Explanatory versus pragmatic trial-based economic evaluations: application to alternative therapies for burns

Fluticasone furoate plus vilanterol in patients with moderate persistent asthma: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the combination of fluticasone furoate and vilanterol (FF/VI) has emerged as an alternative therapy, since it is administered every 24 h, in contrast to other ICS/LABAs such as fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol (FP/Salm), which requires administration every 12 h. Concerns have arisen over whether the benefit generated by FF/VI justifies the additional costs it involves over FP/Salm. This study aimed at assessing the health and economic consequences of FF/VI in patients with moderate-severe persistent asthma.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with persistent asthma. Total costs and QALYs for FF/VI and FP/Salm were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000.

RESULTS

We estimated a gain of 16.8 and 10.7 QALYs per patient per year on FF/VI and FP/Salm, respectively. At the same time, we observed a difference of US$216 in total discounted cost per person-year on FF/VI with respect to FP/Salm. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of FF/VI was USD $70 per QALY with respect to FP/Salm. In the deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

FF/VI is more cost-effective than FP/Salm. The evidence supports using FF/VI therapy in Colombia, and the study should be replicated in other middle-income countries.

Comparing oil based ointment versus standard practice for the treatment of moderate burns in Greece: a trial based cost effectiveness evaluation

BACKGROUND

The local treatment of burn wounds has long been a subject of debate. The objective of this study was to compare the cost and the effectiveness of Moist Exposed Burn Ointment -MEBO versus a combination of povidone iodine plus bepanthenol cream for partial thickness burns.

METHODS

The study was carried out in the Burn Center of a state hospital in Athens, Greece. 211 patients needing conservative therapy were prospectively selected according to the depth of the burn wound. The treatment was allocated according to the Stratified Randomization Design. The outcomes measured were mean cost of in-hospital stay, rate of complications, time of 50% wound healing, pain scores, in hospital stay diminution. We have adopted a societal perspective.

RESULTS

In the total groups MEBO presented lower cost, (although not significantly different: p = 0.10) and better effectiveness. The data suggest that MEBO is the dominant therapy for superficial partial burn wound with significantly lower costs and significantly higher effectiveness due to a lesser time of recovery and consequently lower time of hospitalization and follow-up. MEBO presented similar percentages of complications with the comparator, lower pain levels and smaller time of no healthy appearance of the burn limits for superficial partial thickness burns.

CONCLUSIONS

The data suggested that topical application of MEBO may be considered for further investigation as a potential first-line treatment modality for superficial partial thickness burns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial has been registered on the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN) and given the registration number ISRCTN74058791.