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.

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.

[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.

Equivalence of a single saline nebulised dose of formoterol powder vs three doses of nebulised Albuterol every twenty minutes in acute asthma in children: a suitable cost effective approach for developing nations.

BACKGROUND: An increase in asthma prevalence is reported from developed as well as developing nations, with rising costs from acute asthma and great expenditures to health care systems. Venezuela's Ministry of Health ambulatory facilities care for 80 % or more of a mostly urban and impoverished population of 26 million inhabitants, registering close to a million acute asthma visits per year; a nebulised fixed fenoterol-ipratropium bromide combination (Bero-dual, Boehringer-Ingelheim) in repeated dosing is the standard treatment. OBJECTIVES: to simplify acute asthma care and management in a cost effective manner employing Formoterol Fumarate powder, a long acting beta agonist with immediate bronchodilator effects. METHODOLOGY: Fifty acute asthmatic children (5-12 years old) were randomly assigned (25 patients in each group) to receive either a nebulised single dose (US $1.35) of two 12 microg Formoterol Fumarate capsules (Foradil 12 microg/cap, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) diluted in 2.5 ml of sterile saline solution; or 3 doses of Albuterol (US $ 6.73) every twenty minutes for one hour (Glaxo Smith Kline Albuterol ampoules, 2.5 mg/2.5 ml, at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg/dose, maximum dose 2.5 mg). Symptoms score, oxygen saturation and lung function testing were recorded before and one hour after commencing treatments. RESULTS: Both groups improved significantly on all parameters, except for FEV(1) in the Albuterol group. CONCLUSIONS: Single dose nebulised Formoterol Fumarate (dry powder) in sterile saline solution, as depicted in this trial, is equivalent to three doses of Albuterol every twenty minutes for one hour in acute asthma in children, simplifying acute care management and at one fifth of medication costs. A pursuit of simpler and more cost effective approaches is found wanting in developing nations with depressed economies and unique cultural and socio-medical contexts; also, in countries where pharmaco-economics orients quality of health policies, novel approaches like this are worth exploring.

Costs and effectiveness of spacer versus nebulizer in young children with moderate and severe acute asthma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs and effectiveness of albuterol by metered dose inhaler (MDI) and spacer versus nebulizer in young children with moderate and severe acute asthma. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in an emergency department at a children's hospital. The participants were children 1 to 4 years of age with moderate to severe acute asthma. Patients assigned to the spacer group received albuterol (600 microg) by MDI by spacer (AeroChamber) followed by placebo by nebulizer (n = 30). The nebulizer group received placebo MDI by spacer followed by 2.5 mg albuterol by nebulizer (n = 30). Treatments were repeated at 20-minute intervals until the patient was judged to need no further doses of bronchodilator, or a total of 6 treatments. RESULTS: Clinical score, heart rate, respiratory rate, auscultatory findings, and oxygen saturation were recorded at baseline, after each treatment, and 60 minutes after the last treatment. Baseline characteristics and asthma severity were similar for the treatment groups. The spacer was as effective as the nebulizer for clinical score, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation but produced a greater reduction in wheezing (P =.03). Heart rate increased to a greater degree in the nebulizer group (11.0/min vs 0.17/min for spacer, P <.01). Fewer children in the spacer group required admission (33% vs 60% in the nebulizer group, P =.04, adjusted for sex). No differences were seen in rates of tremor or hyperactivity. The mean cost of each emergency department presentation was NZ$825 for the spacer group and NZ$1282 for the nebulizer group (P =.03); 86% of children and 85% of parents preferred the spacer. CONCLUSION: The MDI and spacer combination was a cost-effective alternative to a nebulizer in the delivery of albuterol to young children with moderate and severe acute asthma.

Treatment of acute severe asthma with inhaled albuterol delivered via jet nebulizer, metered dose inhaler with spacer, or dry powder.

Despite the increasing use of dry powder formulations in the ambulatory setting, there is a paucity of information on the efficacy of this therapeutic modality to treat acute severe asthma. In addition, studies that compared wet nebulization vs metered dose inhalers formulated with chlorofluorocarbon (CFCMDI) attached to holding chambers have yielded discrepant results. Thus, it is unclear which of the three delivery systems would elicit a superior bronchodilator response, particularly in patients with life-threatening asthma. In a prospective, randomized open design, we studied the response to inhaled albuterol (salbutamol) in 27 adult asthmatics presenting to the emergency department (ED) with an FEV1 <30% predicted. Subjects were treated with one of the following regimens (nine subjects in each group): group A, mean (SD) baseline FEV1 of 0.7 (0.2) L, received albuterol solution, 5 mg, via a nebulizer (Puritan-Bennett Raindrop; Lawrenceville, Ga) impelled with oxygen (O2) at 8 L/min; group B, baseline FEV1 of 0.6 (0.15) L, received albuterol, 400 microg, via a CFCMDI attached to a 145-mL valved aerosol holding chamber (Aerochamber; Trudell Medical; London, ON); and group C, baseline FEV1 of 0.6 (0.17) L, received albuterol powder, 400 microg, by another means (Rotahaler; Glaxo; Research Triangle Park, NC). All groups received the respective treatments on arrival in the ED, every 30 min during the first 2 h, and then hourly until the sixth hour. Clinical parameters and FEV1 were recorded on ED admission and 15 min after each dose of albuterol. At the time of ED admission, all patients also received continuous O2 and one dose of I.V. steroids (dexamethasone, 8 mg). The total dose of inhaled albuterol administered during the 6-h treatment was 45 mg of nebulized solution in group A and 3,600 microg of albuterol aerosol and dry powder in groups B and C, respectively. No significant differences were found in the population demographics, baseline FEV1, and arterial blood gas values on air. FEV1 improved significantly in all patients after the 6 h of treatment. The 6-h area under the curve FEV1 improved similarly with the three delivery methods despite differences in the total dose administered. No patient was discontinued during the trial or admitted to hospital and no evidence of cardiovascular adverse events was apparent in any of the study groups. These data support the view that the three delivery methods appear adequate to treat subjects with acute severe asthma.