Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol SMART therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed SABA among patients ≥12 years with moderate asthma from the Chinese societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol as reliever therapy for asthma patients ≥12 years from the societal perspective in China. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with three health states (non-exacerbation, exacerbation, and death) with a lifetime horizon. The exacerbation rates were obtained from a prospective cohort study conducted in Chinese asthma patients. Healthcare resources utilization data were estimated based on current clinical asthma management guidelines. Asthma-related mortality, cost input and utility values were derived from public database and literature. Model robustness was assessed with one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy led to fewer exacerbation events (13.6 vs. 15.9) and 0.0077 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain at an additional cost of ¥196.38 over lifetime. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was ¥25,409.98 per QALY gained. The variables that had most impact on the model output included drug costs and medication adherence. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥257,094/QALY (3 times of gross domestic product per capita in China in 2022), the probability of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy being cost-effective versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol was 83.00%. CONCLUSION: From the societal perspective, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol for Chinese asthma patients ≥12 years.

Direct healthcare costs associated with management of asthma: comparison of two treatment regimens in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.

OBJECTIVE: Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist (LABA) combinations comprising either regular maintenance therapy with ICS/LABA plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) or ICS-formoterol combinations used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are recommended for moderate asthma. This analysis compares the direct costs of twice-daily fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol MART in three Southeast Asian countries. METHODS: A literature review identified three randomized trials in patients with asthma (≥ 12 years) comparing regular twice-daily FP/salm with as-needed SABA versus MART in moderate asthma: AHEAD (NCT00242775/17 countries/2309 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0735/16 countries/3335 patients), and COSMOS (AstraZeneca study SD-039-0691/16 countries/2143 patients). Economic analyses, conducted from a healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs), applied unit costs from countries where healthcare costs are publicly available: Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Results are expressed in British pound sterling (GBP/patient/year). RESULTS: Annual exacerbation rates were low and differences between treatment strategies were small (range, FP/salm: 0.31-0.38, MART: 0.24-0.25) although statistically significant in favor of MART. Total average (minimum-maximum) direct costs (in GBP/patient/year) across the three studies were £187 (£137-£284), £158 (£125-£190), and £151 (£141-£164) for those who used FP/salm, and £242 (£217-£267), £284 (£237-£340) and £266 (£224-£315) for MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total direct costs/patient/year with FP/salm were 22.8%, 44.6% and 43.0% lower than with MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In the three countries evaluated, total treatment costs with regular twice-daily FP/salm were consistently lower than with budesonide/formoterol MART due to lower direct healthcare costs.

Budesonide inhalado para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19 / Inhaled budesonide for treating COVID-19 patients

INTRODUCCIÓN: En los primeros informes de China, Italia y Estados Unidos que describen a los pacientes con COVID-19 ingresados en el hospital, los pacientes con asma y enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) estaban significativamente sub-representados.3-6 Surgió entonces la hipótesis que esta subrepresentación de las primeras cohortes, podría deberse al uso generalizado de glucocorticoides inhalados en esta población. 7 El uso de glucocorticoides inhalados en pacientes con asma y EPOC tiene la finalidad de disminuir la inflamación de las vías aéreas y de este modo contribuir a reducir las exacerbaciones, que a menudo se deben a infecciones de origen viral. 8 Los estudios in vitro han demostrado que los glucocorticoides inhalados reducen la replicación de SARS-CoV-2 en las células epiteliales de las vías respiratorias, además de la regulación en menos de la expresión de los genera ACE2 y TMPRSS2, que son críticos para la entrada de células virales en este epitelio.9 Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por la Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (ANMAT) para la prevención de los síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Se realizó una evaluación de tecnología sanitaria, basada en evidencia proveniente de revisiones sistemáticas vivas y guías de práctica clínica de alta calidad metodológica para brindar parámetros actualizados y balanceados que sean de utilidad para la toma de decisiones en los diferentes niveles de gestión. OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente informe es evaluar parámetros de eficacia, seguridad, conveniencia y recomendaciones disponibles acerca del uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de pacientes con COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se desarrolló un protocolo sustentado en proyectos que resume activamente la evidencia científica a medida que la misma se hace disponible. Con este fin se utilizó la plataforma Love de Epistemonikos para identificar revisiones sistemáticas "vivas". Se seleccionaron aquellas con una calidad metodológica apropiada evaluada a través de la herramienta AMSTAR-2, y que a su vez llevaran un proceso de actualización frecuente.10 De cada una de las revisiones sistemáticas identificadas se extractaron los efectos de la intervención sobre los desenlaces priorizados como importantes o críticos separando los efectos del tratamiento sobre pacientes con COVID-19 (mortalidad, ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica, duración de estadía hospitalaria, tiempo a la resolución de síntomas o mejoría clínica al día 7-28 y eventos adversos graves) y la certeza en dichos efectos. Adicionalmente se extractaron datos relacionados a efectos de subgrupo potencialmente relevantes para la toma de decisión, con especial énfasis en el tiempo de evolución y la severidad de la enfermedad. Implementación: Este domino contempla dos subdominios: la existencia de barreras y facilitadores para la implementación de la tecnología evaluada no consideradas en los otros dominios analizados, y los costos comparativos en relación con otras intervenciones similares. Recomendaciones: se utilizó la plataforma COVID recmap. Se seleccionaron aquellas guías con rigor metodológico apropiado según la herramienta AGREE II (> 70%) y se incorporaron sus recomendaciones al informe. RESULTADOS: Efectos en la Salud: Se identificaron dos revisiones sistemáticas que cumplen con los criterios de inclusión del presente informe y que reportan sobre budesonide inhalado para pacientes con COVID-19. Se identificaron 2 ECA que incluyeron 1929 participantes en los que budesonide inhalado se comparó con la atención estándar u otros tratamientos. CONCLUSIONES: El cuerpo de evidencia disponible hasta el momento sugiere que budesonide inhalado podría mejorar el tiempo de resolución de los síntomas y disminuir las hospitalizaciones. Existe incertidumbre en el efecto de budesonide inhalado sobre la mortalidad, los efectos advsersos severos o el ingreso en asistencia ventilatoria mecánica. Budesonide inhalado se encuentran ampliamente disponible en Argentina y está aprobada por ANMAT para el tratamiento de síntomas respiratorios relacionados con la inflamación bronquial aguda o crónica. Su costo comparativo es bajo y no se identificaron recomendaciones que aborden el uso de esteroides inhalados para el tratamiento de COVID-19.

Variability in Practices of Compounding Budesonide for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the use of compounded steroids for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: We conducted a telephone survey of all compounding pharmacies in Michigan and queried about practices and costs of compounded budesonide for EoE. RESULTS: Of 68 Michigan pharmacies, 93% responded, and 20 (29%) offer compounded budesonide suspension for EoE. Formulations, dose, and instructions for use varied across pharmacies. The mean cost for a 30-day supply was $74.50. DISCUSSION: Although few compounding pharmacies offer budesonide suspension and there are substantial variations in formulations, this may be a significantly more affordable treatment option for many.

The impact of budesonide inhalation suspension for asthma hospitalization: In terms of length of stay, recovery time from symptoms, and hospitalization costs.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is a major cause of medical expenditure for asthma. Budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) may assist in reducing asthma-related symptoms in severe asthma exacerbation. However, its effectiveness for hospitalized patients remains poorly known. The objective of this study is to determine associations of BIS with asthma hospitalization. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 98 patients who were admitted to our hospital due to severe asthma exacerbation (24 treated with BIS in combination with procaterol) from April 2014 to January 2019. Length of stay, recovery time from symptoms (wheezes), and hospitalization costs were compared between the 2 groups according to clinical factors including the use of BIS and sings of respiratory infections (i.e. C-reactive protein, the presence of phlegm, and the use of antibiotics). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors contributing to hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: The use of BIS was associated with shorter length of stay, faster recovery time from symptoms, and more reduced hospitalization costs (6.0 vs 8.5 days, 2.5 vs 5.0 days, and 258,260 vs 343,350 JPY). Signs of respiratory infection were also associated with hospitalization outcomes. On a multivariate regression analysis, the use of BIS was a determinant of shortened length of stay and reduced symptoms and medical costs for asthma hospitalization along with signs of respiratory infection. CONCLUSIONS: BIS may contribute to shorten length of hospital stay and to reduce symptoms and medical expenditure irrespective of the presence or absence of respiratory infection.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide inhalation suspension and montelukast in children with mild asthma in Korea.

Objective: The comparative effectiveness of low-dose budesonide inhalation suspension (BIS) versus oral montelukast (MON) in managing asthma control among children with mild asthma was assessed in Korea.Methods: Claims from Korea's national health insurance database for children (2-17 years) with mild asthma (GINA 1 or 2) who initiated BIS or MON during 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and post-index windows were 1 year each. Adherence, persistency, asthma control, asthma-related health-care resource utilization, and costs were evaluated using unadjusted descriptive statistics and propensity score-matched regression analyses.Results: The number of children identified was 26,052 for unmatched (n = 1,221 BIS; n = 24,831 MON) and 2,290 for matched populations (n = 1,145 per cohort). Medication adherence, measured by proportion of days covered, was low for both cohorts but significantly higher for MON versus BIS (13.8% vs. 4.5%; p < .001). Time to loss of persistency was longer for MON versus BIS (82.3 vs. 78.4 days, respectively; p < .001). Mean number of post-index asthma-related office visits was 6.6 for BIS versus 8.3 for MON (p < .001). However, a greater proportion of patients in the BIS cohort had an asthma exacerbation-related office visit than the MON cohort (78.3% vs. 56.1%; p < .001). Asthma-related total health-care costs were higher with MON versus BIS (₩ 190,185 vs. ₩ 167,432, respectively; p < .001), likely driven by higher pharmaceutical costs associated with MON (₩ 69,113 vs. ₩ 49,225; p < .001).Conclusions: Montelukast patients had better adherence, a longer time to loss of persistency, and were less likely to experience an exacerbation-related office visit in the post-index period than BIS patients.

A budget impact analysis of budesonide/formoterol in patients with mild asthma in Egypt.

Background: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of budesonide/formoterol fixed dose combination (FDC) vs salbutamol, both used as needed, in mild asthma patients, from the perspective of the Health Insurance Organization (HIO). Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to assess the impact of budesonide/formoterol FDC entry on HIO budget over a 3-year period in Egyptian settings. Direct medical costs, including the costs of asthma medications, exacerbations, and management of side-effects, were obtained from HIO cost data. Population data were obtained from the World Bank and supplemented with local studies, and the rates of exacerbations, adverse effects, and number of sick leave days were elicited from the SYGMA 1 trial. Scenario analyses from a societal perspective and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The total costs (drug and non-drug costs) for managing mild asthma patients from the HIO perspective were estimated to be EGP8.563 billion before budesonide/formoterol entry compared to EGP5.525 billion post-entry, leading to a total budget savings of EGP3.038 billion after 3 years. This total budget saving included an increase in drug costs (EGP104 million) and a decrease in non-drug costs (EGP3.143 billion). Drug costs were higher in the budesonide/formoterol group than in the salbutamol group, but this cost was offset by reductions in non-drug costs, resulting in a reduction in the total costs of healthcare resources. At the societal level, the total budget savings after including the indirect costs was expected to be EGP5.976 billion after 3 years of budesonide/formoterol entry. Conclusion: Budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma instead of salbutamol produces better patient outcomes and decreases total costs, with increases in drug cost offset by reductions in non-drug costs due to fewer exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol is a budget saving option for guideline-directed treatment, from the economic perspective of the payer and the health perspective of the patient.

Comparative analysis of medical expenditure with nebulized budesonide versus systemic corticosteroids in hospitalized patients with acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in China.

Purpose: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is characterized by persistent respiratory symptoms and is a leading cause of disability in China. Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a leading cause of hospitalizations, and account for a substantial proportion of medical expenditure. Corticosteroids are commonly used to manage AECOPD in hospitalized patients, so our objective was to analyze the total medical expenditure associated with nebulized budesonide (nBUD) vs. systemic corticosteroids (SCS) in this population. Patients and methods: A post-hoc analysis was carried out in 1,577 and 973 patients diagnosed with COPD who had received "any" nBUD or SCS regimen for AECOPD during hospitalization, respectively. Regimens included monotherapy, sequential therapy, and sequential-combination therapy. Comparative total medical expenditure was analyzed using a generalized linear model controlling for age, gender, comorbidities, smoking history, and respiratory failure or pneumonia on admission. Results: The total medical expenditure per capita with any nBUD or SCS regimen was CN¥11,814 (US$1,922) and CN¥12,153 (US$1,977), respectively. Any nBUD regimen was associated with a significant saving of 5.1% in expenditure compared with any SCS regimen (P=0.0341). Comorbidities, Type II respiratory failure, or pneumonia were patient factors associated with higher total medical expenditure (P<0.0001). In a subgroup analysis of the patients who received monotherapy, total medical expenditure was CN¥10,900 (US$1,773) for nBUD and CN¥11,581 (US$1,884) for SCS; nBUD was associated with a significant saving of 8.7% in expenditure compared with SCS (P=0.0013). Similarly, in patients with respiratory failure, treatment with any nBUD regimen was associated with a 10.6% saving in expenditure over any SCS regimen (P=0.0239); however, the same comparison was not significant in patients without respiratory failure (3.4%; P=0.2299). Conclusion: AECOPD is a leading cause of hospitalization in China, which places substantial burden on the healthcare system. This post-hoc analysis suggests that nBUD regimens are associated with lower medical expenditure than SCS regimens in hospitalized patients with AECOPD, and may reduce the financial burden of COPD. However, prospective studies evaluating the effectiveness of nBUD therapies are warranted.

Budesonide with multi-matrix technology as second-line treatment for ulcerative colitis: evaluation of long-term cost-effectiveness in the Netherlands.

AIMS: Budesonide with multi-matrix technology (MMX) is an oral corticosteroid, shown to have high topical activity against ulcerative colitis (UC) while maintaining low systemic bioavailability with few adverse events. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide MMX versus commonly used corticosteroids, in the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An eight-state Markov model with an 8 week cycle length captured remission, four distinct therapy stages, hospitalization, possible colectomy and mortality. Remission probability for budesonide MMX was based on the CORE-II study. Population characteristics were derived from the Dutch Inflammatory Bowel Disease South Limburg cohort (n = 598) and included patients with proctitis (39%), left-sided (42%) and extensive disease (19%). Comparators (topical budesonide foam and enema, oral budesonide and prednisolone) were selected based on current Dutch clinical practice. Treatment effects were evaluated by network meta-analysis using a Bayesian framework. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over a 5 year time horizon from a societal perspective, with costs, health-state and adverse event utilities derived from published sources. Outcomes were weighted by disease extent distribution and corresponding comparators. RESULTS: Budesonide MMX was associated with comparable quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gain versus foam and oral formulations (+0.01 QALYs) in the total UC population, whilst being cost-saving (EUR 366 per patient). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis evaluated an 86.6% probability of budesonide MMX being dominant (cost-saving with QALY gain) versus these comparators. Exploratory analysis showed similar findings versus prednisolone. LIMITATIONS: Differing definitions of trial end-points and remission across trials meant indirect comparison was not ideal. However, in the absence of head-to-head clinical data, these comparisons are reasonable alternatives and currently offer the only comparison of second-line UC treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In the present analysis, budesonide MMX was shown to be cost-effective versus comparators in the total UC population, for the second-line treatment of active mild-to-moderate UC in the Netherlands.

Once-Daily Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the FULFIL Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with a high healthcare resource and cost burden. Healthcare resource utilization was analyzed in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at risk of exacerbations in the FULFIL study. Patients received either once-daily, single inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol) 100 µg/62.5 µg/25 µg or twice-daily dual inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta agonist therapy (budesonide/formoterol) 400 µg/12 µg. METHODS: FULFIL was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, multicenter study. Unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers were recorded by patients in a daily electronic diary; the costs of healthcare resource utilization were calculated post hoc using UK reference costs. RESULTS: Over 24 weeks, slightly fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (169/911; 18.6%) required contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (180/899; 20.0%). Over 52 weeks in an extension population, fewer patients who received fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol required unscheduled contacts with healthcare providers compared with budesonide/formoterol (25.2% vs. 32.7%). Non-drug costs per treated patient per year were lower in the fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol group than the budesonide/formoterol group over 24 and 52 weeks (£653.80 vs. £763.32 and £749.22 vs. £988.03, respectively), with the total annualized cost over 24 weeks being slightly greater for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol than budesonide/formoterol (£1,289.35 vs. £1,267.45). CONCLUSIONS: This healthcare resource utilization evidence suggests that, in a clinical trial setting over a 24- or 52-week timeframe, non-drug costs associated with management of a single inhaler fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol are lower compared with twice-daily budesonide/formoterol. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02345161. FUNDING: GSK.

Health Care Utilization and Costs After Initiating Budesonide/Formoterol Combination or Fluticasone/Salmeterol Combination Among COPD Patients New to ICS/LABA Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affects approximately 15 million people in the United States and accounts for approximately $36 billion in economic burden, primarily due to medical costs. To address the increasing clinical and economic burden, the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease emphasizes the use of therapies that help prevent COPD exacerbations, including inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta2-agonist (ICS/LABA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate health care costs and utilization among COPD patients newly initiating ICS/LABA combination therapy with budesonide/formoterol (BFC) or fluticasone/salmeterol (FSC) in a managed care system. METHODS: COPD patients aged 40 years and older who initiated BFC (160/4.5 µg) or FSC (250/50 µg) treatment between March 1, 2009, and March 31, 2012, were identified using claims data from major U.S. health plans. BFC and FSC patients were propensity score matched (1:1) on age, sex, prior asthma diagnosis, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs and utilization were analyzed during the 12-month follow-up period. Post-index costs were assessed with generalized linear models (GLMs) with gamma distribution. Health care utilization data were analyzed via logistic regression (any event vs. none) and GLMs with negative binomial distribution (number of visits) and were adjusted for the analogous pre-index variable as well as pre-index characteristics that remained imbalanced after matching. RESULTS: After matching, each cohort had 3,697 patients balanced on age (mean 64 years), sex (female 52% BFC and 54% FSC), asthma and other comorbid conditions, prior COPD-related health care utilization, and respiratory medication use. During the 12-month follow-up, COPD-related costs averaged $316 less for BFC versus FSC patients ($4,326 vs. $4,846; P = 0.003), reflecting lower inpatient ($966 vs. $1,202; P < 0.001), pharmacy ($1,482 vs. $1,609; P = 0.002), and outpatient/office ($1,378 vs. $1,436; P = 0.048) costs, but higher emergency department ($257 vs. $252; P = 0.033) costs. Pneumonia-related health care costs were also lower on average for BFC patients ($2,855 vs. $3,605; P < 0.001). Similarly, initiating BFC was associated with lower all-use health care costs versus initiating FSC ($21,580 vs. $24,483; P < 0.001, respectively). No differences in health care utilization were found between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, although no difference was observed in rates of health care utilization, COPD patients initiating BFC treatment incurred lower average COPD-related, pneumonia-related, and all-cause costs versus FSC initiators, which was driven by cumulative differences in inpatient, outpatient, and pharmacy costs.

Budesonide as first-line therapy for non-cirrhotic autoimmune hepatitis in children: a decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Therapy for autoimmune hepatitis has been prednisone based for decades; however, budesonide may be equally effective with fewer side effects. Our aim was to evaluate quality-adjusted life years and health care costs of three different treatment regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment using prednisone, budesonide or a combination of both over a three-year period in newly diagnosed children with type I autoimmune hepatitis were simulated with a Markov model. Transition probabilities were calculated over consecutive three-month period. Costs were determined from a hospital database and health utilities were estimated from the literature. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to simulate the outcomes of 5000 patients in each treatment arm. RESULTS: Compared to standard therapy, budesonide leads to a gain of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years, costing $17,722 per QALY over a three-year period. Standard therapy led to significantly lower QALY's compared to other strategies (p < 0.001). Health utilities of patients in remission in each treatment group had the greatest impact on the model. Budesonide remained the treatment of choice if the probability of inducing remission was 55% or greater. CONCLUSIONS: Budesonide therapy in non-cirrhotic, treatment naïve patients with type I autoimmune hepatitis yielded greater QALY's compared to the current standard therapy with an acceptable increase in costs.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination and tiotropium bromide among COPD patients new to these controller treatments.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combinations and/or long-acting muscarinic antagonists are recommended first-line therapies for preventing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation. Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol combination (BFC, an inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting ß2-agonist combination) vs tiotropium (long-acting muscarinic antagonist) in the US has not yet been studied. METHODS: Using US claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, COPD patients (with or without comorbid asthma) ≥40 years old initiating BFC or tiotropium between March 1, 2009 and February 28, 2012 and at risk for exacerbation were identified and followed for 12 months. Patients were propensity score matched on demographics and COPD disease severity indicators. The primary outcome was time to first COPD exacerbation. Secondary outcomes included COPD exacerbation rate, health care resource utilization, and costs. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model for time to first exacerbation yielded a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.78 (95% CI =[0.70, 0.87], P<0.001), indicating a 22% reduction in risk of COPD exacerbation associated with initiation of BFC versus tiotropium. A post hoc sensitivity analysis found similar effects in those who had a prior asthma diagnosis (HR =0.72 [0.61, 0.86]) and those who did not (HR =0.83 [0.72, 0.96]). BFC initiation was associated with lower COPD-related health care resource utilization and costs ($4,084 per patient-year compared with $5,656 for tiotropium patients, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: In COPD patients new to controller therapies, initiating treatment with BFC was associated with improvements in health and economic outcomes compared with tiotropium.

A US database study characterizing patients initiating a budesonide-formoterol combination versus tiotropium bromide as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and demographic characteristics, resource utilization and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients prior to initiating budesonide-formoterol combination (BFC) or tiotropium-maintenance therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study used claims-based diagnosis to identify COPD patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database who initiated BFC or tiotropium therapy between March 1, 2009 and January 31, 2012 (intake period); the index date was defined as the initial prescription fill for either agent. Patients diagnosed with respiratory tract cancer or receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-adrenergic agonists or tiotropium in 12 months prior to index date were excluded. Categorical variables were evaluated with χ(2) tests; mean cost differences were evaluated using γ-regression. RESULTS: Overall, 6,940 BFC and 10,831 tiotropium patients were identified. The BFC group was younger (mean age 64 versus 67 years), with a greater proportion of females (54% versus 51%). BFC-treated patients had more comorbid respiratory conditions, including asthma (25% versus 13%), but fewer comorbid cardiovascular conditions, including atherosclerosis (7% versus 10%) and myocardial infarction (4% versus 6%). A greater proportion of BFC patients received prior respiratory medication, including oral corticosteroids (46% versus 35%) and short-acting ß2-agonists (44% versus 35%). Tiotropium-treated patients had a greater mean number of COPD-related outpatient visits (4.6 versus 4.1). BFC-treated patients had lower total all-cause ($17,259 versus $17,926) and COPD-related ($1,718 versus $1,930) health care costs, driven by lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient expenditures. CONCLUSION: Initiators of BFC or tiotropium showed differences in clinical and demographic characteristics and health care utilization and costs prior to starting COPD maintenance therapy.

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.

Cost effectiveness of adding budesonide/formoterol to tiotropium in COPD in four Nordic countries.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) Turbuhaler(®)+tiotropium (TIO) HandiHaler(®) vs. placebo (PBO)+TIO in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) eligible for inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting ß2-agonists (ICS/LABA). METHODS: The cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the 12-week, randomised, double-blind CLIMB trial. The study included 659 patients with pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s ≤ 50% and ≥1 exacerbation requiring systemic glucocorticosteroids or antibiotics the preceding year. Patients received BUD/FORM 320/9 µg bid + TIO 18 µg qd or PBO bid + TIO 18 µg qd. Effectiveness was defined as the number of severe exacerbations (hospitalisation/emergency room visit/systemic glucocorticosteroids) avoided. A sub-analysis included antibiotics in the definition of an exacerbation. Resource use from CLIMB was combined with Danish (DKK), Finnish (€), Norwegian (NOK) and Swedish (SEK) unit costs (2010). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for BUD/FORM + TIO vs. PBO + TIO were estimated using descriptive statistics and uncertainty around estimates using bootstrapping. Analyses were conducted from the societal and healthcare perspectives in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at €174/severe exacerbation avoided in Finland while BUD/FORM + TIO was dominant in the other countries. From the healthcare perspective, ICERs were DKK 1580 (€212), €307 and SEK 1573 (€165) per severe exacerbation avoided for Denmark, Finland and Sweden, respectively, while BUD/FORM + TIO was dominant in Norway. Including antibiotics decreased ICERs by 8-15%. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were overall robust. CONCLUSION: BUD/FORM + TIO represents a clinical and economic benefit to health systems and society for the treatment of COPD in the Nordic countries. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00496470).

Cost-utility analysis of the inhaled steroids available in a developing country for the management of pediatric patients with persistent asthma.

INTRODUCTION: The choice among the different treatments available can have a great impact on the costs of asthma, OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to estimate the incremental cost-utility ratio of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICs): budesonide (BUD), fluticasone propionate (FP), and ciclesonide, compared to beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) (the only IC included in the Compulsory Health Insurance Plan of Colombia), METHODS: A Markov-type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of patients less than 18 years of age with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a systematic review of the literature. Cost data were obtained from a hospital´s bills and from the national manual of drug prices. The study assumed the perspective of the national healthcare in Colombia. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life years" (QALY), RESULTS: While treatment with BDP was associated with the lowest cost (£106.16 average cost per patient during 12 months), treatment with FP resulted in the greatest gain in QUALYs (0.9325 QALYs). FP was associated with a greater gain in QALYs compared to BUD and ciclesonide (0.9325 vs. 0.8999 and 0.9051 QALYs, respectively) at lower costs (£231.19 vs. £309.27 and £270.15, respectively), thus leading to dominance. The incremental cost-utility ratio of FP compared to BDP was £19,835.28 per QALY, CONCLUSIONS: BDP is the most cost-effective therapy for treating pediatric patients with persistent asthma when willingness to pay (WTP) is less than £21,129.22/QALY, otherwise, FP is the most cost-effective therapy.

Economic prescribing of corticosteroid nasal sprays in Germany: comparison of mometasone and budesonide nasal sprays on the basis of the DDD, the PDD and reference prices.

AIM: According to the German Social Security Code (SGB V), drugs should be prescribed on a cost-effective basis. An attempt is made to achieve this in Germany with the help of the DDD system and reference prices. Taking the example of the most frequently prescribed corticosteroid nasal sprays containing the active substances budesonide (BNS) or mometasone (MNS), we will show here that the DDD system is not necessarily suitable for tapping economic reserves. Despite the pharmacologic differences between the two substances, a uniformly defined daily dose (DDD) is assumed for both. Moreover, since 2006 they have formed a reference-price group of nasally administered medication with other active substances. Products were compared with regard to potential differences in patient populations and resulting treatment costs. The extent to which the two instruments are suitable for tapping economic reserves were estimated. METHODS: We analyzed longitudinal diagnostic and prescription data in the IMS® Disease Analyzer Database from the period 2006 to July 2010. RESULTS: In total we analyzed data from 16,163 MNS and 4,218 BNS patients from GP practices plus 11,103 MNS and 2,521 BNS patients from ENT practices. The average quantity prescribed per patient differed in favor of MNS by -111.5 (for first prescriptions) to -260.1 puffs (after 730 days) in GP practices and by -137.3 to -488.3 puffs in ENT practices (p < 0.001). The mean calculated treatment cost per year from the point of view of the statutory health insurer was 20.40 € (GP practices) and 30.50 € (ENT practices) for MNS compared to 22.40 € (GP practices) and 32.10 € (ENT practices) for BNS. Based on the price level after the 2011 referenceprice adjustment, the treatment costs are 16.40 € (GP practices) and 24.20 € (ENT practices) for MNS versus 21.20 € (GP practices) and 32.30 € (ENT practices) for BNS. CONCLUSION: The volumes of MNS actually prescribed are significantly lower than those of BNS in the compared patient populations. Based on the actual consumption of the substances, there is no treatment-cost advantage for BNS in comparison to MNS from the statutory health insurer's point of view. By contrast, the reference-price adjustment results in a greater reduction of treatment costs for mometasone, so that in this case the statutory health insurer is able to tap economic reserves. Both the comparative parameters used for calculating the reference price and the DDD system are only conditionally suitable for tapping economic reserves for drugs.

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.