Cost-Utility Analysis of the Inhaled Steroids Available in a Developing Country for the Management of Pediatric Patients with Persistent Asthma

As-Needed Inhaled Corticosteroid-Formoterol in a Single Inhaler Compared to Inhaled Corticosteroid-Albuterol in Separate Inhalers as Reliever Therapy in Mild Pediatric Asthma: A Cost-Utility Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Since 2019 as-needed low-dose ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler has been recommended for treatment of mild asthma in children aged more than 12 years. Alternatively, the use of ICS-albuterol has been proposed in countries where ICS-formoterol is not available or affordable. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-utility of as-needed ICS-albuterol in separate inhalers compared to ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler as reliever therapy in pediatric patients with mild asthma living in Colombia.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate the costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with mild asthma treated for 12 months. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from relevant randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that compared with the use of as-needed ICS-albuterol in separate inhalers, the use of ICS-formoterol in a single in pediatric patients with mild asthma was associated with lower costs (US$475.51 vs. 735.33 average cost per patient) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9367 vs. 0.9352 QALYs on average per patient), thus leading to dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the use of as-needed ICS-albuterol in separate inhalers, the use of ICS-formoterol in a single inhaler as reliever therapy is cost-effective in patients aged 12 years or more with mild asthma, because it showed a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

Genotype-driven asthma prescribing of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting β2-agonist: A cost-effectiveness analysis

INTRODUCTION

Predicting response to inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) + long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) by previously detecting the presence of Arg16Gly ADRB2 genotype is a strategy that could reduce and optimize the management of asthmatic patients. There is a need for economic evaluations to facilitate the implementation of such tests. This research aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Arg16Gly ADRB2 screening in children with asthma in Colombia.

METHODS

From the perspective of a third-party payer, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to determine the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of genotype-driven asthma prescribing based on the Arg16Gly ADRB2 genotype versus current treatment based on no genetic testing. Using four state-transition models, we estimate cost and QALYs employing micro-simulation modeling with a time horizon of 10 years and a cycle length of 1 week. Cost-effectiveness was assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of US$5180.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of strategy genetic testing versus no genetic testing is US$ -6809. The mean incremental benefit of strategy genetic testing is 16 QALYs. The incremental net monetary benefit of strategic genetic testing versus no genetic testing is US$ 88,893. Genetic testing is the strategy with the highest expected net benefit. The outcomes derived from our primary analysis remained robust when subjected to variations in all underlying assumptions and parameter values.

CONCLUSION

Genetic testing of Arg16Gly ADRB2 is a cost-effective strategy to address asthma management in asthmatic children requiring ICS+LABA. This result should encourage the generation of more evidence and the incorporation of such evidence into clinical practice guidelines for pediatric asthma.

Cost-utility analysis of prenatal supplementation with long-chain n-3 fatty acids to reduce the incidence of wheezing and asthma in neonates

INTRODUCTION

Recent evidence indicates that Maternal Supplementation with Long-Chain n-3 Fatty Acids During Pregnancy Substantially Mitigates Offspring's Asthma. Adding information regarding its cost-utility will undoubtedly allow its adoption, or not, in clinical practice guidelines. This research aimed to determine the cost-utility of LCPUFA supplementation in the third trimester of pregnancy to reduce the risk of wheezing and asthma in infants in Colombia.

METHODS

A Markov model was formulated to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) attributed to individuals with severe asthma in Colombia, with a time horizon of five years and a cycle length of two weeks. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and a value of information (VOI) analysis were conducted to evaluate the uncertainties in the case base. Cost-utility was assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of US$5180. All costs were adjusted to 2021 with a 5% annual discounting rate for cost and QALYs.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of LCPUFA supplementation versus no supplementation was US-43.65. The mean incremental benefit of LCPUFA supplementation versus no supplementation was 0.074 QALY. The incremental cost-utility ratio was estimated at US$590.68 per QALY. The outcomes derived from our primary analysis remained robust when subjected to variations in all underlying assumptions and parameter values.

CONCLUSION

Supplementation strategy supplementation with long-chain n-3 fatty acids during pregnancy is cost-effective in reducing the risk of developing asthma during childhood in Colombia.

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in childhood asthma: Real-world effectiveness and economic assessment

INTRODUCTION

The study aims to compare the real-world effectiveness and economy of the budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy (SMART) with fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/long-acting b-agonist (LABA) or ICS alone plus as-needed, short-acting β2 agonists (SABA) in pediatric patients.

METHODS

The outpatient data warehouse of a hospital in China was used. A total of 103 patients under 18 years old in the SMART group and 63 patients in the control group were included from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2021. The effectiveness was assessed using asthma attacks and lung function at baseline, 6 months and 12 months follow-up. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with a three-state Markov model from the healthcare system perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of the results.

RESULTS

The SMART regimen was more effective than other strategies in reducing the risk of mild and severe attacks in the real-life management of childhood asthma. Patients in both groups showed significant improvement in lung function at 6 and 12 months in contrast to baseline. Compared with other strategies, the forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1 ) level in the SMART group was markedly improved at 6 months. The total cost of outpatient service using the SMART regimen was lower than that of other strategies, while the drug costs were similar in different groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis results showed that using the SMART regimen reduced the total cost by approximately CNY 10,516.11 per year with a 0.12 quality-adjusted life year (QALYs) increase. Sensitive analyses supported that the SMART regimen was the dominant choice at the willingness-to-pay threshold of CNY 85,698, per capita GDP in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, our findings indicate that the real-world effectiveness and economy of the SMART regimen are superior to the traditional strategies in pediatric asthma patients.

Vitamin D supplementation for children with mild to moderate asthma: an economic evaluation

INTRODUCTION

A large proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids. Some add-on therapies such as vitamin D supplements have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-utility of vitamin D supplementation in children with mild to moderate persistent asthma in Colombia.

METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. The model was analyzed probabilistically, and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) value of US$5180.

RESULTS

The mean incremental cost of vitamin D supplementation versus no supplementation is USD $44.60. The mean incremental benefit of vitamin D supplementation versus no supplementation is 0.05 QALY. This position of absolute dominance (vitamin D supplementation has lower costs and higher QALYs than no supplementation) is unnecessary to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters.

CONCLUSION

Add-on therapy with vitamin D supplementation is a cost-effective strategy for patients between 6 and 17 years of age with mild to moderate asthma in Colombia.

Cost-effectiveness of Arg16Gly in ADRB2 pharmacogenomic-guided treatment for pediatric asthma

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of Arg16Gly ADRB2 pharmacogenomic testing compared with no Arg16Gly ADRB2 testing to guide the use of long-acting β2 receptor agonist (LABA) in asthma patients aged 1 to 5 years in China.

METHODS

This economic evaluation developed a Markov model with four health states (no exacerbation, mild exacerbation, moderate-to-severe exacerbation, and death). Transition probabilities were estimated from the rate of exacerbations, the case-fatality rate of patients hospitalized for exacerbations, and natural mortality. Costs included drug costs and exacerbation management costs. Cost inputs and utilities for each health state were gained from public databases and the literatures. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated for ten years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis, in contrast to the group without the genotype test, the incremental total cost was -¥334.7, and the incremental QALY was 0.001 in the Arg16Gly ADRB2 genotyping group. Therefore, the Arg16Gly ADRB2 test group was the dominant strategy for children with asthma in China. The sensitivity analyses showed that the model was relatively stable.

CONCLUSION

Arg16Gly ADRB2 testing before using LABA is a cost-effective approach compared with no gene testing for pediatric asthma.

Comparison of three alternatives for the management of moderate asthma in children aged 6-11 years: a cost-utility analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent asthma guidelines for children 6-11 years with persistent asthma advocate three alternatives: SMART (budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 mcg qd plus additional doses as needed), fixed combination of budesonide/formoterol, and fixed-dose budesonide. Concerns have arisen as to which of the proposed alternatives has the best possible cost-effectiveness profile. This study aimed to assess the health and economic consequences of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy in children 6-11 years old with 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 of SMART, fixed combination, and fixed-dose budesonide therapy were calculated over a time horizon of 6 years. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The mean QALY per patient was 0.57 and 0.56 QALYs per patient per year of SMART and fixed combination and 0,52 with fixed-dose budesonide. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$111 for SMART, US$133 for fixed combination, and US$67 for fixed-dose budesonide. The net monetary benefit of SMART was US$12,549, US$12278 for fixed combination, and US$11,380 for fixed-dose budesonide.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that SMART was more cost-effective than fixed combination and fixed-dose budesonide. These findings complement and support the GINA 2021 and National Asthma Education and Prevention Program asthma guideline recommendations for use of inhaled corticosteroids-formoterol in children 6-11 years old with persistent asthma.

The Use of Bacterial Lysate for the Prevention of Wheezing Episodes in Preschool Children: A Cost-Utility Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although increasing recent evidence has shown the efficacy of bacterial lysate therapy for the prevention of wheezing episodes and asthma exacerbations in pediatric patients, evidence of its cost-effectiveness in preschool patients is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-utility of bacterial lysate therapy as an add-on to standard care of preschool children with recurrent wheezing.

METHODS

To achieve the objectives of the study, we used a Markov simulation model with 3 mutually exclusive nonabsorbent states (regular Markov chain). Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a recent systematic review of the literature with meta-analyses (5 randomized controlled trials, 433 children). Cost data were obtained from hospital bills and from the national manual of drug prices in Colombia. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national health care system in Colombia. The main outcome of the model was quality-adjusted life-years. To assess the robustness of the model's results, we performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care was associated with lower overall treatment costs (US $694.03 vs $830.71 average cost per patient) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9211 vs 0.9154 QALYs on average per patient), thus showing dominance.

CONCLUSIONS

In Colombia, compared with standard care, bacterial lysate add-on therapy to standard care for treating preschool children with recurrent wheezing is a dominant strategy because it showed a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment costs.

Dupilumab in children with moderate-to-severe asthma: A cost utility analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dupilumab is an effective and safe medicine for the management of severe asthma. Due to its high cost, concerns are generated regarding its cost-effectiveness. This study aimed to estimate the cost-utility of dupilumab plus standard of care (SoC) versus SoC alone in children between 6 and 11 years old with severe asthma and eosinophilic phenotype.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 6-year period. To determine the robustness of the model deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per patient estimated were 0.85 with dupilumab and 0.84 with SoC. The total mean of discounted costs per patient per cycle were US$ 379 for dupilumab and US$ 19 for SoC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated was $24 660 US$ per QALY CONCLUSION: Dupilumab is not cost-effective in Colombia in children between 6 and 11 years old with severe asthma and eosinophilic phenotype. Our evidence should motivate regulatory agencies to improve negotiations for new drugs with better information and evidence.

Tiotropium for children and adolescents with severe asthma

IntroductionAn important proportion of asthma patients remain uncontrolled despite using inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta-agonists. Some add-on therapies, such as tiotropium bromide have been recommended for this subgroup of patients. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of tiotropium as add-on therapies to ICS + LABA for children and adolescents with uncontrolled allergic asthma.MethodsA probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with severe asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYS of two interventions including standard therapy (ICS + LABA), and add-on therapy with tiotropium, were calculated over a time horizon from 6 to 18 years. Probability sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsFor a patient with severe asthma, our markov model showed that compared to standard therapy, add-on therapy with tiotropium was associated with higher treatment costs and QALY . The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimated was US$2,017 in the probabilistic model after Monte-Carlo simulation. Our base-case results were robust to variations in all assumptions and parameters. The incremental net monetary benefit of US$327 with a 95% credible interval of US$396 to US425.ConclusionAdd-on therapy with tiotropium was cost-effective when added to usual care in children and adolescents with severe asthma who remained uncontrolled despite treatment with medium or high-dose ICS/LABA. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide and eosinophil count in induced sputum to guide the management of children with asthma: a cost-utility analysis

Introduction

Previous evidence has shown that fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) and eosinophil count in induced sputum (EO) are cost-effective relative to standard of care in guiding the management of children with persistent asthma. There is some doubt as if there are differences between these two biomarkers in terms of costs and benefits. Clarifying this doubt would allow prioritization of the design of clinical practice guidelines. The study aimed to compare in terms of costs and benefits these biomarkers in patients with asthma between 4 and 18 years of age.

Methods

A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-utility of asthma management using FeNO and EO in patients between 4 and 18 years of age. Transition probabilities, cost and utilities were estimated from previously published local studies, while relative risks were obtained from the systematic review of published randomized clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective.

Results

The expected annual cost per patient with EO was US $1376 (CI 95% US $1376–US $1377) and for FeNO was US $1934 (CI 95% US $1333–US $1334), with a difference of US $42.3 between these strategies. The Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person estimated with EO was 0.95 (CI 95% 0.951–0.952) and for FeNO was 0.94 (CI 95% 0.930–0.940), with a difference of 0.01 between these strategies. The NMB with EO was US $4902 (CI 95% 4900–4904) and for FeNO was US $4841 (CI 95% 4839–4843). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EO was $3566 per QALY gained regarding FeNO.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that induced sputum-guided management is a strategy cost-effective over FeNO and standard asthma management in Colombia. This evidence should encourage the adoption of any of these techniques to objectively guide the management of children with asthma in routine clinical practice in low-resource settings.

Cost Utility of Intermittent Inhaled Corticosteroids in Preschoolers with Viral-Triggered Wheeze

Background: Evidence has demonstrated that adding intermittent inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) to treatment with short-acting b2-agonists (SABAs) in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent viral-induced wheezing (VIW) reduces the risk of severe exacerbations. However, there is concern about whether the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intermittent ICS in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW. Methods: We constructed a probabilistic Markov model to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of intermittent ICS compared with SABA reliever therapy in preschoolers with viral-triggered wheezing in Colombia. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $5,180. Results: In an analysis of the Markov cohort model, we estimated a gain of 0.2 QALYs per patient per year on intermittent ICS compared with SABA and a reduction of cost per patient of USD $37 per year. This position of dominance negated the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. Conclusion: Adding intermittent ICS to treatment with SABAs in children 5 years of age and younger who experience intermittent VIW was found to be cost effective. These results could improve the use of health care resources, especially in settings with limited economic resources.

Levalbuterol vs. albuterol for hospitalized patients with COPD in China: cost-utility and budget impact analysis

OBJECTIVES

For hospitalized patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), albuterol and levalbuterol can both be used as relievers to alleviate bronchoconstriction. This study aimed to evaluate levalbuterol and albuterol's cost-utility and budget impact in hospitalized patients with COPD.

INTERVENTIONS

A cost-utility analysis was used to evaluate the impact on the costs of nebulized levalbuterol verse albuterol in hospitalized patients with COPD. The decision tree model was employed to estimate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year in the admission setting. A budget impact model was used to examine the impact of budget on levalbuterol's entry into the Chinese market from the healthcare system's perspective. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the uncertainty of the parameters.

RESULTS

The cost-utility results showed that levalbuterol saved ¥495.7 ($105.1) per hospitalization, while the budget impact analysis revealed a potential saving of ¥22.3 ($6.8) million in 3 years. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust to the changes in input parameter values.

CONCLUSION

Levalbuterol is a cost-saving option for treating hospitalized patients with COPD in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dupilumab among patients with oral corticosteroid-dependent uncontrolled severe asthma in Japan

Background: Asthma is a common, chronic inflammatory airway disorder, with up to 1,177,000 people receiving asthma treatment in Japan. Dupilumab is a first-in-class, monoclonal antibody for the treatment of atopic diseases, including persistent asthma. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dupilumab, compared with other biologics, as add-on treatment to background therapy in patients aged ≥12 years with uncontrolled, persistent asthma in Japan.Methods: A life-time Markov cohort model was used to conduct cost-effectiveness analysis from the Japanese healthcare payer perspective with an annual discount rate of 2%. Dupilumab was compared with benralizumab and mepolizumab, and against omalizumab (as a hypothetical scenario). Inputs were informed by dupilumab clinical trials (VENTURE [NCT02528214] and QUEST [NCT02414854] trials), the literature, official Japanese sources and expert opinions.Results: The base case results suggest that treatment with dupilumab leads to fewer severe exacerbations and increased life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) than benralizumab and mepolizumab. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 per QALY gained, dupilumab was the dominant strategy (lower cost, increased QALYs) versus benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab with an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥1,010,921 (US$9,190, US$1=¥110). Versus omalizumab, dupilumab was not cost-effective (ICER of ¥10,802,368 [US$98,203]).Conclusions: In Japan, dupilumab, as an add-on to background therapy, is economically dominant compared with benralizumab, and cost-effective versus mepolizumab.

Cost-utility of omalizumab for the treatment of uncontrolled moderate-to-severe persistent pediatric allergic asthma in a middle-income country

OBJECTIVES

Although several randomized clinical trials performed in children 6 years and older with Omalizumab as add-on therapy have reported improvements in diverse clinical outcomes, the evidence regarding its cost effectiveness is not sufficient, especially in less-affluent countries, where the clinical and economic burden of the disease is the greatest. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-utility analysis of adding omalizumab to standard treatment for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma in Colombia, a middle-income country (MIC).

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 5-year period. The effectiveness data and transition probabilities were obtained from various sources, including systematic reviews with meta-analysis. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The study was carried out from the perspective of the national healthcare system in Colombia. The main outcome was the variable ''quality-adjusted life-years'' (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the cost-utility analysis showed that compared with the standard treatment strategy, the omalizumab strategy involved higher costs (US$72,142.3 vs. $20,243.4 average cost per patient) and greater gain in QALYs (0.8718 vs. 0.8222 QALYs on average per patient). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of omalizumab compared with standard treatment was US$82,748.1 per QALY CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that in Colombia, an MIC, compared with standard treatment, omalizumab is not a cost-effective strategy for treating pediatric patients with uncontrolled severe allergic asthma.

Cost utility of fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring for the management of children asthma

Introduction

Fractional exhaled nitric oxide is a simple, non-invasive measurement of airway inflammation with minimal discomfort to the patient and with results available within a few minutes. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring in patients between 4 and 18 years of age.

Methods

A Markov model was used to estimate the cost-utility of asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring versus asthma management without using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring (standard therapy) in patients between 4 and 18 years of age. Cost data were obtained from a retrospective study on asthma from a tertiary center, in Medellin, Colombia, while probabilities of the Markov model and utilities were obtained from the systematic review of published randomized clinical trials. The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective.

Results

The model showed that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was associated with a lower total cost than standard therapy (US $1333 vs. US $1452 average cost per patient) and higher QALYs (0.93 vs. 0.92 average per patient). The probability that fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for all willingness-to-pay thresholds.

Conclusion

Asthma management using fractional exhaled nitric oxide monitoring was cost-effective for treating patients between 4 and 18 years of age with mild to moderate allergic asthma. Our study suggests evidence that could be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines, but this should be replicated in different clinical settings.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of double low-dose budesonide and low-dose budesonide plus montelukast among pediatric patients with persistent asthma receiving Step 3 treatment in China

AIMS

For children aged 1-5 years with persistent asthma, double low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) are recommended as the preferred Step 3 treatment and low-dose ICS plus leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) as an alternative. Budesonide inhalation suspension (0.5 mg daily) and montelukast (4.0 mg daily) are commonly used low-dose ICS and LTRA, respectively, among children in China. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of double low-dose budesonide vs. low-dose budesonide plus montelukast from a Chinese healthcare payer's perspective.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed with four health states (i.e. no exacerbation, mild exacerbation, moderate-to-severe exacerbation, and death). Transition probabilities were estimated based on exacerbation rates, case-fatality of hospitalized patients due to exacerbation, and natural mortality. Treatment adherence was considered and assumed to impact both drug costs and exacerbation rates. Costs (in 2019 Chinese Yuan [¥]) included drug costs and exacerbation management costs. Cost inputs and utilities for each health state were obtained from a public database and the literature. In-depth interviews were conducted with a health economics expert to validate the model, and a clinical expert to verify inputs and assumptions related to clinical practice. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated over a year. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Compared with low-dose budesonide plus montelukast, double low-dose budesonide was associated with lower costs (¥1,534 vs. ¥2,327), fewer exacerbation events (0.43 vs. 1.67) and slightly better QALYs (0.98 vs. 0.97). Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results and the generalizability of findings across geographic regions in China.

CONCLUSION

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that double low-dose budesonide is a dominant Step 3 treatment strategy compared with low-dose budesonide plus montelukast for patients aged 1-5 years with persistent asthma in China.

The cost-effectiveness of low-dose budesonide as a Step 2 treatment for pediatric asthma in China

Aim: To compare the cost-effectiveness of low-dose budesonide versus montelukast among patients aged 1-5 years from a Chinese patient and healthcare payer perspective. Materials & methods: A Markov model based on exacerbation states was developed. Exacerbation was defined as the need for rescue therapy (mild exacerbation) or hoscopitalization (moderate-to-severe exacerbation). Inputs including efficacy (i.e., exacerbation rates), mortality, utilities, costs and treatment adherence were obtained from literature. Results: Compared with montelukast, low-dose budesonide led to fewer exacerbation events (1.44 vs 2.15), lower costs (¥3675 vs 4130) and slightly more quality-adjusted life years (0.974 vs 0.967) over 1 year. Conclusion: These findings may improve the use of low-dose budesonide, an economically and clinically preferable treatment to montelukast in pediatric patients.

Cost-utility analysis of an integrated care program for children with asthma in a medium-income country

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-utility of an integrated care program (ASMAIRE Infantil Program [PAI]) for children with asthma compared with standard of care.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was used to compare an integrated care program compared to the standard of care in children with asthma in Bogota, Colombia. Baseline characteristics of the patients were established according to the distribution of patients in the PAI database. Other inputs were obtained from published meta-analysis, local registries, medical bills, general mortality data, and expert opinion. Costs were presented in 2017 Colombian pesos. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs and outcomes were discounted by 5% per year. Incremental cost-utility ratios were presented for PAI compared with standard of care. Univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess model robustness to parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

The model predicted that patients that are part of the PAI would accrue more QALYs than patients on standard of care. The incremental results suggest that the PAI is a cost-effective treatment (incremental cost-utility ratio of Colombian pesos $33 753 817/QALY) compared with standard of care. Sensitivity analyses suggest that results are most sensitive to cost of care (with and without PAI) and costs of severe exacerbation. However, the PAI is cost-effective irrespective of variation in any of the input parameters.

CONCLUSION

Our model predicted that an integrated intervention for the management of asthma in pediatric patients improves QALYs, reduces number of disease related exacerbations compared to standard therapy and is cost-effective for the long-term control of the disease in Colombia.

Cost-utility of use of sputum eosinophil counts to guide management in children with asthma

BACKGROUND

Tailoring asthma interventions based on sputum eosinophils are beneficial in reducing the frequency of asthma exacerbations. The routine use of sputum eosinophils in asthma in children is not uniformly adopted. The main barriers to policymakers adopting new technologies are always doubts about their cost-utility in scenarios with scarce health resources. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of sputum eosinophil counts to guide management in children with asthma, from a societal perspective.

METHODS

A Markov simulation with three mutually exclusive nonabsorbent states was used. The intervention evaluated was adjustment of asthma therapy based on sputum eosinophils to adjusting therapy based on clinical symptoms with or without spirometry/peak flow in children between 4 and 18 years of age (EO). The group comparison was adjusting therapy based on clinical symptoms with or without spirometry/peak flow (SC). The analysis was carried out from a societal perspective. The analytic horizon was 12 months.

RESULTS

The model showed that EO was associated with lower cost than SC (US $1375 vs US $1454 average annual cost per patient), and higher QALYs (0.95 vs 0.92 average per patient); showing dominance. The probability that EO provides a more cost-effective use of resources compared with standard therapy exceeds 99% for all willingness to pay thresholds.

CONCLUSION

EO was cost-effective for infants with asthma to guide asthma management in Children. Our study provides evidence that should be used by decision-makers to improve clinical practice guidelines and should be replicated to validate their results in other middle-income countries.

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.

Asthma Cost-Effectiveness Analyses: Are We Using the Recommended Outcomes in Estimating Value?

BACKGROUND

Asthma medication cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) lack the qualitative assessment regarding whether they capture the National Institutes for Health (NIH) 2012 recommended outcomes necessary to allow robust cross-study comparisons.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the current asthma outcomes used in CEAs and recommend a direction for improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search using electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane, and NHSEED from January 2010 through December 2015. Key words included (1) cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, economic evaluation, health economics, or cost-benefit AND (2) asthma. All CEA studies evaluating 1 or more asthma medication were included. Authors assessed each CEA study with respect to asthma-specific NIH outcome recommendations including core (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, medication, interventions costs), supplemental (visit categories and work/school absence), and emerging (academic/job-related) asthma outcomes. Besides outcomes of each CEA, issues that could prevent robust cross-study comparison were identified and thematically summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 12 pre-NIH and 14 post-NIH recommendation CEAs were included. Eleven (91.7%) and 14 (100%) of the pre-/post-NIH studies included at least 1 core outcome, respectively. Of the 26 total studies, 7 (26.9%) included asthma-specific outpatient visit categories, 6 (23.1%) included asthma school or work absences, 5 (19.2%) included respiratory health care use, and none of the studies included emerging outcomes. Other issues that hamper cross-study comparison include lack of standardized cost data, time frames, quality-of-life measures, and incorporation of adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the use of NIH-recommended asthma core outcomes has improved, there is still room for improvement in using supplemental and emerging outcomes. To allow robust cross-study comparisons, future work should focus on further standardizing of data sources and methods.

A cost-effectiveness threshold analysis of a multidisciplinary structured educational intervention in pediatric asthma

OBJECTIVE

Asthma educational interventions have been shown to improve several clinically and economically important outcomes. However, these interventions are costly in themselves and could lead to even higher disease costs. A cost-effectiveness threshold analysis would be helpful in determining the threshold value of the cost of educational interventions, leading to these interventions being cost-effective. The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-effectiveness threshold analysis to determine the level at which the cost of a pediatric asthma educational intervention would be cost-effective and cost-saving.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients with persistent asthma treated over a 12-month period. Effectiveness parameters were obtained from a single uncontrolled before-and-after study performed with Colombian asthmatic children. Cost data were obtained from official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

A deterministic threshold sensitivity analysis showed that the asthma educational intervention will be cost-saving to the health system if its cost is under US$513.20. Additionally, the analysis showed that the cost of the intervention would have to be below US$967.40 in order to be cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified the level at which the cost of a pediatric asthma educational intervention will be cost-effective and cost-saving for the health system in Colombia. Our findings could be a useful aid for decision makers in efficiently allocating limited resources when planning asthma educational interventions for pediatric patients.

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

OBJECTIVE

To test the association of clinical evidence type, efficacy-based or effectiveness-based ("E"), versus whether or not asthma interventions' cost-effectiveness findings are favorable.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, Tufts CEA registry, Cochrane CENTRAL, and the UK National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database from 2009 to 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

All cost-effectiveness studies evaluating asthma medication(s) were included. Clinical evidence type, "E," was classified as efficacy-based if the evidence was from an explanatory randomized controlled trial(s) or meta-analysis, while evidence from pragmatic trial(s) or observational study(s) was classified as effectiveness-based. We defined three times the World Health Organization cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold or less as a favorable cost-effectiveness finding. Logistic regression tested the likelihood of favorable versus unfavorable cost-effectiveness findings against the type of "E."

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.

Cost-utility analysis of once-daily versus twice-daily inhaled corticosteroid dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

Suboptimal adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICs) is an important cause of poor asthma control in pediatric patients. Among the factors that can be most easily changed for enhancing adherence to ICs is a reduction in the dosing frequency, from twice-daily dosing to once-daily dosing. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for pediatric asthma. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of once-daily versus twice-daily IC dosing for maintenance treatment of asthma in pediatric patients.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients 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 official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily dosing strategy involved lower costs (US$1529.3 versus $1709.1 average cost per patient over 12 months) and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.8284 versus 0.8084 QALYs on average per patient over 12 months), resulting in once-daily dosing strategy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that compared with twice-daily dosing, once-daily IC dosing for treating pediatric patients with persistent asthma is the dominant strategy because it involves a greater gain in QALYs at lower total treatment cost.

Systematic review of models used in economic analyses in moderate-to-severe asthma and COPD

BACKGROUND

Respiratory diseases exert a substantial burden on society, with newer drugs increasingly adding to the burden. Economic models are often used, but seldom reviewed.

PURPOSE

To summarize economic models used in economic analyses of drugs treating moderate-to-severe/very severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

This study searched Medline and Embase from inception to the end of February 2015 for cost-effectiveness/utility analyses that examined at least one drug against placebo, another drug, or other standard therapy in asthma or COPD. Two reviewers independently searched and extracted data with differences adjudicated via consensus discussion. Data extracted included model used and its qualities, validation methods, treatments compared, disease severity, analytic perspective, time horizon, data collection (pro- or retrospective), input rates and sources, costs and sources, planned sensitivity analyses, criteria for cost-effectiveness, reported outcomes, and sponsor.

RESULTS

This study analyzed 53 articles; 14 (25%) on asthma and 39 (75%) COPD. Markov models were commonly used for both asthma and COPD-related economic evaluations. Relatively few studies validated their model. For asthma-related studies, 10 examined inhaled corticosteroids and nine studied omalizumab. Placebo or standard therapy was the comparison in 11 studies and active drugs in the remainder.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies include validation of their models. Furthermore, controversy concerning some results was uncovered in this study, which needs to be avoided in the future.

Cost-utility analysis of daily versus intermittent inhaled corticosteroids in mild-persistent asthma

INTRODUCTION

Despite the many benefits that have been demonstrated by the continuous administration of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in persistent asthma, a new strategy for mild-asthma is emerging, consisting of using intermittent or as-needed ICS treatment in conjunction with short-acting beta2 agonists in response to symptoms. However, no previous studies have reported an economic evaluation comparing these two therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A Markov-type model was developed in order to estimate costs and health outcomes of a simulated cohort of pediatric patients 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 official databases provided by the Colombian Ministry of Health. The main outcome was the variable "quality-adjusted life-years" (QALYs).

RESULTS

For the base-case analysis, the model showed that compared to intermittent ICS, daily therapy with ICS had lower costs (US$437.02 vs. 585.03 and US$704.62 vs. 749.81 average cost per patient over 12 months for school children and preschoolers, respectively), and the greatest gain in QALYs (0.9629 vs. 0.9392 QALYs and 0.9238 vs. 0.9130 QALYS for school children and preschoolers, respectively), resulting in daily therapy being considered dominant.

CONCLUSIONS

The present analysis shows that compared to intermittent therapy, daily therapy with ICS for treating pediatric patients with recurrent wheezing and mild persistent asthma is a dominant strategy (more cost effective), because it showed a greater gain in QALYs with lower total treatment costs.

Asthma in Latin America

Consistent with the diversity of Latin America, there is profound variability in asthma burden among and within countries in this region. Regional variation in asthma prevalence is likely multifactorial and due to genetics, perinatal exposures, diet, obesity, tobacco use, indoor and outdoor pollutants, psychosocial stress and microbial or parasitic infections. Similarly, non-uniform progress in asthma management leads to regional variability in disease morbidity. Future studies of distinct asthma phenotypes should follow-up well-characterised Latin American subgroups and examine risk factors that are unique or common in Latin America (eg, stress and violence, parasitic infections and use of biomass fuels for cooking). Because most Latin American countries share the same barriers to asthma management, concerted and multifaceted public health and research efforts are needed, including approaches to curtail tobacco use, campaigns to improve asthma treatment, broadening access to care and clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions (eg, replacing biomass fuels with gas or electric stoves).