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.

[Quality of life of patients with asthma on beclomethasone/formoterol. Cost-utility analysis]. / Calidad de vida del paciente asmático con beclometasona/formoterol. Análisis de coste-utilidad.

AIM: To perform a cost-utility analysis on asthmatic patients on beclomethasone/formoterol fixed combination in Primary Health Care. Material and methods Non-probability sampling was used to select a group of asthmatic patients with moderate/severe persistent severity (GEMA 2009), treated with beclomethasone/formoterol fixed combination, over 18 years, had given their informed consent. The study observation period was 6 months. The variables studied were: age, sex, duration of disease, health resources used, analysis of health related quality of life by EQ-5D and SF-36, and the specific Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire. For the qualitative variables, the frequency and percentages were calculated, and for the quantitative variables, the mean, SD and 95% CI. Chi-square, Student t-test and ANOVA were used for statistical inference. Comparisons were made with a statistical significance of 0.05. RESULTS: Of the 64 patients that completed the study, 59.4% were female. The mean age was 49 years, and mean disease duration was 93 months. For asthma control, 53% of patients had a prescription pattern of one/12h. All health related quality of life scales were modified with respect to the baseline and the differences were statistically significant. Our patients had a better health related quality of life than Spanish asthma cohort. The incremental cost utility beclomethasone/formoterol versus usual treatment option was € 6,256/QALY.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of mometasone furoate versus beclomethasone dipropionate for the treatment of pediatric allergic rhinitis in Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is one of the most common chronic respiratory diseases observed in the pediatric population, producing a significant morbidity, and an economic burden due to direct medical costs and indirect costs. Despite the high prevalence of AR in children and the importance of the use of topical intranasal corticosteroids for its treatment, comparative analyses of alternative treatments in pediatric patients, in terms of both cost and effectiveness are lacking. METHODS: A decision-analysis model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) compared to beclomethasone dipropionate nasal spray (BDNS) for treating pediatric patients with AR over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a published study in which authors performed 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 outcomes were three effectiveness measures summarized in a therapeutic index (TIX). RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to BDNS, therapy with MFNS was associated with lower costs (US$229.78 vs. 289.74 average cost per patient over 12 months) and a greater improvement in TIX score (0.9724 vs. 0.8712 score points on average per patient over 12 months), thus leading to dominance. CONCLUSION: The present analysis shows that in Colombia, compared with BDNS, therapy with MFNS for treating pediatric patients with AR is a dominant strategy because it showed a greater improvement in a TIX reflecting both efficacy and safety, at lower total treatment costs.

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.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of beclomethasone/formoterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate to severe asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by acute symptomatic episodes with variable severity and duration. Pharmacological asthma management aims to achieve and maintain control without side effects, thus improving quality of life and reducing the economic impact. Recently, a clinical trial showed the non-inferiority of beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/F) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma. However, this study did not provide evidence on costs and did not quantify quality-of-life parameters. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of BDP/F versus FP/S in patients with moderate to severe asthma from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A Markov model (MM) was used, with five health states for the different levels of asthma control: successful control, sub-optimal control, outpatient-managed exacerbation, inpatient-managed exacerbation, and death. Model data were derived from the ICAT SE study and from expert panels. Three outcomes were considered: time spent in successful control state, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The model shows that BDP/F treatment led to a slight increase of weeks in successful control compared with FP/S, with a lower cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis highlights that in 64% and 68% of the Monte Carlo simulations, BDP/F outperformed FP/S in terms of weeks in successful control and QALYs. Considering the expected cost of the two strategies, in 90% of simulations BDP/F was the least expensive choice. In particular, BDP/F was cost saving as compared with FP/S in about 63% and 59% of simulations as shown by the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, from the Italian NHS perspective, BDP/F treatment is associated with a reduction in cost and offers a slight increase of effectiveness in terms of weeks spent in successful control and QALYs.

Economic evaluation of BDP/formoterol fixed vs two single inhalers in asthma treatment.

BACKGROUND: Asthma treatment costs are substantial, the largest proportion being incurred by medications. Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) is recommended in patients not adequately controlled by ICS alone. Aim of this study was to compare costs and health outcomes of a fixed ICS-LABA combination of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol fumarate (FF) vs the same drugs delivered via separate inhalers in Germany. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis, a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a threshold analysis were undertaken. Efficacy results were obtained from a recent clinical trial. Cost inputs include medical costs, physician costs, and hospital admission costs. Medical costs, health outcomes, and treatment costs were also varied to assess their impact on results. RESULTS: Beclomethasone dipropionate/FF fixed combination was less costly compared to BDP + FF delivered as separate inhalers, costs totaling euro 525 and euro 637, respectively, over a 24-week treatment period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro-9.77 per additional day free of asthma symptoms. Equal cost-effectiveness ratios would still be obtained at a price of the fixed combination increased by 3.4-fold. CONCLUSION: A cost-minimization analysis as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany based on different product price calculations show that BDP/FF fixed combination is superior to BDP + FF delivered via separate inhalers.

Particle size of inhaled corticosteroids: does it matter?

A question with respect to asthma therapy revolves around the issue of whether better efficacy occurs with an ultrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroid because of better lung deposition into the distal airways. This article reviews particle size and delivery devices of different steroids, clinical outcomes of small- versus large-particle steroids, and the issue of pharmacoeconomics.

Outcomes and costs of patients with persistent asthma treated with beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane or fluticasone propionate.

OBJECTIVE: Examine outcomes and costs of patients with persistent asthma who initiated treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane (BDP-HFA) or fluticasone propionate (FP). METHODS: MedStat's Commercial Claims and Encounters database (July 1, 2002-June 30, 2007) was utilized. Patients (n=13,968) were included if they initiated treatment with BDP-HFA or FP (first use=index date). Patients also met these criteria: (a) no receipt of other study medication in the 1-year post-period; (b) persistent asthma in the 1-year pre-period; (c) age 5-64 years; (d) no diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and (e) continuous insurance coverage from 1 year pre-period to 1 year post-period. Multivariate regressions examined the probability of an ER visit or hospitalization, probability of reaching alternative adherence thresholds, and costs. RESULTS: Receipt of BDP-HFA, compared with FP, was associated with a 17% reduction in the odds of an ER visit (OR=0.834, 95% CI 0.751 to 0.925), a 30% reduction in the odds of an asthma-related ER visit (OR=0.697, 95% CI 0.571 to 0.852), and an increase in the odds of obtaining a medication possession ratio (MPR) of at least 50% (OR=1.324; 95% CI 1.164 to 1.506) or 75% (OR=1.311; 95% CI 1.072 to 1.604). Total medical costs ($5063 vs. $5377, P=0.0042), prescription drug costs ($2336 vs. $2581, P<0.0001), and ER costs ($185 vs. $249, P<0.0001) were significantly lower among the BDP-HFA cohort. Asthma-related outpatient ($191 vs. $224, P<0.0001) and ER costs ($28 vs. $45, P<0.001) were significantly lower in the BDP-HFA group, while asthma-related inpatient ($101 vs. $59, P<0.0001) and drug costs ($451 vs. $540, P<0.0001) were significantly lower in the FP cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that receipt of BDP-HFA, compared with receipt of FP, is associated with a decreased probability of ER visits or asthma-related ER visits and higher odds of reaching a medical possession ratio threshold of 50% or 75%. Receipt of BDP-HFA was also associated with lower total drug costs and lower total medical costs.

Cost effectiveness of asthma treatment with a breath-actuated inhaler: how has the story changed?

OBJECTIVES: A database analysis evaluating the comparative costs and outcomes of asthma treatment with breath-actuated inhalers (BAIs) and metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) has previously been undertaken in 2001. This analysis found that, despite the higher acquisition cost associated with BAIs, economies elsewhere meant that the overall cost associated with BAIs was lower than MDIs. Between 2001 and 2007, the comparative price of MDIs was significantly reduced thus widening the gap between the comparative acquisition cost of MDIs and BAIs. Furthermore, the introduction of specific targets for asthma review included a requirement for regular checks on inhaler technique. Such initiatives may be expected to enhance the overall effectiveness of MDIs. Given the potential impact of such changes, it appeared to be timely to update the original database analysis to assess the extent to which the original findings have been altered by changes in the clinical and economic environment over the past 5 years. METHODS: As in all chronic diseases, it is important that economic analyses evaluate cost effectiveness over as long a period as possible, and so the 2006 analysis was conducted over a 12- and a 24-month time period. RESULTS: The results emphasised that the clinical benefits associated with BAIs for certain patients can still be translated into greater cost effectiveness, but that altered cost structures required a longer time period for the greater cost effectiveness of BAIs to become evident. CONCLUSION: Since completing this study, the reimbursement costs for beclometasone MDIs have increased significantly (since October 2007) due to the discontinuation of Becotide and Becloforte. As a consequence of this higher acquisition cost for MDI inhalers, the current cost-effectiveness advantages of BAI compared to MDI can be expected to be even greater than that identified in the study.

Meta-analysis: the efficacy of rectal beclomethasone dipropionate vs. 5-aminosalicylic acid in mild to moderate distal ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) is a second-generation steroid with topical effects and minimal systemic activity for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). AIM: To review all available literature to assess the efficacy of enema/foam BDP compared with enema/foam 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in the control of left-sided mild-moderate UC. METHODS: We selected randomized controlled trials of enema/foam BDP compared with enema/foam 5-ASA treatment in patients with UC. Two reviewers assessed trial quality and extracted data independently. RESULTS: Four trials involving 428 UC patients, 209 treated with 5-ASA (1-4 g o.d.) and 219 with BDP (3 mg o.d.), were included. Intention-to-treat analysis showed that 5-ASA induced improvement/remission of UC in 146 (69.9%) patients, while BDP in 143 (65.3%). The test for heterogeneity (Cochran Q) was not significant and Mantel-Haenszel pooled estimate of odds ratio was 1.23 (95% CI = 0.82-1.85). The results did not change when analysis was performed on a per-protocol basis. CONCLUSION: The randomized controlled trials identified in this review showed that rectal BDP has equal effect as 5-ASA to control symptoms in UC.

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone as a dominant economic asthma therapy.

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma treatment have become mainstay of therapy for patients with persistent asthma. Numerous inhaled corticosteroids are available but to date no prospective cost-effectiveness studies have been reported using exclusively US patients and costs. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of HFA-bectomethasone (QVAR) compared to CFC-beclomethasone (Vanceril) using data from a year-long prospective randomized, open label, parallel multicenter trial. Eligibility criteria required patients to have been on a stable dose of CFC-BDP prior to enrollment. Patients were randomized to either HFA-BDP at approximately half their previous daily dose of CFC-BDP or to continue CFC-BDP Effectiveness data, in terms of symptom-free days (SFDs), were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the viewpoint of managed care. Patients receiving HFA-BDP reported a greater increase (median = 22.1) in the number of SFDs than those receiving CFC-BDP (median = 14.3) (P = 0.03). Total costs of care were less for patients taking HFA-BDP (median = dollars 668) compared to CFC-BDP (median = dollars 977). The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollars -5.77 (95% CI: dollars -68.08 to dollars -4.08). The results of this analysis indicate that HFA-BDP was a dominant therapy (more effective, less costly) compared to CFC-BDP.

Cost analysis of the use of inhaled corticosteroids in the treatment of asthma: a 1-year follow-up.

A retrospective cohort using pharmacy and medical claims was analysed to determine whether the differences in efficacy of various inhaled corticosteroids demonstrated in clinical trials lead to differences in costs of care observed in clinical practice. Subjects that had an ICD-9 (493.XX) code for asthma and a new pharmacy claim for inhaled fluticasone propionate 44 mcg (FP), beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP), triamcinolone acetonide (TAA), budesonide (BUD) or flunisolide (FLU) were identified and followed for 12 months. Annual asthma care charges (pharmacy and medical) over the 12-month observation period were significantly (P < 0.03) higher in patients treated with BDPTAA, BUD and FLU compared to FP, 24%, 27%, 34% and 45% respectively In addition, patients treated with BDPTAA, and FLU were associated with significantly (P < 0.005) higher total healthcare (asthma + non-asthma) charges compared to patients on FP, 53%, 46% and 39% respectively Asthma care and total healthcare charges remained lower for FP after including FP110 mcg and excluding patients who were extreme cost outliers (+/- 2 SD from the mean) in a univariate sensitivity analysis. This analysis supports recent randomized control trials that FP offers a superior efficacy profile at lower asthma care as well as total healthcare charges compared to other inhaled corticosteroids.

Asthma treatment costs using inhaled corticosteroids.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that affects 10 to 17.5 million people and leads to more than $5 billion in treatment costs in the Unites States annually. This retrospective study is an initial step in understanding the beneficial economic outcomes of inhaled corticosteroid therapy by determining whether differences exist in healthcare utilization expenditures for three inhaled corticosteroids available for use in the United States: (1) beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril/Schering and Beclovent/Allan & Hanburys); (2) flunisolide (Aerobid/Forest); and (3) and triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort/Rhône-Poulenc Rorer). This study was based on an analysis of 4,441 patients with at least one pharmaceutical claim for one of the study drugs, using inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drug claims data obtained from The MEDSTAT Group's MarketScan database for calendar years 1990 through 1993. We tested a null hypothesis for no differences in total asthma treatment costs, when drugs were excluded, using multivariate linear regression modeling controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics that might affect the study outcome. We found that, after excluding study drug payments and controlling for other contributing factors, total asthma healthcare expenditures to triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) users were higher than those for beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users. When study drug costs were included in the expenditure measure, both triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users had higher expenditures than did beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) users. No significant differences in expenditures were detected between Vanceril and Beclovent patients, a finding consistent with the fact that these drugs are the same type of inhaled corticosteroid. Other factors contributing to differences in total asthma healthcare costs included patient age, patterns of switching among and continuing with study drugs, prestudy asthma utilization or drug proxy severity, and comorbidities of precipitating illnesses.

Costs and effects of inhaled corticosteroids and bronchodilators in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The objective of this study was to determine the costs and effects of combined bronchodilator and anti-inflammatory therapy. In a 2.5-yr randomized controlled study, combined beta 2-agonist/corticosteroid therapy (BA + CS) and combined beta 2-agonist/anticholinergic therapy (BA + AC) were compared with beta 2-agonist/placebo therapy (BA + PL). Included in the study were 274 patients 18 to 60 yr of age with moderately severe obstructive airways disease. The main clinical endpoints were lung function, hyperresponsiveness, restricted activity days, and symptom-free days. The economic endpoints were the costs of health care utilization. Compared with BA + PL, BA + CS led to significant improvements in FEV1, PC20, and symptom-free days. BA + AC did not differ from BA + PL in this respect. The respective annual acquisition costs of BA + CS, BA + AC, and BA + PL were 532 US$, 277 US$, and 156 US$. Thus, BA + CS costs 376 US$ more than BA + PL. However, compared with BA + PL therapy, BA + CS led to statistically significant savings in other health care costs of about 175 US$ (95% CI from 46 to 303 US$). Thus, more than half of the additional costs of adding the inhaled corticosteroid are compensated for by a reduction in the costs of other health care services. Overall, inhaled corticosteroids lead to a small but net increase in health care costs of 201 US$ per patient per year.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)