Factors affecting UK primary-care costs of managing patients with asthma over 5 years

Direct and indirect costs of paediatric asthma in the UK: a cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost of paediatric asthma from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspective and explore determinants of these costs.

DESIGN

Cost analysis based on data from a large clinical trial between 2017 and 2019. Case report forms recorded healthcare resource use and productivity losses attributable to asthma over a 12-month period. These were combined with national unit cost data to generate estimates of health service and indirect costs.

SETTING

Asthma clinics in primary and secondary care in England and Scotland.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost per asthma attack stratified by highest level of care received. Total annual health service and indirect costs. Modelled effect of sex, age, severity, number of attacks and adherence on total annual costs.

RESULTS

Of 506 children included in the analysis, 252 experienced at least one attack. The mean (SD) cost per attack was £297 (806) (median £46, IQR 40-138) and the mean total annual cost to the NHS was £1086 (2504) (median £462, IQR 296-731). On average, children missed 6 days of school and their carers missed 13 hours of paid work, contributing to a mean annual indirect cost of £412 (879) (median £30, IQR 0-477). Health service costs increased significantly with number of attacks and participant age (>11 years). Indirect costs increased with asthma severity and number of attacks but were found to be lower in older children.

CONCLUSIONS

Paediatric asthma imparts a significant economic burden on the health service, families and society. Efforts to improve asthma control may generate significant cost savings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN 67875351.

Economic evaluation of SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (Grazax(®)) in children

Background

Grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis is a common allergic respiratory disorder affecting over 20% of the UK population in terms of quality of life and sleep, work, and school patterns. The SQ-standardized grass allergy immunotherapy tablet (AIT) has been demonstrated as a disease-modifying treatment which gives a sustained effect even after completion of a treatment course. The objective of this study was to provide an economic assessment of whether treatment with the SQ-standardized grass AIT, Grazax^® (Phleum pratense) in combination with symptomatic medications is preferable to the standard of care using symptomatic medications only. The analysis was performed for children with grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without concomitant asthma, in the UK.

Methods

The model evaluated the two treatment regimens in a cohort of 1,000 children from a payer’s perspective. Treatment was modeled in terms of management of symptoms, impact on resource use, and development of allergic asthma. The analysis modeled the use of SQ-standardized grass AIT and the sustained effects of treatment over a 9-year time horizon (ie, 3 years of treatment, with modeled long-term benefits). Data inputs were drawn from a recent clinical trial, published studies, and databases.

Results

SQ-standardized grass AIT improves patient outcomes, generating an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of £12,168. This is below commonly accepted thresholds in the UK.

Conclusion

The resulting incremental cost per QALY falls below commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds. Therefore, the SQ-standardized grass AIT is a cost-effective option for the treatment of grass pollen-induced rhinoconjunctivitis in the UK pediatric population.

Eye-Related Medicare Costs for Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration from 1995 to 1999

OBJECTIVE

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is the leading cause of blindness and severe visual impairment among the elderly in the United States. This study aims to assess eye-related Medicare costs from 1995 to 1999 in patients with both nonneovascular and neovascular AMD as compared with controls, and to delineate whether variations exist across demographic and clinical subgroups in eye-related Medicare costs over 5 years.

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational, population-based analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

Five percent random sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries with diagnoses of nonneovascular and neovascular AMD. A control group was selected based on diagnoses of blepharitis, chronic conjunctivitis, or blepharoconjuctivitis and no diagnosis of AMD. Eye-related claims were totaled and compared for each group over the 5-year study period. Demographic and clinical factors potentially influencing eye-related costs were also examined.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Eye-related Medicare costs during the 5-year study period.

RESULTS

Median eye-related Medicare costs were estimated at $1607 for neovascular AMD patients, $832 for nonneovascular AMD patients, and $658 for controls. Cost differences across groups were significant based on univariate and multivariate analyses (P<0.001). In linear regression analysis, males and blacks had significantly lower eye-related Medicare costs than females and whites, respectively (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Age-related macular degeneration represented a significant economic burden to the U.S. health care system for a single ophthalmic disease entity based on Medicare reimbursed eye-related costs before the availability of photodynamic therapy and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy. Given that direct eye-related costs associated with the treatment of neovascular AMD are estimated at $569 million annually before the availability of therapy for subfoveal lesions, effective therapeutic measures may be associated with substantial cost offsets.

Do patients show the same level of adherence with all dry powder inhalers?

Poor adherence with inhaled therapy presents a considerable problem. In the UK, non-adherence is estimated to occur in 10-46% of those prescribed inhaled corticosteroids and may contribute to an estimated 18-48% of asthma deaths. Before dry powder inhalers can be considered interchangeable, it is important to check that adherence is unaffected by any switching of the device dispensed to patients. Numerous studies have shown that adherence with inhaled medication is a multifactorial issue. A number of evidence-based guidelines have concluded that there is no difference in the delivery of treatments from different inhaler devices. However, many studies comparing different devices are designed to show equivalence. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the studies on which the guidelines are based were conducted with treatments already being used at the top of a dose-response curve. Furthermore, studies use selected patient populations who consent to take part and consequently receive regular contact with healthcare professionals, with emphasis on using the correct inhaler technique and on compliance. These studies do not therefore necessarily reflect real life. It is possible that patient preferences or perceptions of differences in efficacy are behind complaints when devices are switched. Patients vary in their preference for different dry powder inhalers, as shown in numerous studies of patient attitudes. There is evidence to indicate that patient claims of differences between inhalers that contain the same molecule from different manufacturers may have an objective basis. Healthcare professionals increasingly recognise the impact of patient attitudes on adherence. Accepting that patients make choices about their therapy is an integral part of achieving the partnership in management recommended by guidelines. The most effective treatment will not achieve disease control if it is not used or if it is used incorrectly. It may be short-sighted to change a device that a patient has chosen to one that is just given without consent, as this may result in poor adherence to therapy with consequent loss of control.

Are the asthma guideline goals achieved in daily practice? A population-based study on treatment adequacy and the control of asthma

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for asthma recommend that the use of anti-inflammatory therapy should be adapted to the severity of the disease. However, few data are available to assess the adequacy of the use of drugs and its influence on the control of asthma in 'real life'.

METHODS

The adequacy of the current use of anti-asthmatic medication according to the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) guidelines was assessed in a random sample of 400 asthmatics identified in the frame of the Italian Study on Asthma in Young Adults. Asthma severity was assessed using the GINA criteria; accordingly, a patient was classified as receiving inadequate treatment if his/her current use of drugs was lower than that suggested by the guidelines for the corresponding severity level. The absence of asthma attacks in the last 3 months was used as an indicator of the disease control.

RESULTS

Fifty-five percent of the patients had persistent asthma. Overall, 48% (95% CI 41.2-54.8) of persistent asthmatics were receiving inadequate treatment, and 66% (95% CI 59.5-72.4) had not used their medication daily over the past 3 months. Persistent asthmatics who were inadequately treated had a significantly greater frequency of asthma attacks (geometric mean ratio 3.7; 95% CI 2.1-6.6) than those using an adequate dose of medication. Mild and moderate persistent asthmatics using an adequate medication regimen reported a low number of asthma attacks (median 0). At the multivariate analysis, a good control of the disease was positively associated with an adequate dose of anti-inflammatory medication (OR = 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-4.5) and was negatively associated with a later onset of asthma (OR = 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.99) and severe asthma (OR = 0.37; 95% CI 0.17-0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increase in the use of inhaled corticosteroids, half of the persistent asthmatics from the general population are using a medication regimen below their severity level. When the use of drugs follows the GINA guideline recommendations, a good control of asthma is also achievable in the daily management of the disease, particularly in the case of mild and moderate asthmatics.