Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate combination inhaler in chronic asthma

The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review

Asthma is a chronic disease characterized by significant morbidities and mortality, with a large impact on socio-economic resources and a considerable burden on health-care systems. In the standard care of asthma, inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated with long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) are a reliable and often cost-effective choice, especially if based on the single inhaler therapy (SIT) strategy; however, in a subset of patients it is not possible to reach an adequate asthma control. In these cases, it is possible to resort to other pharmacologic options, including corticosteroids (OCS) or biologics. Unfortunately, OCS are associated with important side effects, whilst monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) allow excellent results, even if far more expensive. Up to now, the economic impact of asthma has not been compared with equivalent indicators in several studies. In fact, a significant heterogeneity of the cost analysis is evident in literature, for which the assessment of the real cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies is remarkably complex. To maximize the cost-effectiveness of asthma strategies, especially of biologics, attention must be paid on phenotyping and identification of predictors of response. Several studies were included, involving comparative analysis of drug treatments for asthma, comparative analysis of the costs and consequences of therapies, measurement and evaluation of direct drug costs, and the reduction of health service use. The initial research identified 389 articles, classified by titles and abstracts. A total of 311 articles were excluded as irrelevant and 78 articles were selected. Pharmacoeconomic studies on asthma therapies often report conflicting data also due to heterogeneous indicators and different populations examined. A careful evaluation of the existing literature is extremely important, because the scenario is remarkably complex, with an attempt to homogenize and interpret available data. Based on these studies, the improvement of prescriptive appropriateness and the reduction of the use of healthcare resources thanks to controller medications and to innovative therapies such as biologics partially reduce the economic burden of these treatments. A multidisciplinary stakeholder approach can also be extremely helpful in deciding between the available options and thus optimizing healthcare resources.

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability.Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value.Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country's essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.

Economic evaluation of interventions for the treatment of asthma in children: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify and critique full economic evaluations (EEs) of childhood asthma treatments with the intention to guide researchers and commissioners of pediatric asthma services toward potentially cost-effective strategies.

METHODS

"MEDLINE," "Embase," "EconLit," "NHS EED," and "CEA" databases were searched to identify relevant EEs published between 2005 and May 2017. Quality of included studies was assessed with a published checklist.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were identified and comprised one cost-benefit analysis, 11 cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-minimization analysis, and six cost-utility analyses. Treatments included pharmaceutical (n = 11) and non-pharmaceutical (n = 7) interventions. Fourteen studies identified cost-effective strategies. The quality of the studies varied and there were uncertainties due to the methods and relevance of data used.

CONCLUSION

Good-quality economic evaluation studies of pediatric asthma treatments are lacking. EE of new technologies adapted to local settings is recommended and can result in cost savings.

A Systematic Review of Decision-Analytic Models for Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of Asthma Interventions

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate the landscape of model-based economic studies in asthma and highlight where there is room for improvement in the design and reporting of studies.

DESIGN

A systematic review of the methodologies of model-based, cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma-related interventions was conducted. Models were evaluated for adherence to best-practice modeling and reporting guidelines and assumptions about the natural history of asthma.

METHODS

A systematic search of English articles was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and citations within reviewed articles. Studies were summarized and evaluated based on their adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). We also studied the underlying assumptions about disease progression, heterogeneity in disease course, comorbidity, and treatment effects.

RESULTS

Forty-five models of asthma were included (33 Markov models, 10 decision trees, 2 closed-form equations). Novel biological treatments were evaluated in 12 studies. Some of the CHEERS' reporting recommendations were not satisfied, especially for models published in clinical journals. This was particularly the case for the choice of the modeling framework and reporting on heterogeneity. Only 13 studies considered any subgroups, and 2 explicitly considered the impact of comorbidities. Adherence to CHEERS requirements and the quality of models generally improved over time.

CONCLUSION

It would be difficult to replicate the findings of contemporary model-based evaluations of asthma-related interventions given that only a minority of studies reported the essential parameters of their studies. Current asthma models generally lack consideration of disease heterogeneity and do not seem to be ready for evaluation of precision medicine technologies.

Incorporating adherence in cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma: a systematic review

Aims: Non-adherence is associated with poor clinical outcomes among patients with asthma. While cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is increasingly used to inform value assessment of the interventions, most do not take into account adherence in the analyses. This study aims to: (1) Understand the extent of studies considering adherence as part of the economic analyses, and (2) summarize the methods of incorporating adherence in the economic models. Materials and methods: A literature search was performed from the inception to February 2018 using four databases: PubMed, EMBASE, NHS EED, and the Tufts CEA registry. Decision model-based CEA of asthma were identified. Outcomes of interest were the number of studies incorporating adherence in the economic models, and the incorporating methods. All data were extracted using a standardized data collection form. Results: From 1,587 articles, 23 studies were decision model-based CEA of asthma, of which four CEA (17.4%) incorporated adherence in the analyses. Only the method of incorporating adherence by adjusting treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels was demonstrated in this review. Two approaches were used to derive the associations between adherence and effectiveness. The first approach was to apply a mathematical formula, developed by an expert panel, and the second was to extrapolate the associations from previous published studies. The adherence-adjusted effectiveness was then incorporated in the economic models. Conclusions: A very low number of CEA of asthma incorporated adherence in the analyses. All the CEA adjusted treatment effectiveness according to adherence levels, applied to the economic models.

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.

PLEASANT: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term - a cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Asthma episodes and deaths are known to be seasonal. A number of reports have shown peaks in asthma episodes in school-aged children associated with the return to school following the summer vacation. A fall in prescription collection in the month of August has been observed, and was associated with an increase in the number of unscheduled contacts after the return to school in September.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of the study was to assess whether or not a NHS-delivered public health intervention reduces the September peak in unscheduled medical contacts.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised trial, with the unit of randomisation being 142 NHS general practices, and trial-based economic evaluation.

SETTING

Primary care.

INTERVENTION

A letter sent (n = 70 practices) in July from their general practitioner (GP) to parents/carers of school-aged children with asthma to remind them of the importance of taking their medication, and to ensure that they have sufficient medication prior to the start of the new school year in September. The control group received usual care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the proportion of children aged 5-16 years who had an unscheduled medical contact in September 2013. Supporting end points included the proportion of children who collected prescriptions in August 2013 and unscheduled contacts through the following 12 months. Economic end points were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and costs from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.

RESULTS

There is no evidence of effect in terms of unscheduled contacts in September. Among children aged 5-16 years, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96 to 1.25] against the intervention. The intervention did increase the proportion of children collecting a prescription in August (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.64) as well as scheduled contacts in the same month (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). For the wider time intervals (September-December 2013 and September-August 2014), there is weak evidence of the intervention reducing unscheduled contacts. The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children collecting prescriptions in August as well as having scheduled contacts in the same month. These unscheduled contacts in September could be a result of the intervention, as GPs may have wanted to see patients before issuing a prescription. The economic analysis estimated a high probability that the intervention was cost-saving, for baseline-adjusted costs, across both base-case and sensitivity analyses. There was no increase in QALYs.

LIMITATION

The use of routine data led to uncertainty in the coding of medical contacts. The uncertainty was mitigated by advice from a GP adjudication panel.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention did not reduce unscheduled care in September, although it succeeded in increasing the proportion of children both collecting prescriptions and having scheduled contacts in August. After September there is weak evidence in favour of the intervention. The intervention had a favourable impact on costs but did not demonstrate any impact on QALYs. The results of the trial indicate that further work is required on assessing and understanding adherence, both in terms of using routine data to make quantitative assessments, and through additional qualitative interviews with key stakeholders such as practice nurses, GPs and a wider group of children with asthma.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03000938.

FUNDING DETAILS

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 93. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

Measurement of exhaled nitric oxide concentration in asthma: a systematic review and economic evaluation of NIOX MINO, NIOX VERO and NObreath

BACKGROUND

High fractions of exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) in the breath of patients with symptoms of asthma are correlated with high levels of eosinophils and indicate that a patient is likely to respond to inhaled corticosteroids. This may have a role in the diagnosis and management of asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the hand-held electrochemical devices NIOX MINO(®) (Aerocrine, Solna, Sweden), NIOX VERO(®) (Aerocrine) and NObreath(®) (Bedfont Scientific, Maidstone, UK) for the diagnosis and management of asthma.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic searches were carried out between March 2013 and April 2013 from database inception. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science. Trial registers such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials were also searched in March 2013. All searches were updated in September 2013.

REVIEW METHODS

A rapid review was conducted to assess the equivalence of hand-held and chemiluminescent FeNO monitors. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy and management efficacy were conducted. A systematic review of economic analyses was also conducted and two de novo health economic models were developed. All three reviews were undertaken according to robust high-quality methodology.

RESULTS

The rapid review (27 studies) found varying levels of agreement between monitors (Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement up to ±10 parts per billion), with better agreement at lower FeNO values. Correlation was good (generally r > 0.9). The diagnostic accuracy review identified 22 studies in adults (all ages) and four in children. No studies used NObreath or NIOX VERO and seven used NIOX MINO. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy varied widely. FeNO used in combination with another test altered diagnostic accuracy only slightly. High levels of heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Limited observations included that FeNO may be more reliable and useful as a rule-in than as a rule-out test; lower cut-off values in children and in smokers may be appropriate; and FeNO may be less reliable in the elderly. The management review identified five randomised controlled trials in adults, one in pregnant asthmatics and seven in children. Despite clinical heterogeneity, exacerbation rates were lower in all studies but not generally statistically significantly so. Effects on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) use were inconsistent, possibly because of differences in management protocols, differential effectiveness in adults and children and differences in population severity. One UK diagnostic model and one management model were identified. Aerocrine also submitted diagnostic and management models. All had significant limitations including short time horizons and the selective use of efficacy evidence. The de novo diagnostic model suggested that the expected difference in quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains between diagnostic options is likely to be very small. Airway hyper-responsiveness by methacholine challenge test is expected to produce the greatest QALY gain but with an expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) compared with FeNO (NObreath) in combination with bronchodilator reversibility of £1.125M per QALY gained. All remaining options are expected to be dominated. The de novo management model indicates that the ICER of guidelines plus FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone in children is expected to be approximately £45,200 per QALY gained. Within the adult subgroup, FeNO monitoring using NObreath compared with guidelines alone is expected to have an ICER of approximately £2100 per QALY gained. The results are particularly sensitive to assumptions regarding changes in ICS use over time, the number of nurse visits for FeNO monitoring and duration of effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Limitations of the evidence base impose considerable uncertainty on all analyses. Equivalence of devices was assumed but not assured. Evidence for diagnosis is difficult to interpret in the context of inserting FeNO monitoring into a diagnostic pathway. Evidence for management is also inconclusive, but largely consistent with FeNO monitoring resulting in fewer exacerbations, with a small or zero reduction in ICS use in adults and a possible increased ICS use in children or patients with more severe asthma. It is unclear which specific management protocol is likely to be most effective. The economic analysis indicates that FeNO monitoring could have value in diagnostic and management settings. The diagnostic model indicates that FeNO monitoring plus bronchodilator reversibility dominates many other diagnostic tests. FeNO-guided management has the potential to be cost-effective, although this is largely dependent on the duration of effect. The conclusions drawn from both models require strong technical value judgements with respect to several aspects of the decision problem in which little or no empirical evidence exists. There are many potential directions for further work, including investigations into which management protocol is best and long-term follow-up in both diagnosis and management studies.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004149.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of the treatment with a long acting beta-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) combination inhaler [salmeterol xinafoate (SAL)/fluticasone propionate (FP) combination inhaler (SFC) (Advair(®))] to continuing on current ICS dose (no ICS dose change) or increased ICS dose [fluticasone propionate (FP)] in patients with uncontrolled asthma in Canada.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted from a Canadian public healthcare perspective with a one year time horizon. In the no FP dose change scenarios, remaining on daily low (FP 100 ug BID) or medium (FP 200-250 ug BID) or high dose (FP 500 ug BID) was considered. In the increased FP dose scenarios, doubling the FP dose from low to medium dose and from medium to high dose regimens were considered. A decision model was developed with two health states: "symptom free" or "with symptoms". Clinical efficacy was based on a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials. Over the one year time horizon the percentage with symptom free days (SFD) was used as the measure of differential treatment scenario effectiveness. Drug costs and non-drug costs were incorporated into the analysis. Utilities, derived from EQ5D scores and health services resource use based on patient diaries for 'symptom free' and 'with symptoms' were based on regression analyses of individual patient data from the Gaining Optimal Asthma controL (GOAL) trial. Costs were assessed by assigning unit cost for each health services resource use for each patient. The incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) for SFC vs no FP dose change or increased FP dose were estimated using descriptive statistics. Uncertainty was assessed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).

RESULTS

Over one year, SFC resulted in an incremental cost per patient of $544-$655 compared to no FP dose change and $47-$380 per year compared to increased FP dose. SFC results in incremental QALYs per patient of 0.0100-0.0149 compared to no FP dose change and 0.0136-0.0152 compared to increased FP dose. The one year ICURs were $43,000 to $54,400 per QALY gained for SFC compared to no FP dose change and $25,000 to $3500 per QALY gained compared to increased FP dose scenarios. The probability of SFC being cost-effective at $50,000 per QALY gained was greater than 75% compared to increased FP dose scenarios and compared to no dose change for patients on low or medium dose FP. The results were robust to changes in assumptions within the model.

CONCLUSION

In Canadian patients with inadequately controlled asthma on FP, it is cost-effective to use SFC for patients 12 years and over compared to doubling their FP dose. It is also cost-effective to use SFC for patients on low or medium dose FP compared to remaining on the current FP dose in patients with uncontrolled asthma.

Surrogates, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness modelling: a combined analytic approach

Estimates of cost-effectiveness analyses are typically obtained either directly from 'trial' based analyses or indirectly via surrogate endpoints in 'model' based analyses. Data from clinical trials that include both surrogate and final endpoints can be used in a joint analysis that combines these two approaches. This joint approach allows the inclusion of information regarding the effects of treatment on surrogate endpoints while relaxing the strong assumption of 'conditional independence' associated with indirect model-based analyses. An example cost-effectiveness analysis of Chronic Disease Self-Management Programme is used to compare the different approaches. It is shown that despite using a common data set, the different analytic approaches produce differing estimates of the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and the value of future research. The paper concludes by discussing the selection of the appropriate analytic approach.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial

BACKGROUND

Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial.

METHODS

We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV(1) of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective.

RESULTS

For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC(20) subgroup (PC(20) <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups.

CONCLUSION

For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine.

[Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone combination therapy vs. fluticasone propionate in Japanese asthmatic patients]

We commenced to estimate the economic impact of salmeterol/fluticasone combination (SFC) therapy compared to fluticasone propionate (FP) therapy for asthma control in Japanese patients. A Markov model with five health states, developed by Price in 2002, was used. 1-week transition probabilities among status of asthma management were obtained from literature and epidemiological data from public data base. Direct cost for treatment was estimated from Japan medical fee schedule. Cost and effectiveness were not discounted due to 12-week simulation by the model. Univariate sensitivity analyses were undertaken to examine the main variables affecting cost-effectiveness. Probabilistic analysis was also undertaken to discuss statistical argument and to provide information for decision-making. In this analysis, the model was run over a 12-week period of time using transition probabilities. The results showed that treatment with SFC resulted in a higher proportion of totally controlled weeks per patient than treatment with FP (65.0 vs. 49.5%; incremental effectiveness by 15.5%), and lower mean direct asthma management costs ( yen168 702 vs. yen227 820). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis, conducted to assess robustness of the above base case result, showed that in the 95% of cases SFC was dominant (more effective and less costly) to FP. It suggested that SFC will be the most cost-effective therapy for asthma control. It would, however, be required to further evaluate cost-effectiveness of SFC in long-term observation.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Symbicort: a pharmacoeconomic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review examines the published evidence on the pharmacoecomonics of Symbicort. Symbicort is a combination inhaler used in asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that contains budesonide and formoterol. In asthma, Symbicort can be used as fixed or adjustable dose maintenance therapy as well as for both maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART).

METHOD

A literature search of PubMed was carried out to find all publications on the pharmacoeconomics of Symbicort. Additional studies were searched for in the reference lists of the papers retrieved and by searching tables of contents of relevant journals. A total of 13 studies on Symbicort in asthma and 2 studies on Symbicort in COPD were found.

RESULTS

Total costs were lower with Symbicort than with separate inhalers containing budesonide and formoterol. Adjustable dosing maintained control of asthma using less medication and was associated with lower treatment costs than fixed dosing with Symbicort or the combination of fluticasone/salmeterol. SMART improves asthma control, reduces exacerbations and reduces direct and indirect costs compared to fixed maintenance therapy with either Symbicort or fluticasone/salmeterol. In COPD, Symbicort offers clinical advantages over therapy with the monocomponents and these are achieved at little or no extra cost.