push for universal health coverage. However, essential medicines for CRDs remain unaffordable and unavailable to many. For asthma, the availability of medicines was respectively 30.1% and 43.1% in the public and private sectors. The maximum annual costs of treatment were US$102.10 for beclometasone, US$82.99 for salbutamol and US$1501.79 for budesonide, representing respectively 40%, 15% and 209% of per capita income in Malawi, Burkina Faso and Guinea. Multiple factors contribute to poor availability and affordability. Experience from human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune-deficiency syndrome shows that medicines and care can be delivered in low-income countries and among the NCDs. A unique example of an effective mechanism for providing access to affordable essential CRD medicines is the Asthma Drug Facility. Working on the six health system building blocks proposed by the World Health Organization can help countries address not only problems regarding access to medicines, but also those hampering adequate care. Improving medicine supply systems, training, national guidelines, financing, research, data utilisation and models of care at the primary health care level will help. A CRD target (e.g., 50% reduction in asthma hospitalisations) as well as the use of asthma as a measure for health system effectiveness and CRDs as a tracer for SDGs would help focus global, national and local leadership.

Preventive nebulization of mucolytic agents and bronchodilating drugs in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients (NEBULAE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preventive nebulization of mucolytic agents and bronchodilating drugs is a strategy aimed at the prevention of sputum plugging, and therefore atelectasis and pneumonia, in intubated and ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The present trial aims to compare a strategy using the preventive nebulization of acetylcysteine and salbutamol with nebulization on indication in intubated and ventilated ICU patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The preventive nebulization of mucolytic agents and bronchodilating drugs in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients (NEBULAE) trial is a national multicenter open-label, two-armed, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in the Netherlands. Nine hundred and fifty intubated and ventilated ICU patients with an anticipated duration of invasive ventilation of more than 24 hours will be randomly assigned to receive either a strategy consisting of preventive nebulization of acetylcysteine and salbutamol or a strategy consisting of nebulization of acetylcysteine and/or salbutamol on indication. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and surviving on day 28. Secondary endpoints include ICU and hospital length of stay, ICU and hospital mortality, the occurrence of predefined pulmonary complications (acute respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia, large atelectasis and pneumothorax), and the occurrence of predefined side effects of the intervention. Related healthcare costs will be estimated in a cost-benefit and budget-impact analysis. DISCUSSION: The NEBULAE trial is the first randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether preventive nebulization of acetylcysteine and salbutamol shortens the duration of ventilation in critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02159196, registered on 6 June 2014.

The Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration Chlorofluorocarbon Ban on Out-of-pocket Costs and Use of Albuterol Inhalers Among Individuals With Asthma.

IMPORTANCE: The US Clean Air Act prohibits use of nonessential ozone-depleting substances. In 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration announced the ban of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) albuterol inhalers by December 31, 2008. The policy resulted in the controversial replacement of generic CFC inhalers by more expensive, branded hydrofluoroalkane inhalers. The policy's impact on out-of-pocket costs and utilization of albuterol is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the US Food and Drug Administration's CFC ban on out-of-pocket costs and utilization of albuterol inhalers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using private insurance data from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2010, we investigated the effect of the CFC ban on out-of-pocket costs and utilization of albuterol inhalers among individuals with asthma (109,428 adults; 37,281 children), as well as asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits. We estimated multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and mean out-of-pocket costs of albuterol inhalers in an individual's drug plan. We analyzed whether effects varied between adults vs children and those with persistent vs nonpersistent asthma. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pharmacy claims for albuterol inhalers, as well as asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits. RESULTS: The mean out-of-pocket albuterol cost rose from $13.60 (95% CI, $13.40-$13.70) per prescription in 2004 to $25.00 (95% CI, $24.80-$25.20) immediately after the 2008 ban. By the end of 2010, costs had lowered to $21.00 (95% CI, $20.80-$21.20) per prescription. Overall albuterol inhaler use steadily declined from 2004 to 2010. Steep declines in use of generic CFC inhalers occurred after the fourth quarter of 2006 and were almost fully offset by increases in use of hydrofluoroalkane inhalers. In multivariable analyses, a $10 increase in out-of-pocket albuterol prescription costs was estimated to lower utilization by 0.92 percentage points (95% CI, -1.39 to -0.44; P < .001) for adults and 0.54 percentage points (95% CI, -0.84 to -0.24; P = .001) for children, with no difference between adults vs children and patients with persistent vs nonpersistent asthma and with no impact on asthma-related hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and outpatient visits. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The Federal ban of CFC inhalers led to large relative increases in out-of-pocket albuterol costs among privately insured individuals with asthma and modest declines in utilization. The policy's impact on individuals without insurance, who faced greater cost increases, is unknown.

Clinical outcomes and treatment cost comparison of levalbuterol versus albuterol in hospitalized adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma.

PURPOSE: Results of a prospective study comparing clinical outcomes and costs of levalbuterol versus albuterol therapy for exacerbations of asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are presented. METHODS: In a single-center open-label study, selected adults hospitalized for asthma or COPD exacerbations over a 21-month period were randomly assigned to receive levalbuterol 1.25 mg three times daily (n = 55) or albuterol 2.5 mg four times daily (n = 57); dosage reductions and other respiratory therapies were permitted. Study outcomes included scheduled and rescue nebulizations, total treatment costs, hospital length of stay, and change in heart rate from baseline. RESULTS: The numbers of scheduled nebulizations were similar in the levalbuterol and albuterol groups (mean ± S.D., 19.6 ± 13.4 versus 20.7 ± 14.4; p = 0.692), as were the numbers of rescue nebulizations (mean ± S.D., 0.7 ± 1.4 versus 0.8 ± 2.0; p = 0.849). The mean change from baseline in heart rate did not differ significantly between groups. Mean total treatment costs per patient were significantly greater with the use of levalbuterol ($8003, bootstrap 95% confidence interval [CI], $6628-$9379) versus albuterol ($5772, bootstrap 95% CI, $5051-$6494; p = 0.006). Hospital length of stay was significantly greater in the levalbuterol group (mean ± S.D., 8.5 ± 5.2 days versus 6.8 ± 3.6 days with albuterol use; p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes were similar with the use of levalbuterol versus albuterol for exacerbations of COPD or asthma. On average, patients receiving levalbuterol had longer and more costly hospital stays.

Cost-effectiveness of the LABA/LAMA dual bronchodilator indacaterol/glycopyrronium in a Swedish healthcare setting.

BACKGROUND: Indacaterol/glycopyrronium (IND/GLY) is a once-daily inhaled fixed-dose combination of indacaterol (IND), a long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonist (LABA), and glycopyrronium (GLY), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) for use as maintenance treatment to relieve symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in adults. OBJECTIVE: To determine the economic benefits of IND/GLY compared with the free combination of indacaterol and glycopyrronium (IND + GLY), and with the fixed-dose combination of salmeterol/fluticasone (SFC), in a moderate-to-severe COPD population with low-exacerbation risk. The model-based analysis extrapolated results up to lifetime time horizon and calculated costs per quality-adjusted life year. METHODS: Assuming equal efficacy, a cost-minimisation analysis compared IND/GLY vs IND + GLY using model inputs from the double-blind, randomised SHINE trial. The double-blind, randomised ILLUMINATE and TORCH trials were used to analyse cost-effectiveness versus SFC. To consider ICS-related pneumonia events, published odds ratio comparing an ICS-exposed group to a control group of COPD patients was used. Direct and indirect drug costs as well as drug acquisition costs (in Swedish Krona [SEK]) were derived from published Swedish sources. Cost and effects were discounted with 3%. Uncertainty was assessed by one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). RESULTS: IND/GLY was cost-saving vs IND + GLY with incremental savings of SEK (EUR) 768 (85), and 3309 (368) per patient over one and five years. IND/GLY was found to be less costly and more effective compared to SFC with cost savings of SEK (EUR) 2744 (303), 8854 (976), 13,938 (1536), 27,495 (3031) and 43,033 (4744) over one, three, five, ten years and lifetime. The PSA indicated that all iterations produced dominant results for IND/GLY. CONCLUSION: IND/GLY is cost-minimising vs IND + GLY and dominates SFC in the maintenance treatment of COPD patients in Sweden. Encouraging dual bronchodilator therapy over an ICS-containing combination results in lower total costs and better outcomes compared to combination therapy including fluticasone in moderate-to-severe COPD patients with low exacerbation risk.

COST-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (Advair(®)) in uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model. CONCLUSION: In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

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.

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.

The availability, pricing and affordability of three essential asthma medicines in 52 low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Almost 300 million people suffer from asthma, yet many in low- and middle-income countries have difficulty accessing essential asthma medicines. Availability, price and affordability of medicines are likely to affect access. Very few studies have included asthma medicines, particularly inhaled corticosteroids, in these countries. Reflections about international reference prices (IRPs) are generally absent from pricing studies, yet some IRPs may be masking the extent of access problems. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to determine the availability, pricing and affordability of beclometasone, budesonide and salbutamol, the three asthma medicines on the World Health Organization's Model List of Essential Medicines (EML) in selected low- and middle-income countries and to reflect on the appropriateness of using IRPs. METHODS: A cross-sectional pricing survey was conducted in 52 countries. Data were collected on country demographics including national currency, $US exchange rate and daily wage of the lowest-paid unskilled government worker. Pricing and availability data were collected for salbutamol, beclometasone and budesonide in two private retail pharmacies, the national procurement centre and a main public hospital. RESULTS: Availability was particularly poor for corticosteroids, and worse in national procurement centres and main hospitals. The surveyed strength of beclometasone was only on the EML of ten countries. Considerable variability was found in pricing and affordability across countries. Procurement systems appeared largely inefficient when Asthma Drug Facility prices were applied as references. Some countries appear to be subsidising asthma medicines, making them free or less expensive for patients, while other countries are applying very high margins, which can significantly increase the price for patients unless a reimbursement system exists. CONCLUSIONS: Findings raise important policy concerns. Availability of inhaled corticosteroids is poor; many EMLs are not updated; IRPs can be misleading; health systems and patients are paying more than necessary for asthma medicines, which are unaffordable for many patients in many countries.

Beta-Agonist Lung injury TrIal-2 (BALTI-2): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of intravenous infusion of salbutamol versus placebo in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major cause of mortality in intensive care patients and lacks effective treatments. A previous randomised controlled Phase II trial suggested that an intravenous (i.v.) infusion of salbutamol may be beneficial, as it reduced extravascular lung water and plateau airway pressure. The Beta-Agonist Lung injury TrIal-2 (BALTI-2) was initiated to evaluate the effects of this intervention on mortality in patients with ARDS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether or not, in patients with ARDS, an i.v. infusion of salbutamol given at 15 µg/kg ideal body weight (IBW)/hour for up to 7 days, compared with a placebo (0.9% sodium chloride) infusion, reduces 28-day all-cause mortality and other clinical outcomes. To evaluate salbutamol's clinical effectiveness and its cost-effectiveness in subgroups of patients. DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Forty-six intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were eligible if they (1) were intubated and mechanically ventilated patients in participating ICUs; (2) were within 72 hours of onset of ARDS; (3) fulfilled American-European Consensus Conference definition for ARDS {acute-onset, severe hypoxaemic respiratory failure [partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen ≤ 26.7 kPa (200 mmHg)] and bilateral infiltrates on the chest radiograph in the absence of clinical evidence of left atrial hypertension}; and (4) were aged ≥ 16 years. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous infusion of salbutamol (15 µg/kg IBW/hour) or placebo (0.9% saline) for up to 7 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality 28 days after randomisation, mortality at (first) discharge from ICU, mortality at (first) discharge from hospital, number of ventilator-free days, number of organ failure-free days, mortality at 12 months post randomisation, side effects (tachycardia/new arrhythmia/lactic acidosis) sufficient to stop treatment with trial drug, health-related quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and Short Form questionnaire-12 items at 6 and 12 months after randomisation), length of stay in critical care unit and length of stay in hospital. RESULTS: Forty-six ICUs recruited patients to the trial. A total of 326 patients were randomised; 162 were allocated to salbutamol and 164 to placebo. One patient in each group withdrew consent. Recruitment was stopped after the second interim analysis because of safety concerns. Salbutamol increased 28-day mortality: 55 (34%) of 161 patients died in the salbutamol group compared with 38 (23%) of 163 in the placebo group (risk ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 2.08). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with i.v. salbutamol early in the course of ARDS was poorly tolerated, is unlikely to be beneficial and could worsen outcomes. Further trials of ß-agonists in patients with ARDS are unlikely to be conducted. Some questions remain, such as whether or not there may be benefit at a different dose or in specific populations, but any studies investigating these would require a very strong rationale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38366450. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Evaluation of salmeterol xinafoate plus fluticasone propionate for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Current clinical guidelines recommend long-acting bronchodilators as the mainstay of the pharmacotherapy of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), in conjunction with long-acting beta-agonists (LABA), are routinely considered at severe and very severe stages of COPD when patients lack adequate response to single-therapy with LABAs. Although the study methodologies evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the combination therapy using salmeterol and fluticasone (SAL/FLU) for patients with COPD have been questioned, a number of studies have suggested that using ICS, in combination with a LABA agent, may improve survival of patients with COPD. AREAS COVERED: This article attempts to review the most current evidence for using SAL/FLU in the management of COPD and summarizes the results of outcome measures reported in randomized controlled trials. EXPERT OPINION: Until new forms of drug combinations are made available, the use of dual-therapy containing a LABA and ICS remain as the most logical and appropriate approach for the treatment of patients suffering from severe and very severe COPD with repeated exacerbations.

Stepping down from high dose fluticasone/salmeterol to extrafine BDP/F in asthma is cost-effective.

BACKGROUND: GINA guideline recommends stepping down treatment of asthma patients where control is achieved. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the costs and health outcomes associated with step down of controlled patients on high dose fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/S 1000/100 µg daily) to either medium dose FP/S (500/100 µg) dry powder or extrafine beclometasone/formoterol (BDP/F 400/24 µg) pMDI in three European countries. METHODS: A patient-level simulation Markov model was constructed to enable the simulation of three comparative arms (FP/S 1000/100, FP/S 500/100, BDP/F 400/24). Transition probabilities and healthcare resources consumption were derived from a multinational clinical trial comparing BDP/F 400/24 µg vs. FP/S 500/100 µg as step down therapy in asthma. Direct costs and health state utilities were sourced from public source and published literature. The analysis was conducted from a health system perspective, based on six months horizon. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) associated with high dose dry powder FP/S 1000/100 µg vs. extrafine BDP/F 400/24 µg was above 70,000 GBP and 200,000 €/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). An ICER of 29,000 GBP/QALY and above 30,000 €/QALY was associated with medium dose dry powder FP/S 500/100 µg vs. BDP/F 400/24 µg. CONCLUSIONS: It was found that maintaining controlled patients on high dose FP/S is not cost-effective. Extrafine BDP/F 400/24 µg daily can be considered to be a cost-effective option in the countries analyzed to maintain control of asthmatic patients stepped down from high dose FP/S 1000/100 µg daily dry powder or suspension formulations.

A UK-based cost-utility analysis of indacaterol, a once-daily maintenance bronchodilator for patients with COPD, using real world evidence on resource use.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a chronic, progressive disease that is not curable. However, there are effective treatments available. In the UK, long-acting bronchodilators are first-line treatments for COPD patients requiring maintenance therapy, and there are several options available. The aim of this study is to establish, from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective, the cost-effectiveness profile of indacaterol, the first once-daily long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA), compared with tiotropium and salmeterol, in patients with moderate to severe COPD. In assessing the cost-effectiveness of COPD therapies, this study has the advantage of using real world evidence on the resource use associated with COPD management across the spectrum of the disease. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states following the GOLD classification for severity of airflow limitation. The model time horizon was 3 years, and the cycle length was 3 months. From each state, patients could experience a severe or non-severe exacerbation, move to a different COPD state, remain in the current state or die. Transition probabilities were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials. The majority of the resource use data was taken from the Optimum Patient Care Research Database (OPCRD), which contains data from over 20,000 COPD patients in England and Scotland. Cost data were taken from UK-based sources and published literature and presented for the cost year 2011. Health-related quality of life was the main outcome of interest and utility data for the COPD states were based on data from the indacaterol clinical trials and disutility due to exacerbations were taken from the literature. Both one way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Indacaterol dominated in the comparison with salmeterol producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £110 per patient over a 3-year time horizon. In the comparison with tiotropium over the same time horizon, indacaterol remained the dominant strategy, producing an incremental QALY gain of 0.008 and cost savings of £248 per patient. The one-way sensitivity analysis indicates that the proportion of patients in each of the COPD stages and the mortality rate associated with Very Severe COPD are the variables with the largest impact on the results. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that over 72 % and 89 % of the iterations when compared with salmeterol and tiotropium, respectively, produced dominant results for indacaterol. CONCLUSION: The analyses demonstrate that indacaterol dominates both tiotropium and salmeterol in the base case and is likely to remain cost-effective under a range of assumptions.