Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone as a dominant economic asthma therapy

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.

RESULTS

A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.

CONCLUSIONS

The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of therapy in asthma

Background:

Asthma’s cost-effectiveness is a major consideration in the evaluation of its treatment options. Our objective was to perform a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of asthma medications.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OHE-HEED, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Health Technology Assessments Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and Web of Science and reviewed references from key articles between 1990 and Jan 2008.

Results:

A total of 49 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Maintenance therapy with inhaled corticosteroids was found to be very cost-effective and in uncontrolled asthmatics patients currently being treated with ICS, the combination of an ICS/LABA represents a safe, cost-effective treatment. The simplified strategy using budesonide and formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy was also found to be as cost-effective as salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol. Omalizumab was found to be cost-effective. An important caveat with regard to the published literature is the relatively high proportion of economic evaluations which are funded by the manufacturers of specific drug treatments.

Conclusion:

Future studies should be completed independent of industry support and ensure that the comparator arms within studies should include dosages of drugs that are equivalent.

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.

Effect of inhaled corticosteroids on small airways in asthma: investigation using impulse oscillometry

BACKGROUND

Small airways appear to have an important role in asthma. Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP) has ultrafine particles and accordingly greater deposition in the small airways than chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-BDP. Impulse oscillometry systems (IOS), a new and non-invasive measure of pulmonary function, can examine the resistance of total (R5), large (R20), and small airways (R5-R20) separately, and low-frequency reactance area (AX), also considered a measure of small airways dysfunction.

METHODS

Mild-to-moderate asthmatics who were inhaled corticosteroid naïve were randomized to receive 200 mcg HFA-BDP bid (n 1/4 26) or 400 mcg CFC-BDP bid (n 1/4 12) for 12 weeks in an open-label manner. Following baseline measurements, IOS and spirometry were repeated every 4 weeks, and methacholine challenge to separately assess airway sensitivity and airway reactivity and lung volumes at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Moderate correlations were found between R5-R20 or AX and spirometry and lung volume indices of small airways, and between R20 and peak expiratory flow at baseline. The two groups did not significantly differ in baseline clinical or functional parameters. At 12 weeks, all IOS indices improved in the HFA-BDP group, whereas all but R5-R20 improved with CFC-BDP. R5-R20 and AX progressively improved with HFA-BDP; these changes achieved statistical significance at 12 weeks versus the CFC-BDP group. Other IOS and spirometry indices failed to show such trends. HFA-BDP significantly attenuated methacholine airway sensitivity; the degree of this attenuation strongly correlated with R5-R20 and AX baseline values, and with improvement of AX with treatment.

CONCLUSION

HFA-BDP is an effective treatment of small airways in asthma. Prolonged treatment provides a progressive effect over time, which is associated with an attenuation of airway responsiveness.

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.

Health economics of asthma: assessing the value of asthma interventions

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize and assess the quality of asthma intervention health economic studies from 2002 to 2007, compare the study findings with clinical management guidelines, and suggest avenues for future improvement of asthma health economic studies. Forty of the 177 studies met our inclusion criteria. We assessed the quality of studies using The Quality of Health Economic Studies validated instrument (total score range: 0-100). Six studies (15%) had quality category 2, 26 studies (65%) achieved quality category 3, and the remaining eight (20%) studies were scored as the highest quality level, category 4. Overall, the findings from this review are in line with the Global Initiative for Asthma clinical guidelines. Many asthma health economic studies lacked appropriate long term time horizons to match the chronic nature of the disease and suffered from using effectiveness measures that did not capture all disease related risks and benefits. We recommend that new asthma simulation models: be flexible to allow for long term time horizons, focus on using levels of asthma control in their structure, and estimate both long term asthma specific outcomes like well-controlled time as well as generic outcomes such as quality adjusted survival.

Access to inhaled corticosteroids is key to improving quality of care for asthma in developing countries

Asthma is a worldwide public health problem affecting about 300 million people. The majority of persons living with asthma are in the developing world where there is limited access to essential drugs. The financial burden for persons living with asthma and their families, as well as for healthcare systems and governments, is very high. Inadequate treatment and the high cost of medications leads to disability, absenteeism and poverty. Despite the existence of effective asthma medications and international guidelines, and progress made in the implementation of such guidelines over the last decade, the high cost of essential asthma medications remains a major obstacle for patient access to treatment in developing countries. The International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease has evaluated this problem and created an Asthma Drug Facility (ADF) so that countries can purchase affordable, good quality essential drugs for asthma. The ADF uses pooled procurement along with other purchasing and supply strategies to obtain the lowest possible prices. Accompanied by the implementation of standardized asthma management, the increased affordability of drugs provided by the ADF should bring rapid and significant health and cost benefits for patients, their communities and governments.