Budget Impact Analysis of Using Dihydroartemisinin-Piperaquine to Treat Uncomplicated Malaria in Children in Tanzania

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DhP) is a very cost effective anti-malarial drug. The aim of this study was to predict the budget impact of using DhP as a first- or second-line drug to treat uncomplicated malaria in children in Tanzania.

METHODS

A dynamic Markov decision model was developed based on clinical and epidemiological data to estimate annual cases of malaria in children aged under 5 years. The model was used to predict the budget impact of introducing DhP as the first- or second-line anti-malarial drug, from the perspective of the National Malaria Control Program in 2014; thus, only the cost of drugs and diagnostics were considered. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to explore overall uncertainties in input parameters.

RESULTS

The model predicts that the policy that uses artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and DhP as the first- and second-line drugs (AL + DhP), respectively, will save about $US64,423 per year, while achieving a 3% reduction in the number of malaria cases, compared with that of AL + quinine. However, the policy that uses DhP as the first-line drug (DhP + AL) will consume an additional $US780,180 per year, while achieving a further 5% reduction in the number of malaria cases, compared with that of AL + DhP.

CONCLUSION

The use of DhP as the second-line drug to treat uncomplicated malaria in children in Tanzania is slightly cost saving. However, the policy that uses DhP as the first-line drug is somewhat more expensive but with more health benefits.

Economic benefits associated with beta blocker persistence in the treatment of hypertension: a retrospective database analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the association between medical costs and persistence with beta blockers among hypertensive patients, and to quantify persistence related medical cost differences with nebivolol, which is associated with improved tolerability, versus other beta blockers.

METHODS

Adults who initiated hypertension treatment with a beta blocker were identified from the MarketScan * claims database (2008-2012). Patients were classified based on their first beta blocker use: nebivolol, atenolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and other beta blockers. Patients with compelling indications for atenolol, carvedilol or metoprolol (acute coronary syndrome and congestive heart failure) were excluded. Patients enrolled in health maintenance organization or capitated point of service insurance plans were also excluded. Persistence was defined as continuous use of the index drug (<60 day gap). The average effect of persistence on medical costs (2012 USD) was estimated using generalized linear models (GLMs). Regression estimates were used to predict medical cost differences associated with persistence between nebivolol and the other cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 587,424 hypertensive patients met the inclusion criteria. Each additional month of persistence with any one beta blocker was associated with $152.51 in all-cause medical cost savings; continuous treatment for 1 year was associated with $1585.98 in all-cause medical cost savings. Patients treated with nebivolol had longer persistence during the 1 year study period (median: 315 days) than all other beta blockers (median: 156-292 days). Longer persistence with nebivolol translated into $305.74 all-cause medical cost savings relative to all other beta blockers.

LIMITATIONS

The results may not be generalizable to hypertensive patients with acute coronary syndrome or congestive heart failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer persistence with beta blockers for the treatment of hypertension was associated with lower medical costs. There may be greater cost savings due to better persistence with nebivolol than other beta blockers.

Economic impact of switching from metoprolol to nebivolol for hypertension treatment: a retrospective database analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the real-world economic impact of switching hypertensive patients from metoprolol, a commonly prescribed, generic, non-vasodilatory β1-blocker, to nebivolol, a branded-protected vasodilatory β1-blocker.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis with a pre-post study design was conducted using the MarketScan database (2007-2011). Hypertensive patients continuously treated with metoprolol for ≥6 months (pre-period) and then switched to nebivolol for ≥6 months (post-period) were identified. The index date for switching was defined as the first nebivolol dispensing date. Data were collected for the two 6-month periods pre- and post-switching. Monthly healthcare resource utilization and healthcare costs pre- and post-switching were calculated and compared using Wilcoxon test and paired t-test. Medical costs at different years were inflated to the 2011 dollar.

RESULTS

In total, 2259 patients (mean age: 60 years; male: 52%; cardiovascular [CV] disease: 37%) met the selection criteria. Switching to nebivolol was associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of all-cause hospitalization (-33%; p < 0.01), CV-related hospitalizations (-60%; p < 0.01), and outpatient visits (-7%; p < 0.01). Monthly inpatient costs were reduced by $111 (p < 0.01), while monthly drug costs increased by $52 (p < 0.01). No statistically significant differences were found in overall costs and costs of outpatient or ER visits. Sensitivity analyses, conducted using various lengths of medication exposure, controlling for spill-over effect or excluding patients with compelling indications for metoprolol, all found some level of reduction in resource utilization and no significant difference in overall healthcare costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world study suggests that switching from metoprolol to nebivolol is associated with an increase in medication costs and significant reductions in hospitalizations and outpatient visits upon switching, resulting in an overall neutral effect on healthcare costs. These results may be interpreted with caution due to lack of a comparator group and confounding control caused by design and limitations inherent in insurance claims data.

A US database study characterizing patients initiating a budesonide-formoterol combination versus tiotropium bromide as initial maintenance therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVE

To compare clinical and demographic characteristics, resource utilization and costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients prior to initiating budesonide-formoterol combination (BFC) or tiotropium-maintenance therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study used claims-based diagnosis to identify COPD patients in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database who initiated BFC or tiotropium therapy between March 1, 2009 and January 31, 2012 (intake period); the index date was defined as the initial prescription fill for either agent. Patients diagnosed with respiratory tract cancer or receiving inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting β2-adrenergic agonists or tiotropium in 12 months prior to index date were excluded. Categorical variables were evaluated with χ(2) tests; mean cost differences were evaluated using γ-regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 6,940 BFC and 10,831 tiotropium patients were identified. The BFC group was younger (mean age 64 versus 67 years), with a greater proportion of females (54% versus 51%). BFC-treated patients had more comorbid respiratory conditions, including asthma (25% versus 13%), but fewer comorbid cardiovascular conditions, including atherosclerosis (7% versus 10%) and myocardial infarction (4% versus 6%). A greater proportion of BFC patients received prior respiratory medication, including oral corticosteroids (46% versus 35%) and short-acting β2-agonists (44% versus 35%). Tiotropium-treated patients had a greater mean number of COPD-related outpatient visits (4.6 versus 4.1). BFC-treated patients had lower total all-cause ($17,259 versus $17,926) and COPD-related ($1,718 versus $1,930) health care costs, driven by lower all-cause and COPD-related inpatient expenditures.

CONCLUSION

Initiators of BFC or tiotropium showed differences in clinical and demographic characteristics and health care utilization and costs prior to starting COPD maintenance therapy.

Assessing the chiral switch: approval and use of single-enantiomer drugs, 2001 to 2011

OBJECTIVES

A "chiral switch" occurs in the pharmaceutical market when a drug made up of 2 enantiomer forms is replaced with a purified single-enantiomer version, often in the context of a patent expiration. We studied the prevalence of chiral switching in the United States over the past decade, including trends in use of, and expenditures on, these products in Medicaid.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

METHODS

We used US Adopted Names prefixes (lev/levo/ar/es/dex/dextro) to identify all single-enantiomer drugs approved from 2001 to 2011. From publicly available US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval documents, we extracted the characteristics of the pivotal premarket trials for the single enantiomers. Specifically, we evaluated whether the single enantiomer was directly compared with the precursor racemic drug and whether there was evidence of superior efficacy. We used quarterly drug expenditure data from each state Medicaid program to chart trends in use of, and spending on, the single-enantiomer products and their racemic precursors during the study period.

RESULTS

From 2001 to 2011, the FDA approved 9 single-enantiomer products: dexlansoprazole, levoleucovorin, levocetirizine, armodafinil, arformoterol, eszopiclone, escitalopram, dexmethylphenidate, and esomeprazole. Of those 9 drugs, 3 had at least 1 pre-approval randomized trial that included the racemic precursor as a direct comparator, but there was no evidence of superiority of the single enantiomer over the racemic at comparable doses. Between 2001 and 2011, US Medicaid programs spent approximately $6.3 billion on these 9 single-enantiomer drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recently approved single-enantiomer drugs showed no evidence of superior efficacy over the older racemic precursors in the pivotal trials leading to their approval, and in a majority of cases, they were not directly compared.

Beyond antimalarial stock-outs: implications of health provider compliance on out-of-pocket expenditure during care-seeking for fever in South East Tanzania

BACKGROUND

To better understand how stock-outs of the first line antimalarial, Artemisinin-based Combination Therapy (ACT) and other non-compliant health worker behaviour, influence household expenditures during care-seeking for fever in the Ulanga District in Tanzania.

METHODS

We combined weekly ACT stock data for the period 2009-2011 from six health facilities in the Ulanga District in Tanzania, together with household data from 333 respondents on the cost of fever care-seeking in Ulanga during the same time period to establish how health seeking behaviour and expenditure might vary depending on ACT availability in their nearest health facility.

RESULTS

Irrespective of ACT stock-outs, more than half (58%) of respondents sought initial care in the public sector, the remainder seeking care in the private sector where expenditure was higher by 19%. Over half (54%) of respondents who went to the public sector reported incidences of non-compliant behaviour by the attending health worker (e.g. charging those who were eligible for free service or referring patients to the private sector despite ACT stock), which increased household expenditure per fever episode from USD0.14 to USD1.76. ACT stock-outs were considered to be the result of non-compliant behaviour of others in the health system and increased household expenditure by 21%; however we lacked sufficient statistical power to confirm this finding.

CONCLUSION

System design and governance challenges in the Tanzanian health system have resulted in numerous ACT stock-outs and frequent non-compliant public sector health worker behaviour, both of which increase out-of-pocket health expenditure. Interventions are urgently needed to ensure a stable supply of ACT in the public sector and increase health worker accountability.

Awareness of anti-malarial policy and malaria treatment practices of patent medicine vendors in three Nigerian states

INTRODUCTION

This paper assesses Patent Medicine Vendors' (PMVs) practices, awareness of new Nigerian Artemisinin Combination Therapy (ACT) policy, the anti-malarial drugs in stock and how the PMVs identify fake drugs.

METHODOLOGY

PMVs and medicine shops were selected through a multi-stage random sampling process, beginning with the purposive selection of three states that reflect major geographic and ethnolinguistic areas of Nigeria: Oyo (Southwest-Yoruba), Kaduna (Northcentral-Hausa), and Enugu (Southeast-Igbo). Local Government Areas (LGAs) in selected states were stratified into urban and rural strata, with two LGAs randomly sampled from each stratum in each state, and one ward (urban LGAs) or community (rural LGAs) randomly sampled from a list in each LGA. A complete listing of PMVs and drug shops was constructed at each site, yielding 111 PMVs and 106 medicine shops. Out of this number, a total of 110 PMVs consented to be interviewed.

RESULTS

Some PMVs (43.1%) were aware of the 2005 government policy that changed the recommended first-line treatment for malaria from chloroquine (CQ) to ACT, but significant differences were found between states (p < 0.001). PMV shops stocked many brands of anti-malarial drugs (average 5.5 brands), with ACTs stocked in only 8.5% of the stores at a mean price of N504 ($4) per treatment, compared to sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (92% of shops, mean price of N90 ($0.7) and even monotherapy artesunates (32% of shops, mean price of N39 ($0.3). The PMVs identify a drug not bearing the National Agency for Food & Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) identification number as being fake or counterfeit.

CONCLUSION

PMVs need to be a part of the strategy to change treatment to ACTs if there are to be meaningful changes in the anti-malarial drugs that Nigerians receive.

The impact of retail-sector delivery of artemether-lumefantrine on malaria treatment of children under five in Kenya: a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) be subsidised in the private sector in order to improve affordability and access. This study in western Kenya aimed to evaluate the impact of providing subsidized artemether-lumefantrine (AL) through retail providers on the coverage of prompt, effective antimalarial treatment for febrile children aged 3-59 months.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We used a cluster-randomized, controlled design with nine control and nine intervention sublocations, equally distributed across three districts in western Kenya. Cross-sectional household surveys were conducted before and after the delivery of the intervention. The intervention comprised provision of subsidized packs of paediatric ACT to retail outlets, training of retail outlet staff, and community awareness activities. The primary outcome was defined as the proportion of children aged 3-59 months reporting fever in the past 2 weeks who started treatment with AL on the same day or following day of fever onset. Data were collected using structured questionnaires and analyzed based on cluster-level summaries, comparing control to intervention arms, while adjusting for other covariates. Data were collected on 2,749 children in the target age group at baseline and 2,662 at follow-up. 29% of children experienced fever within 2 weeks before the interview. At follow-up, the percentage of children receiving AL on the day of fever or the following day had risen by 14.6% points in the control arm (from 5.3% [standard deviation (SD): 3.2%] to 19.9% [SD: 10.0%]) and 40.2% points in the intervention arm (from 4.7% [SD: 3.4%] to 44.9% [SD: 11.7%]). The percentage of children receiving AL was significantly greater in the intervention arm at follow-up, with a difference between the arms of 25.0% points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.1%, 35.9%; unadjusted p = 0.0002, adjusted p = 0.0001). No significant differences were observed between arms in the proportion of caregivers who sought treatment for their child's fever by source, or in the child's adherence to AL.

CONCLUSIONS

Subsidizing ACT in the retail sector can significantly increase ACT coverage for reported fevers in rural areas. Further research is needed on the impact and cost-effectiveness of such subsidy programmes at a national scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59275137 and Kenya Pharmacy and Poisons Board Ethical Committee for Clinical Trials PPB/ECCT/08/07.

Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium bromide versus placebo added to tiotropium bromide in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Australian, Canadian and Swedish healthcare perspectives

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a progressive inflammatory lung disease associated with increasing morbidity and mortality and an economic burden that stretches beyond the patient to healthcare systems. Avoiding exacerbations and subsequent hospitalizations is an important clinical aim and can avoid significant costs associated with the disease. International guidelines recommend the addition of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) to a long-acting β₂-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) for patients with severe to very severe COPD and a history of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate retrospectively over a 3-month period, the cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium bromide (tiotropium) compared with placebo added to tiotropium in COPD patients eligible for ICS/LABA combination therapy, based on the CLIMB study (NCT00496470).

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis of data from the 12-week, randomized, double-blind CLIMB study of COPD patients (n = 659; eligible for ICS/LABA; aged ≥ 40 years) comparing budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort® Turbuhaler® 320/9 μg twice daily) added to tiotropium (18 μg daily) or placebo added to tiotropium was conducted. A severe exacerbation was defined as a requirement for systemic glucocorticosteroids and/or ED visit and/or hospitalization. The effectiveness variable used for this analysis was the number of severe exacerbations avoided. Direct costs (medications, hospitalizations, ED and GP visits) were calculated by applying year 2009 unit costs from Australia ($A), Canada ($Can) and Sweden (Swedish krona [SEK]) to the study's pooled resource use. One-way sensitivity analyses for each country's mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and sensitivity to overall exacerbations were conducted. Bootstrapping was performed to estimate the variation around resource use, exacerbations and each country's mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

RESULTS

The mean number of severe exacerbations per patient 3-month period was 0.11 in the budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium arm and 0.29 in the placebo added to tiotropium arm--a 62% reduction in the rate of severe exacerbations. Treatment with budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium costs less in Australia and Canada (-$A90 [-€58] and -$Can4.51 [-€3]) and only slightly more in Sweden (SEK444 [€43]), i.e. the savings associated with fewer exacerbations more than offset the additional budesonide/formoterol drug cost in Australia and Canada, and partially offset it in Sweden. In the Australian and Canadian perspectives, budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium was a dominant treatment (fewer exacerbations at a lower cost) compared with placebo added to tiotropium. In Sweden, the estimated incremental cost per avoided exacerbation was SEK2502 (€244.40).

CONCLUSION

Budesonide/formoterol added to tiotropium was the dominant strategy compared with placebo added to tiotropium based on a 12-week study in COPD patients eligible for ICS/LABA combination therapy in Australia and Canada, and appears to be a cost-effective strategy in Sweden.

Comparative effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol and fluticasone/salmeterol for COPD management

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol fumarate dihydrate (BFC) and fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FSC), two combination inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonist (ICS/LABA) products approved for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US with respect to cost, therapy adherence, and related healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of these two treatments has not previously been compared in a US COPD population.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study assessed COPD-related outcomes using administrative claims data among ICS/LABA-naïve patients. Patients initiating BFC were propensity matched to FSC patients. Cost and effectiveness were measured as total healthcare expenditures, exacerbation events (hospitalizations, emergency department visits, or outpatient visits associated with oral corticosteroid or antibiotic prescription fills), and treatment medication adherence. Differences in COPD symptom control were assessed via proxy measure through claims for rescue medications and outpatient encounters.

RESULTS

Of the 6770 patients (3385 BFC and 3385 FSC), fewer BFC patients had claims for short-acting beta agonists (SABA) (34.7% vs 39.5%; p<0.001) and ipratropium (7.8% vs 9.8%, p<0.005) than FSC patients, but no substantial differences were seen in other clinical outcomes including tiotropium or nebulized SABA claims, COPD-related outpatient visits, or exacerbation events. There were no significant differences in total COPD-related medical costs in the 6-month period after initiation of combination therapy.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective observational study using claims data and accuracy of COPD diagnoses could not be verified, nor was information available on severity of disease. The results and conclusions of this study are limited to the population observed and the operational definitions of the study variables.

CONCLUSIONS

For most outcomes of interest, BFC and FSC showed comparable real-world effectiveness.

Economic evaluation of BDP/formoterol fixed vs two single inhalers in asthma treatment

BACKGROUND

Asthma treatment costs are substantial, the largest proportion being incurred by medications. Combination therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABA) is recommended in patients not adequately controlled by ICS alone. Aim of this study was to compare costs and health outcomes of a fixed ICS-LABA combination of beclomethasone dipropionate (BDP) and formoterol fumarate (FF) vs the same drugs delivered via separate inhalers in Germany.

METHODS

A cost-minimization analysis, a cost-effectiveness analysis, as well as a threshold analysis were undertaken. Efficacy results were obtained from a recent clinical trial. Cost inputs include medical costs, physician costs, and hospital admission costs. Medical costs, health outcomes, and treatment costs were also varied to assess their impact on results.

RESULTS

Beclomethasone dipropionate/FF fixed combination was less costly compared to BDP + FF delivered as separate inhalers, costs totaling euro 525 and euro 637, respectively, over a 24-week treatment period. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro-9.77 per additional day free of asthma symptoms. Equal cost-effectiveness ratios would still be obtained at a price of the fixed combination increased by 3.4-fold.

CONCLUSION

A cost-minimization analysis as well as a cost-effectiveness analysis for Germany based on different product price calculations show that BDP/FF fixed combination is superior to BDP + FF delivered via separate inhalers.

A comparison of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy vs. conventional best practice in asthma management

OBJECTIVE

To study the effectiveness and safety of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (Symbicort SMART, AstraZeneca, Södertalje, Sweden), a simplified management approach with one inhaler compared with conventional best practice (CBP) with multiple inhalers in patients with persistent asthma.

DESIGN

Open-label randomised controlled parallel group trial, 6-month treatment.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 908 patients > or = 12 years of age, with persistent asthma receiving treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), either alone or in conjunction with long-acting beta(2)-agonist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to first severe asthma exacerbation and number of severe asthma exacerbations.

RESULTS

No difference between groups was seen in time to first severe exacerbation (p = 0.75). Exacerbation rates were low in both groups. A total of 12 patients in the Symbicort SMART group experienced a total of 14 severe asthma exacerbations, and 19 patients in the CBP group experienced a total of 25 severe asthma exacerbations (annual rate 0.07 vs. 0.13 p = 0.09). The mean daily dose of ICS expressed in BDP equivalent was significantly lower in the Symbicort SMART group (including as-needed use) vs. in the CBP group (749 microg vs. 1059 microg; p < 0.0001). Mean scores in Asthma Control Questionnaire, 5 question version improved significantly in the SMART group compared with the CBP group (p = 0.0026). Symbicort SMART and CBP were equally well tolerated. The mean drug cost/patient/month was significantly lower for the patients in the Symbicort SMART group compared with patients receiving CBP (51.3 euros vs. 66.5 euros; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Belgian patients, a simplified regimen using budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy was at least as effective at improving clinical control compared with CBP with a significantly lower ICS dose and significantly lower drug costs.

Piloting the global subsidy: the impact of subsidized artemisinin-based combination therapies distributed through private drug shops in rural Tanzania

Background

WHO estimates that only 3% of fever patients use recommended artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs), partly reflecting their high prices in the retail sector from where many patients seek treatment. To overcome this challenge, a global ACT subsidy has been proposed. We tested this proposal through a pilot program in rural Tanzania.

Methods/Principal Findings

Three districts were assigned to serve either as a control or to receive the subsidy plus a package of supporting interventions. From October 2007, ACTs were sold at a 90% subsidy through the normal private supply chain to intervention district drug shops. Data were collected at baseline and during intervention using interviews with drug shop customers, retail audits, mystery shoppers, and audits of public and NGO facilities.

The proportion of consumers in the intervention districts purchasing ACTs rose from 1% at baseline to 44.2% one year later (p<0.001), and was significantly higher among consumers purchasing for children under 5 than for adults (p = 0.005). No change in ACT usage was observed in the control district. Consumers paid a mean price of $0.58 for ACTs, which did not differ significantly from the price paid for sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine, the most common alternative. Drug shops in population centers were significantly more likely to stock ACTs than those in more remote areas (p<0.001).

Conclusions

A subsidy introduced at the top of the private sector supply chain can significantly increase usage of ACTs and reduce their retail price to the level of common monotherapies. Additional interventions may be needed to ensure access to ACTs in remote areas and for poorer individuals who appear to seek treatment at drug shops less frequently.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN39125414.

A retrospective database study comparing treatment outcomes and cost associated with choice of fixed-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta-agonists for asthma maintenance treatment in Germany

AIMS

This retrospective, observational cohort study aimed to compare treatment outcomes and healthcare costs in the year after initiation of maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone in a German healthcare setting.

METHODS

Data on German asthma patients initiating treatment with budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone between June 2001 and June 2005 were obtained from the IMS Disease Analyzer database. The primary outcome was the probability of treatment success, defined according to short-acting beta(2)-agonist prescriptions and switches or addition of controller medications, during the postindex year. A secondary definition of treatment success included hospitalisations and oral corticosteroid (OCS) prescriptions. Secondary outcomes included severe asthma exacerbations, defined as >or=1 OCS prescription, asthma-related hospitalisation and/or referral. The effect of treatment on costs was estimated using generalised linear models, adjusting for patient and physician characteristics.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the budesonide/formoterol (n = 1456) and salmeterol/fluticasone (n = 982) groups in disease severity markers in the pre-index year. Patients on budesonide/formoterol had a 44% greater probability of treatment success [odds ratio (OR): 1.44; p = 0.0003] according to the primary definition and a 26% greater probability (OR: 1.26; p = 0.0119) according to the secondary definition, fewer severe exacerbations (-33.4%; p = 0.0123) and fewer OCS prescriptions (-31.5%; p = 0.0082) compared with salmeterol/fluticasone, after controlling for baseline characteristics. Adjusting for covariates, budesonide/formoterol had a significant inverse relationship on asthma-related costs compared with salmeterol/fluticasone (-13.4%; p < 0.001). Total cost (asthma- and non-asthma-related costs) was 12.6% lower for budesonide/formoterol (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that for patients with chronic asthma in Germany, budesonide/formoterol rather than salmeterol/fluticasone had a higher likelihood of treatment success, and that budesonide/formoterol is the less costly option. Although the cohorts appeared to be well matched at baseline, the results should be interpreted with caution given the observational nature of the study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus fixed combination treatments for asthma in Finland*

BACKGROUND

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy has shown its effectiveness as a treatment for moderate-to-severe asthma.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy as compared to fixed combination therapies (budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone) with terbutaline as needed in the treatment of asthma in Finland.

METHODS

Patients without asthma exacerbations during a 6-month period were used as the effectiveness variable in the within-trial economic analysis. Finnish unit costs were applied to pooled resource use data, and multinomial cost-effectiveness plane and acceptability curves were formed based on bootstrapping.

RESULTS

Use of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy significantly reduced the rate of severe asthma exacerbations as compared with a fixed dose of budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone and terbutaline as needed. Total costs over 6 months were 496 euros per patient for those who used the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy treatment model, which was 78-101 euros lower than the cost of fixed combinations of salmeterol/fluticasone or budesonide/formoterol with terbutaline as needed. The results indicate that the budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy achieves a high probability (> 93%) of cost effectiveness irrespective of willingness to pay level.

CONCLUSIONS

Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy may be considered in the treatment of moderate-to-severe asthma instead of conventional treatment with combination products in view of its good clinical efficacy and a high probability of cost-effectiveness in the Finnish setting. However, a cost-effectiveness analysis with a longer time horizon, more Finnish-specific data, and ICS + short/long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist as an additional comparator is still warranted.

Cost-effectiveness of combination therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that combination therapy (CT) in the form of long-acting beta(2)-agonists (LABAs) and inhaled corticosteroids can improve lung function for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of using CT in none, all or a selected group of COPD patients.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed to compare four treatment strategies: no use of CT regardless of COPD severity (patients receive LABA only); use of CT in patients with stage 3 disease only (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV(1)] less than 35% of predicted); use of CT in patients with stages 2 and 3 disease only (FEV(1) less than 50% of predicted); and use of CT in all patients regardless of severity of COPD. Estimates of mortality, exacerbation and disease progression rates, quality- adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were derived from the literature. Three-year and lifetime time horizons were used. The analysis was conducted from a health systems perspective.

RESULTS

CT was associated with a cost of $39,000 per QALY if given to patients with stage 3 disease, $47,500 per QALY if given to patients with stages 2 and 3 disease, and $450,333 per QALY if given to all COPD patients. Results were robust to various assumptions tested in a Monte Carlo simulation.

CONCLUSION

Providing CT for COPD patients in stage 2 or 3 disease is cost-effective. The message to family physicians and specialists is that as FEV(1) worsens and reaches 50% of predicted values, CT is recommended.

Equivalence of a single saline nebulised dose of formoterol powder vs three doses of nebulised Albuterol every twenty minutes in acute asthma in children: a suitable cost effective approach for developing nations

BACKGROUND

An increase in asthma prevalence is reported from developed as well as developing nations, with rising costs from acute asthma and great expenditures to health care systems. Venezuela's Ministry of Health ambulatory facilities care for 80 % or more of a mostly urban and impoverished population of 26 million inhabitants, registering close to a million acute asthma visits per year; a nebulised fixed fenoterol-ipratropium bromide combination (Bero-dual, Boehringer-Ingelheim) in repeated dosing is the standard treatment.

OBJECTIVES

to simplify acute asthma care and management in a cost effective manner employing Formoterol Fumarate powder, a long acting beta agonist with immediate bronchodilator effects.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty acute asthmatic children (5-12 years old) were randomly assigned (25 patients in each group) to receive either a nebulised single dose (US $1.35) of two 12 microg Formoterol Fumarate capsules (Foradil 12 microg/cap, Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland) diluted in 2.5 ml of sterile saline solution; or 3 doses of Albuterol (US $ 6.73) every twenty minutes for one hour (Glaxo Smith Kline Albuterol ampoules, 2.5 mg/2.5 ml, at a dose of 0.15 mg/kg/dose, maximum dose 2.5 mg). Symptoms score, oxygen saturation and lung function testing were recorded before and one hour after commencing treatments.

RESULTS

Both groups improved significantly on all parameters, except for FEV(1) in the Albuterol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Single dose nebulised Formoterol Fumarate (dry powder) in sterile saline solution, as depicted in this trial, is equivalent to three doses of Albuterol every twenty minutes for one hour in acute asthma in children, simplifying acute care management and at one fifth of medication costs. A pursuit of simpler and more cost effective approaches is found wanting in developing nations with depressed economies and unique cultural and socio-medical contexts; also, in countries where pharmaco-economics orients quality of health policies, novel approaches like this are worth exploring.

Budesonide/formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment compared to fixed dose combination strategies - a Canadian economic evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler used as Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) versus fixed higher-dose budesonide/formoterol plus as-needed terbutaline reliever (FHDBF) or fixed dose fluticasone/salmeterol plus as-needed terbutaline reliever (FDFS) in controlling asthma in adults and adolescents.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted by applying Canadian costs to the results of a large (N=3,335) international randomized, double-blind, controlled trial in which health resource utilization was prospectively collected. Although no Canadian subjects were enrolled in this clinical trial, it was assumed that the results would apply to Canadian patients. Primary outcome measurements included time to first exacerbation and the number of severe exacerbations. Costs included direct medical costs (physician/emergency room visits, hospitalizations, asthma drug costs) and productivity (absenteeism). The time horizon was six months, which corresponded to the duration of the trial. Prices were obtained from 2006 Canadian sources. Both healthcare and societal perspectives were considered. Deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the clinical trial, SMART was superior to FHDBF and FDFS with respect to total number of severe exacerbations (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57, 0.90; p=0.0048; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.49, 0.76; p<0.001, respectively). Exacerbation rates (reported as events per patient per 6 months) were 0.12 for SMART, 0.16 for FHDBF, and 0.19 for FDFS. All treatments provided similar improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life. The mean cost per patient per 6 months was $545 in the SMART arm versus $690 in the FHDBF arm and $842 in the FDFS arm from the healthcare perspective; and $676 for SMART, $838 for FHDBF, and $954 for FDFS from the societal perspective. SMART was dominant (more effective, less expensive) in the base case analysis from both the healthcare and societal perspectives. The results were robust under sensitivity testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The SMART strategy, which allows budesonide/formoterol to be used as both maintenance and reliever medication, is dominant over the alternate strategies of fixed higher dose budesonide and formoterol plus as-needed terbutaline or fixed dose salmeterol and fluticasone plus as-needed terbutaline.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of nebivolol compared with standard care in elderly patients with heart failure: an individual patient-based simulation model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The SENIORS trial demonstrated that nebivolol is effective in the treatment of heart failure in elderly patients (e.g. > or = 70 years). This analysis evaluates the cost effectiveness of nebivolol compared with standard treatment.

METHODS

An individual patient-simulation model based on a Markov modelling framework was developed to compare costs and outcomes for nebivolol and standard care in patients with heart failure starting treatment at the age of 70 years. Health states were defined by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and death. At a given NYHA class and a given cycle, patients could die, be hospitalized for cardiovascular disease or remain stable. Risks for these events were derived from individual patient data from the SENIORS trial. The risk of each event in a given cycle was based on the subject's baseline characteristics and time in the current health state. The economic analysis was conducted from the UK NHS perspective with a lifetime horizon. The costs (euro; year 2006 values) considered were drug costs for nebivolol and other cardiac drugs, costs of GP visits, outpatient specialist visits and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

In the baseline analysis, the total cost per patient was euro6740 and euro9288, and QALYs were 5.194 and 5.843 for patients aged 70 years at the start of treatment for the standard treatment and nebivolol groups, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro3926 (95% CI 3731, 4159) per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis indicates that nebivolol appears to be a cost-effective treatment for elderly patients with heart failure compared with standard care.

Canadian economic evaluation of budesonide-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment in patients with moderate to severe asthma

OBJECTIVES

To compare the cost-effectiveness of budesonide-formoterol in a single inhaler used as both maintenance and reliever medication versus clinician-directed titration of salmeterol-fluticasone as maintenance medication, plus salbutamol taken as needed, in controlling asthma in adults and adolescents.

METHODS

A Canadian economic evaluation was conducted based on the results of a large (n=2143), open-label, randomized, controlled effectiveness trial in which health resource use was prospectively collected. The primary outcome measurement was the time to the first severe exacerbation. Costs included direct medical costs (physician and emergency room visits, hospitalizations, asthma drug costs, etc) and productivity (absenteeism). The time horizon was one year, which corresponded to the duration of the clinical trial. Prices were obtained from 2005 Canadian sources. Both health care and societal perspectives were considered, and deterministic univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

In the clinical trial, budesonide-formoterol as maintenance and reliever treatment was superior to salmeterol-fluticasone with respect to the time to the first severe exacerbation, overall rate of exacerbations and use of as-needed reliever medication. The annualized rate of severe exacerbations was 0.24 events/patient in the budesonide-formoterol arm and 0.31 events/patient in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm (P=0.0025). From a health care perspective, the mean cost per patient-year was $1,315 in the budesonide-formoterol arm versus $1,541 in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm. From a societal perspective, the mean cost per patient-year was $1,538 in the budesonide-formoterol arm and $1,854 in the salmeterol-fluticasone arm. Budesonide-formoterol was dominant (more effective and less expensive) in the base case analysis from both perspectives. The results were robust under sensitivity testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The strategy that allows budesonide-formoterol to be used in a single inhaler as both maintenance and reliever medication proved to be more effective and less expensive than a strategy of clinician-directed titration of salmeterol-fluticasone with salbutamol as reliever therapy.

Cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever asthma therapy

BACKGROUND

Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance and Reliever Therapy (SMART) is an effective asthma-management approach that treats symptoms with rapid increases in budesonide/formoterol. The cost-effectiveness of SMART vs higher fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol or salmeterol/fluticasone is unknown.

METHODS

This 6-month, double-blind study randomized patients with asthma uncontrolled by inhaled corticosteroids alone (n = 3335; age > or =12 years) to budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg b.i.d. plus additional doses as needed (SMART), budesonide/formoterol 320/9 microg b.i.d. plus as-needed terbutaline, or salmeterol/fluticasone 50/250 microg b.i.d. plus as-needed terbutaline. Economic analysis, assuming health care and societal perspectives, applied 2004 UK and Australian unit costs to pooled resource-use data. The effectiveness variable was the rate of severe exacerbations/patient/6 months.

RESULTS

Patients treated using the SMART approach experienced fewer severe exacerbations than fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone patients (0.12 vs 0.16 and 0.19 events/patient/6 months, respectively; P < or = 0.0048). Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance and Reliever Therapy provided similar improvements in other markers of asthma control at a lower overall daily inhaled corticosteroid dose compared with fixed-dose treatment. Study drug costs accounted for a majority of both direct costs (DC; 78-87%) and total costs (TC; 50-63%) for all treatments, and were significantly lower in the SMART group compared with the fixed-dose groups (P < or = 0.0014). Direct and TC per patient/6 months were lower for SMART vs salmeterol/fluticasone (DC:-AUS$154, P < 0.0001; TC:-AUS$163, P = 0.0036;-87 pound sterling, P = 0.0026) and vs budesonide/formoterol using UK costs (DC:-73 pounds sterling, P < 0.0001; TC:- 91 pounds sterling, P = 0.0014). Costs tended to be lower for SMART vs budesonide/formoterol using Australian costs (DC:-AUS$35, P = 0.16; TC:-AUS$70, P = 0.20). Results were stable under sensitivity testing. Indirect resource use and cost were not significantly different between groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared with higher fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone, SMART reduces the incidence of severe exacerbations at a lower or similar overall cost and can be considered a cost-effective treatment regimen.

Pharmacoeconomic benefits of antihypertensive therapy

BACKGROUND

Effective blood pressure reduction reduces cardiovascular risk and prevents later complications.

OBJECTIVE

To consider the pharmacoeconomic benefits of antihypertensive therapy.

SUMMARY

Every managed care pharmacist should consider the balance of cost and benefit of antihypertensive therapies, ensuring that best treatment options for patients with the lowest cost to the health care system are available and implemented. Pharmacists must also evaluate the direct and indirect cost associated with risk reduction for stroke and cardiovascular disease.

CONCLUSION

Using an interdisciplinary approach to hypertension treatment, pharmacists can assume a major role in detection, management, and control of hypertensive patients. As the medical teams' drug expert, they will be expected to recommend best treatment options for effective blood pressure control and cardiovascular risk reduction.

The cost of uncomplicated childhood fevers to Kenyan households: implications for reaching international access targets

Background

Fever is the clinical hallmark of malaria disease. The Roll Back Malaria (RBM) movement promotes prompt, effective treatment of childhood fevers as a key component to achieving its optimistic mortality reduction goals by 2010. A neglected concern is how communities will access these new medicines promptly and the costs to poor households when they are located in rural areas distant to health services.

Methods

We assemble data developed between 2001 and 2002 in Kenya to describe treatment choices made by rural households to treat a child's fever and the related costs to households. Using a cost-of-illness approach, we estimate the expected cost of a childhood fever to Kenyan households in 2002. We develop two scenarios to explore how expected costs to households would change if more children were treated at a health care facility with an effective antimalarial within 48 hours of fever onset.

Results

30% of uncomplicated fevers were managed at home with modern medicines, 38% were taken to a health care facility (HCF), and 32% were managed at home without the use of modern medicines. Direct household cash expenditures were estimated at $0.44 per fever, while the total expected cost to households (cash and time) of an uncomplicated childhood fever is estimated to be $1.91. An estimated mean of 1.42 days of caretaker time devoted to each fever accounts for the majority of household costs of managing fevers. The aggregate cost to Kenyan households of managing uncomplicated childhood fevers was at least $96 million in 2002, equivalent to 1.00% of the Kenyan GDP.

Fewer than 8% of all fevers were treated with an antimalarial drug within 24 hours of fever onset, while 17.5% were treated within 48 hours at a HCF. To achieve an increase from 17.5% to 33% of fevers treated with an antimalarial drug within 48 hours at a HCF (Scenario 1), children already being taken to a HCF would need to be taken earlier. Under this scenario, direct cash expenditures would not change, and total household costs would fall slightly to $1.86 because caretakers also save time with prompt treatment if the child has malaria.

Conclusion

The management of uncomplicated childhood fevers imposes substantial costs on Kenyan households. Achieving substantial improvements in the numbers of fevers treated within 48 hours at a HCF with an effective antimalarial drug (Scenario 1) will not impose additional costs on households. Achieving additional improvements in fevers treated promptly at a HCF (Scenario 2) will impose additional costs on some households roughly equal to average cash expenses for transportation to a HCF. Additional financing mechanisms that further reduce the costs of accessing care at a HCF and/or that make artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) accessible for home management need to be developed and evaluated as a top priority.

Artemether/lumefantrine in the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria

At present, artemether/lumefantrine (AL) is the only fixed-dose artemisinin-based combination therapy recommended and pre-qualified by WHO for the treatment of uncomplicated malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum. It has been shown to be effective both in sub-Saharan Africa and in areas with multi-drug resistant P. falciparum in southeast Asia. It is currently recommended as first-line treatment for uncomplicated malaria in several countries. However, AL has a complex treatment regimen and the issues of adherence to treatment with AL by adult patients and real-life effectiveness in resource-poor settings will be critical in determining its useful therapeutic life, especially in Africa, where the major burden of malaria is felt. There are also issues of safety of the artemisinin derivatives, including AL, which will need to be monitored as their use in resource-poor settings becomes more widespread. There are limited pharmacokinetic studies of AL in African patients, and the relationship between plasma drug concentration and efficacy in these patients is unknown. Moreover, the effects of factors such as concurrently administered drugs, malnutrition and co-infections with HIV and helminths in malaria patients are not well understood. These will need to be addressed, although a few studies on possible drug-drug interactions with commonly used drugs, such as quinine, mefloquine and ketoconazole, have been reported. This review focuses on the status of clinical pharmacology, efficacy and real-life effectiveness of AL under a variety of settings, and highlights some of the challenges that face policy makers during the deployment of AL, especially in Africa, with regards to ensuring that those who most need this therapy will not be denied access due to official inefficiency in procurement and distribution processes.

Cost-effectiveness study of three antimalarial drug combinations in Tanzania

BACKGROUND

As a result of rising levels of drug resistance to conventional monotherapy, the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organisations have recommended that malaria endemic countries move to combination therapy, ideally with artemisinin-based combinations (ACTs). Cost is a major barrier to deployment. There is little evidence from field trials on the cost-effectiveness of these new combinations.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

An economic evaluation of drug combinations was designed around a randomised effectiveness trial of combinations recommended by the WHO, used to treat Tanzanian children with non-severe slide-proven malaria. Drug combinations were: amodiaquine (AQ), AQ with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (AQ+SP), AQ with artesunate (AQ+AS), and artemether-lumefantrine (AL) in a six-dose regimen. Effectiveness was measured in terms of resource savings and cases of malaria averted (based on parasitological failure rates at days 14 and 28). All costs to providers and to patients and their families were estimated and uncertain variables were subjected to univariate sensitivity analysis. Incremental analysis comparing each combination to monotherapy (AQ) revealed that from a societal perspective AL was most cost-effective at day 14. At day 28 the difference between AL and AQ+AS was negligible; both resulted in a gross savings of approximately US1.70 dollars or a net saving of US22.40 dollars per case averted. Varying the accuracy of diagnosis and the subsistence wage rate used to value unpaid work had a significant effect on the number of cases averted and on programme costs, respectively, but this did not change the finding that AL and AQ+AS dominate monotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In an area of high drug resistance, there is evidence that AL and AQ+AS are the most cost-effective drugs despite being the most expensive, because they are significantly more effective than other options and therefore reduce the need for further treatment. This is not necessarily the case in parts of Africa where recrudescence following SP and AQ treatment (and their combination) is lower so that the relative advantage of ACTs is smaller, or where diagnostic services are not accurate and as a result much of the drug goes to those who do not have malaria.

The financial and clinical implications of adult malaria diagnosis using microscopy in Kenya

OBJECTIVE

A recent observational study undertaken at 17 health facilities with microscopy in Kenya revealed that potential benefits of malaria microscopy are not realized because of irrational clinical practices and the low accuracy of routine microscopy. Using these data, we modelled financial and clinical implications of revised clinical practices and improved accuracy of malaria microscopy among adult outpatients under the artemether-lumefantrine (AL) treatment policy for uncomplicated malaria in Kenya.

METHODS

The cost of AL, antibiotics and malaria microscopy and the expected number of malaria diagnosis errors were estimated per 1,000 adult outpatients presenting at a facility with microscopy under three scenarios: (1) current clinical practice and accuracy of microscopy (option A), (2) revised clinical practice with current accuracy of microscopy (option B) and (3) revised clinical practice with improved accuracy of microscopy (option C). Revised clinical practice was defined as performing a blood slide for all febrile adults and prescribing antimalarial treatment only for positive results. Improved accuracy of routine microscopy was defined as 90% sensitivity and specificity. In the sensitivity analysis, the implications of changes in the cost of drugs and malaria microscopy and changes in background malaria prevalence were examined for each option.

RESULTS

The costs of AL, antibiotics and malaria microscopy decreased from 2,154 dollars under option A to 1,254 dollars under option B and 892 dollars under option C. Of the cost savings from option C, 72% was from changes in clinical practice, while 28% was from improvements in the accuracy of microscopy. Compared with 638 malaria overdiagnosis errors per 1,000 adults under option A, 375 and 548 fewer overdiagnosis errors were estimated, respectively, under options B and C. At the same time, the number of missed malaria diagnoses remained generally low under all options. Sensitivity analysis showed that both options B and C are robust to a wide range of assumptions on the costs of drugs, costs of blood slides and malaria prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Even with the imperfect microscopy conditions at Kenyan facilities, implementation of revised clinical practice (option B) would substantially reduce the costs and errors from malaria overdiagnosis. Additional interventions to improve the accuracy of microscopy (option C) can achieve further benefits; however, improved microscopy in the absence of revised clinical practice is unlikely to generate significant cost savings. Revision of guidelines to state explicitly age-specific indications for the use and interpretation of malaria microscopy is urgently needed. Further prospective studies are required to evaluate the effectiveness and costs of interventions to improve clinical practice and the accuracy of malaria microscopy.

Operational response to malaria epidemics: are rapid diagnostic tests cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of malaria treatment based on presumptive diagnosis with that of malaria treatment based on rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs).

METHODS

We calculated direct costs (based on experience from Ethiopia and southern Sudan) and effectiveness (in terms of reduced over-treatment) of a free, decentralised treatment programme using artesunate plus amodiaquine (AS + AQ) or artemether-lumefantrine (ART-LUM) in a Plasmodium falciparum epidemic. Our main cost-effectiveness measure was the incremental cost per false positive treatment averted by RDTs.

RESULTS

As malaria prevalence increases, the difference in cost between presumptive and RDT-based treatment rises. The threshold prevalence above which the RDT-based strategy becomes more expensive is 21% in the AS + AQ scenario and 55% in the ART-LUM scenario, but these thresholds increase to 58 and 70%, respectively, if the financing body tolerates an incremental cost of 1 euro per false positive averted. However, even at a high (90%) prevalence of malaria consistent with an epidemic peak, an RDT-based strategy would only cost moderately more than the presumptive strategy: +29.9% in the AS + AQ scenario and +19.4% in the ART-LUM scenario. The treatment comparison is insensitive to the age and pregnancy distribution of febrile cases, but is strongly affected by variation in non-biomedical costs. If their unit price were halved, RDTs would be more cost-effective at a malaria prevalence up to 45% in case of AS + AQ treatment and at a prevalence up to 68% in case of ART-LUM treatment.

CONCLUSION

In most epidemic prevalence scenarios, RDTs would considerably reduce over-treatment for only a moderate increase in costs over presumptive diagnosis. A substantial decrease in RDT unit price would greatly increase their cost-effectiveness, and should thus be advocated. A tolerated incremental cost of 1 euro is probably justified given overall public health and financial benefits. The RDTs should be considered for malaria epidemics if logistics and human resources allow.

Maintenance plus reliever budesonide/formoterol compared with a higher maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol plus formoterol as reliever in asthma: an efficacy and cost-effectiveness study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate efficacy and cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) maintenance (one dose once or twice daily) plus additional doses as needed (Symbicort Maintenance And Reliever Therapy, SMART) compared with a higher fixed dose of budesonide/formoterol with formoterol as needed in patients with persistent asthma.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

6-month, open, randomised study of 465 patients either not well controlled on an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), or well controlled on a combination of ICS and a long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA).

TREATMENTS

budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg, one inhalation, once or twice daily maintenance plus additional doses as-needed (1 x SMART or 2 x SMART), or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg two inhalations twice daily plus formoterol 4.5 microg as needed (2 x 2 FIX + F). Children 6-11 years old used an 80/4.5 microg dose strength. Primary variables of efficacy were the changes in the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ(5)) and morning peak expiratory flow (PEF).

RESULTS

Mean age of patients 40 years (range 6-82 years); 53% female. No differences between the groups were found in ACQ(5) scores or asthma exacerbation rates. Morning PEF was higher in the 2 x 2 FIX + F group vs. the 1 x SMART and 2 x SMART groups (differences 13 L/min and 9 L/min, respectively; p < 0.002). The 1 x SMART group showed a significant decrease in asthma controlled days compared with the two other groups. No difference was seen between the 2 x SMART group and the 2 x 2 FIX + F group. Treatment costs were significantly lower in the SMART groups compared with the 2 x 2 FIX + F group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the 2 x 2 FIX + F treatment the use of budesonide/formoterol was 30-40% lower in the SMART groups while maintaining equal ACQ(5) scores. Daily asthma control improved equally with 2 x SMART compared to 2 x 2 FIX + F with a reduction in asthma medication cost. The one dose once daily maintenance treatment (1 x SMART) resulted in a low level of treatment failure (exacerbations) but led to more days with symptoms. Therefore, a daily dose of two inhalations seems to be the lowest appropriate dose in patients with moderate persistent asthma.

Corticosteroids and adrenoceptor agonists: the compliments for combination therapy in chronic airways diseases

The combination of inhaled corticosteroids and long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists is increasingly used as maintenance therapy in patients with moderate to severe asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The main effect of inhaled corticosteroids is thought to be mediated through suppression of airway inflammation, while long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists are thought to work by inducing bronchodilation. However, there is emerging data to indicate that these two classes of drugs interact positively with each other, leading to added or perhaps synergistic benefits for patients. Corticosteroids enhance the expression of beta2-adrenoceptor, thus providing protection against desensitization and development of tolerance to beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, which may occur with prolonged use of these medications. Long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists, on the other hand, may amplify the anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids by accelerating nuclear translocation of the glucocorticoid receptor complex, and enhancing transcription and expression of steroid-inducible genes in pro-inflammatory cells. In clinical trials, corticosteroids in combination with long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonists reduce exacerbation rates, and improve lung function and health status of patients with moderate to severe asthma or COPD beyond that achieved by individual component therapy. Their effects on mortality are unknown. There is a large clinical trial currently underway, which will provide mortality data by the year 2006. On balance, clinical evidence supports the use of combination therapy in moderate to severe asthma and COPD.

Artemisinin-based combinations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Artemisinin-based combination treatments have been the mainstay of treatment for falciparum malaria in Southeast Asia for more than 10 years and are now increasingly recommended as first-line treatment throughout the rest of the world.

RECENT FINDINGS

A large multicentre randomised trial conducted in East Asia has shown a 35% reduction in mortality from severe malaria following treatment with parenteral artesunate compared with quinine. There is increasing evidence that artemisinin-based combination treatments are safe and rapidly effective. Artemether-lumefantrine (six doses) has been shown to be very effective in large trials reported from Uganda and Tanzania. A once daily three-dose treatment of dihydroartemisinin piperaquine, a newer fixed combination, was a highly efficacious and well tolerated treatment for multi-drug resistant falciparum malaria in Southeast Asia.

SUMMARY

Early diagnosis and treatment of uncomplicated malaria with effective drugs remains a priority as part of a comprehensive malaria control strategy. Artemisinin-based combination treatments have consistently been shown to be highly effective and safe. The challenge is to make them accessible in tropical countries.

Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol in the treatment of asthma

INTRODUCTION

Budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) Maintenance And Reliever Therapy (SMART) is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for patients with asthma. We compared the cost effectiveness from a societal perspective of this one-inhaler regimen with that of maintenance salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide) plus salbutamol (albuterol) as needed (Seretide) Fixed Combination [SFC]).

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed based on effectiveness and resource-utilisation data collected prospectively in a randomised, 12-month study performed in 2143 patients in 16 countries. Resource utilisation data were pooled and unit costs (euro, year 2003 values) from Italy, France, the UK and Germany were used to generate estimates of direct and total costs per patient per year and cost per severe exacerbation avoided.

METHODS

Adolescents and adults with asthma (n = 2143; mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 73% predicted; mean inhaled corticosteroid [ICS] dose 884 microg/day) were randomised to SMART or SFC. The effectiveness measure used was the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year. Direct costs included medication use (budesonide/formoterol 160microg/4.5microg or salmeterol/fluticasone 50microg/100microg, 50microg/250microg or 50microg/500microg plus salbutamol) and nonmedication-related resource use, including days in hospital, emergency room visits, specialist or primary care physician visits and other healthcare provider contacts. Indirect costs, including the number of days when the patient or their carer was unable to attend to their normal daily activities, were also assessed. The study assumed a European societal perspective (i.e. including direct and indirect costs).

RESULTS

Treatment with SMART resulted in significantly fewer severe exacerbations per patient per year compared with SFC (0.24 vs 0.31 events per patient per year; p = 0.0025). Resource use was low in both groups. Medication costs accounted for the majority of the total costs. The increased effectiveness of SMART was achieved at a reduced or similar cost compared with SFC. SMART dominated when German unit costs were applied (i.e. there was a statistically significant reduction in both costs and number of exacerbations). In all other countries, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that there was a reduction in mean total cost per exacerbation avoided; however, this difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that, compared with SFC, SMART may be cost effective from a societal perspective for the treatment of patients with asthma in Italy, Germany, France and the UK. SMART provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations per patient per year, at no statistically significant increase in cost - or even at a lower cost - compared with SFC plus as-needed reliever salbutamol.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol compared with fluticasone in moderate-persistent asthma

In this economic evaluation, conducted alongside a randomized, double-blind clinical trial, economic data were collected from 339 patients with moderate-persistent asthma randomized to receive twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg in a single inhaler (n=166) or fluticasone propionate 250 microg (n=173) for 12 weeks. The mean number of episode-free days (EFD) per patient was significantly greater in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (48.71 compared with 42.34, P=0.0185). Data on medication use, visits to healthcare professionals, and hospitalization were pooled across all six countries and combined with German and Dutch unit cost data to calculate total healthcare costs. Using German unit costs, budesonide/formoterol was associated with significantly lower total healthcare costs per patient over the 12-week period compared with fluticasone (euro 131 compared with euro 210, P=0.0043). Using Dutch unit costs, total healthcare costs were slightly numerically lower in the budesonide/formoterol group than the fluticasone group (euro 102 compared with euro 104), but the difference did not reach statistical significance. Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler is more effective than a higher microgram dose of fluticasone alone. It is cost-neutral and may provide cost-savings in some countries.

A respiratory therapist-directed protocol for managing inpatients with asthma and COPD incorporating a long-acting bronchodilator

This prospective study was designed to determine whether incorporating formoterol into a standardized respiratory therapist-directed protocol for administering bronchodilators to hospitalized patients with obstructive airway disease would reduce health care resource use and provide a safety advantage. All patients admitted to Washington Hospital Center with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CODP) are administered bronchodilators under a standardized respiratory therapist-directed protocol. Formoterol was the primary bronchodilator for the intervention period from January through March 2002, with levalbuterol, albuterol, and ipratropium available as needed. Results for the intervention period were compared against two historical control periods. From January through March 2000, the bronchodilators in the protocol were albuterol and ipratropium, and from January through March 2001 levalbuterol, albuterol, and ipratropium were available. Health care resource use was determined by the number of bronchodilator treatments administered per admission. Costs (adjusted to 2002 dollars) for supplies, therapist time, and drugs were calculated for the three time periods. Adverse events related to bronchodilator administration were recorded in a standardized manner for all three time periods. Bronchodilator treatments per admission, respiratory therapist visits per admission, and time spent per admission, and cost per bronchodilator treatment significantly decreased in 2002. Significantly fewer adverse events related to bronchodilator treatments were reported in 2002 than 2000. The addition of formoterol to a respiratory therapist-directed protocol for administering bronchodilators reduced health care resource use and adverse events for patients with asthma and COPD.

Economic assessment of adjustable maintenance treatment with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed treatment in asthma

OBJECTIVES

To compare the costs and effectiveness of adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler versus fixed dosing in adults with asthma.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre trial conducted in Germany, patients with asthma received budesonide/formoterol 160 microg/4.5 microg in a single inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler with two inhalations twice daily for a 4-week run-in period. Patients were then randomised to either adjustable maintenance dosing (one inhalation twice daily, stepping up to four inhalations twice daily for 1 week if asthma worsened; n=1679) or fixed dosing (two inhalations twice daily; n=1618) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the change in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), measured using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (standardised) during the randomised treatment period. Resource utilisation data were collected in parallel and combined with German unit costs to estimate direct and indirect costs (year 2001 values).

RESULTS

Both treatment regimens were equally effective in maintaining HR-QOL and asthma control during the randomised treatment period. However, overall, patients in the adjustable maintenance dosing group took fewer daily inhalations of budesonide/formoterol than those in the fixed-dosing group (mean: 2.63 vs 3.82 inhalations; p<0.001). Adjustable maintenance dosing was associated with significantly lower asthma-related direct costs compared with fixed dosing (mean: 221 euro vs 292 euro; p<0.001). This pattern was maintained when patients were stratified into those with peak expiratory flow (PEF) of 60% to <80% predicted normal and those with PEF of>/=80% predicted normal and when total costs were considered.

CONCLUSION

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler maintained HR-QOL in adult patients with asthma at a significantly lower cost than fixed dosing.

Cost-effectiveness of formoterol and salbutamol as asthma reliever medication in Sweden and in Spain

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of formoterol (Oxis) Turbuhaler 4.5 microg and salbutamol 200 microg as reliever medications in Sweden and Spain. The study used data on effectiveness (exacerbations and symptom-free days) and resource utilisation from an open, 6-month, parallel-group, multicentre randomised trial with 18,124 asthma patients in 24 countries. Country-specific unit costs for Sweden and for Spain were used to transform resource utilisation data into costs. Total healthcare costs were not significantly different between formoterol and salbutamol dry powder inhalers in Sweden, whereas in Spain, the healthcare costs were 20% higher for formoterol vs. salbutamol pressurised metered dose inhalers. Total healthcare costs increased with disease severity, defined according to the Global Initiative for Asthma guidelines. Compared with salbutamol, formoterol produced statistically significant improvements in effectiveness, less reliever and maintenance medication usage, reduced healthcare resource utilisation, with no increase or a limited increase in healthcare cost.

Cost effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler for COPD compared with each monocomponent used alone

OBJECTIVE

To compare the healthcare costs and effects of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler with those of budesonide and formoterol monotherapies, and placebo, in a multinational study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)/WHO Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) stages III or IV. Previous analysis of the clinical data from the study had shown that budesonide/formoterol was associated with better lung function and improved health-related QOL compared with the monocomponents or placebo and lower frequency of exacerbations compared with formoterol and placebo.

METHOD

Patients (n = 1022) were randomised to twice-daily treatment with two inhalations of budesonide/formoterol (160 microg/4.5 microg) in a single inhaler, budesonide 200 microg, formoterol 4.5 microg or placebo for 12 months. Data on medication and healthcare use were combined with Swedish unit cost data to estimate the total annual healthcare cost per patient from the Swedish healthcare payer perspective. Costs were valued in Swedish kronor (SEK) [2001 values] and converted to euros (SEK 1 = euro 0.11, 25th April 2003).

RESULTS

This evaluation estimated the total annual healthcare costs per patient to be numerically lower for budesonide/formoterol (euro 2518) than for budesonide (euro 3194), formoterol (euro 3653) or placebo (euro 3213). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggest that budesonide/formoterol may be cost effective compared with formoterol, even if the decision maker is not willing to pay anything for the additional clinical effects, and that budesonide/formoterol is cost effective compared with placebo if a decision maker is willing to pay about euro 2 per day, per avoided exacerbation.

CONCLUSION

This economic analysis suggests that the clinical benefits of using budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler are achieved at a numerically lower total healthcare cost than either monocomponent or placebo. Budesonide/formoterol in patients with severe COPD (GOLD stages III or IV) may be cost effective, from the healthcare provider perspective, compared with either monocomponent.

An economic evaluation of combination treatment with budesonide and formoterol in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma

Patients with mild asthma may benefit from increasing their inhaled corticosteroid dose, adding a long-acting beta2-agonist, or both. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of these options. Patients aged > or = 12 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma (n = 1272) were randomised to twice-daily, double-blind treatment with budesonide 100 microg, budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, budesonide 200 microg, or budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg for 12 months. Clinical variables included lung function, number of symptom-free days and number of severe exacerbations. Data on medication use, hospitalisation, visits to health professionals and time off work due to asthma were combined with Swedish unit cost data (1999) to estimate the mean annual cost per patient. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg had the greatest efficacy and effectiveness. Budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg was both more effective and less costly than budesonide 100 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg, so a cost-effectiveness ratio was not calculated for this comparison. The cost-effectiveness ratio for budesonide 200 microg plus formoterol 4.5 microg compared with budesonide 200 microg alone was SEK 21 per symptom-free days gained. The combination of budesonide and formoterol in mild-to-moderate persistent asthma improved effectiveness at modest additional cost.

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler provides effective asthma symptom control at a lower dose than fixed maintenance dosing

Asthma guidelines suggest a stepwise approach to maintenance pharmacological treatment of persistent asthma until control is attained, and a 3 month review of the fixed maintenance dosing for step-up or step-down adjustment. This 12-week study compared the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (Symbicort Turbuhaler 160/4.5 or 80/4.5 microg) given as adjustable maintenance or fixed maintenance dosing. Patients (n = 2358) were randomised to budesonide/formoterol fixed maintenance dosing (two inhalations bid) or adjustable maintenance dosing (two inhalation bid; stepping up to four inhalations bid if asthma worsened for a maximum of 14 days; stepping down to two inhalations once nocte or one inhalation bid if symptoms were controlled) for 12 weeks, following a 4-week run-in period on budesonide/formoterol two inhalations bid. Primary efficacy variables were frequency of asthma exacerbations and changes in patients' asthma symptom severity. Secondary variables were asthma control, safety and health economics. Both adjustable maintenance dosing and fixed maintenance dosing were associated with similar low frequency of exacerbations (5% both groups; ns) and similarly improved lung function, with similarly fewer nocturnal awakenings and less asthma symptoms compared with the mean value of the run-in period. However, patients on adjustable maintenance dosing used 24% fewer study drug compared with fixed maintenance dosing (2.95 versus 3.86 inhalations daily; p < 0.0001) and incurred in a significant (p <0.0001) reduction in total costs (direct+indirect) compared with fixed maintenance dosing. In conclusion, adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol effectively controls asthma at a reduced drug load with lower costs than fixed maintenance dosing.

An economic evaluation of adjustable and fixed dosing with budesonide/formoterol via a single inhaler in asthma patients: the ASSURE study

BACKGROUND

The severity of asthma varies between individuals and over time. As a result individuals may have marked variation in their need for asthma treatment. Adjustable dosing enables patients to assume greater involvement in managing their own condition.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the costs and effectiveness of fixed dosing of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbohaler) with adjustable maintenance dosing.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK NHS. Adults with established asthma currently maintained on > or =400 microg per day inhaled corticosteroid were enrolled in 365 primary care centres in the UK. Patients were run-in on 2 inhalations twice daily of budesonide/formoterol 80/4.5 microg or budesonide/formoterol 160/4.5 microg (depending on steroid requirement) for 4 weeks and were then randomised to the Symbicort adjustable maintenance dosing plan (SAMD) (n = 782; budesonide/formoterol 1-4 inhalations twice daily depending on symptoms) or Symbicort fixed dosing (n = 771; 2 inhalations twice daily) for a further 12 weeks. The primary effectiveness variable was clinically meaningful change in quality of life (QoL) assessed by the miniasthma quality of life questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary effectiveness measures included symptom-free days with no short-acting beta-agonist use. We assessed the costs of study medication, asthma-related concomitant medication, primary care and hospital contacts. Confidence intervals were generated by nonparametric boot-strapping.

RESULTS

Clinically meaningful improvement in QoL during the first 4 weeks was reported by 40.8% of enrolled patients. During the following 12 weeks, a net 1% (95% CI: -4%, 6%) of SAMD patients and 6% (95% CI: 1%, 10%) of fixed dosing patients reported further improvement. Effectiveness parameters did not differ significantly between groups during the study period. Mean daily cost per patient was pound sterling 1.13 (95% CI: pound sterling 1.08, pound sterling 1.18) in the SAMD group and pound sterling 1.31 (95% CI: pound sterling 1.27, pound sterling 1.34) in the fixed dosing. The difference in mean daily cost resulted in an annual per patient cost difference of pound sterling 65.70. Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provided equivalent QoL to fixed dosing at significantly lower cost.

Artemisinin-based combination therapy reduces expenditure on malaria treatment in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

There is growing international evidence that artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is one of the few effective measures available to 'Roll Back Malaria'. However, concerns about the costs and affordability of ACT are obstacles to its widespread implementation. This paper explores some economic aspects of the implementation of artemether-lumefantrine (AL) to replace sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) in the KwaZulu Natal (KZN) province, South Africa.

METHODS

Recurrent and capital costs for malaria treatment were compared at baseline and post-intervention for nine clinics and a sentinel rural district hospital. Changes in the unit costs of, and total expenditure on, malaria services were calculated and the cost effectiveness of AL relative to SP was assessed.

RESULTS

The number of outpatient malaria cases and inpatient admissions both declined by 94% between 2000 and 2002. After accounting for the role of concurrent improvements in vector control, it was conservatively estimated that 36% of the decline in outpatient cases and 46% for inpatient admissions was attributable to changing the first-line drug to AL. Although AL is considerably more expensive than SP, its improved cure rate and reduced malaria transmission resulted in an estimated 201,065 US dollars cost saving in 2002 alone for the subdistrict studied.

DISCUSSION

In the context of effective vector control and low efficacy of existing monotherapy, ACT can reduce total expenditure on malaria services. However, the relevance of these findings requires careful consideration in countries with currently effective treatment policies and higher intensity malaria transmission.

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone in moderate to severe asthma

BACKGROUND

Current asthma guidelines recommend that patients are educated to adjust their medication according to their asthma severity using physician-guided self-management plans. However, many patients take a fixed dose of their controller medication and adjust their reliever medication according to asthma symptoms.

OBJECTIVES

This study examined whether asthma control improved if patients adjusted the maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler* 160/4.5 microg) according to asthma severity compared with traditional fixed dosing (FD) regimens.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients with asthma (n = 658, mean symptom score 1.5, mean inhaled corticosteroids 735 microg/day, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV(1)] 84% predicted) were randomised after 2 weeks' run-in to either: budesonide/formoterol adjustable maintenance dosing (AMD), budesonide/formoterol FD or salmeterol/fluticasone (Seretide Diskus dagger 50/250 microg) FD. In a 4-week double-blind period, both budesonide/formoterol AMD and FD groups received two inhalations twice daily (bid) and salmeterol/fluticasone FD patients received one inhalation bid. In the following 6-month open extension, both FD groups continued with the same treatment. Patients in the AMD group with well-controlled asthma stepped down to one inhalation bid; others continued with two inhalations bid. All AMD patients could increase to four inhalations bid for 7-14 days if symptoms worsened. All patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for symptom relief throughout. The primary variable was the odds of achieving a well-controlled asthma week (WCAW).

RESULTS

The odds ratio for achieving a WCAW did not differ between the FD regimens; however, during the open period, budesonide/formoterol AMD increased the odds of achieving a WCAW vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (odds ratio 1.335; 95% CI: 1.001, 1.783; p = 0.049) despite a 15% reduction in average study drug use. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients had a lower exacerbation rate over the study: 40% lower vs. salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.018); 32% lower vs. budesonide/formoterol FD (NS). During the double-blind period, there were no clinically relevant differences between the budesonide/formoterol FD and salmeterol/fluticasone FD groups. Budesonide/formoterol AMD patients used less reliever medication in the open extension: 0.58 vs. 0.92 occasions/day for budesonide/formoterol FD (p = 0.001) and 0.80 occasions/day for salmeterol/fluticasone FD (p = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjustable maintenance dosing with budesonide/formoterol provides more effective asthma control by reducing exacerbations and reliever medication usage compared with fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone.

Budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler (Symbicort) reduces healthcare costs compared with separate inhalers in the treatment of asthma over 12 months

This open, multinational, randomised, parallel-group, six-month extension conducted in the Swedish centres of a previous six-month study compared the costs of a total of 12 months of treatment with budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler with budesonide plus formoterol separate inhalers in 320 adults with asthma. Patients received budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler) 160/4.5 mg delivered doses, two inhalations b.i.d., or corresponding doses of budesonide (Pulmicort Turbuhaler) plus formoterol (Oxis Turbuhaler). Direct costs and indirect costs were estimated. Budesonide/formoterol treatment was associated with reduced healthcare service utilisation and statistically significant reductions in direct (SEK1595, p=0.0004) and total costs (SEK1884, p=0.043) per person per year compared with budesonide plus formoterol. Budesonide/formoterol reduced the average annual emergency room admission cost per person by SEK489.7 (31% of direct cost reduction) and physician costs by SEK235.4 (15%).The direct cost of study, relief and other medication was reduced by SEK893.8 (47% of total reduction). There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy and safety parameters following treatment with budesonide/formoterol from single or separate inhalers, other than a significantly lower proportion of withdrawals with the single inhaler (9.2% vs 19.4%, p=0.008). In summary, budesonide/formoterol treatment from a single inhaler reduced 12-month treatment costs compared with separate inhalers, while maintaining at least as good control of asthma.

An economic assessment of inhaled formoterol dry powder versus ipratropium bromide pressurized metered dose inhaler in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is debilitating and costly to manage. A recent clinical trial concluded that formoterol, a long-acting beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist, was more clinically effective than inpratropium bromide in the management of COPD.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform an economic assessment of the management of COPD with formeterol versus ipratropium bromide.

METHODS

Assessment were based on the results of a previously published 12-week, multicenter, double-masked, randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing inhaled formoterol dry powder 12 and 24 microg BID with ipratropium bromide 40 microg QID pressurized metered dose inhaler and with placebo in 780 COPD patients. Treatment costs for study drugs and rescue medications were estimated from resource utilization and average wholesale prices. Costs were assessed with respect to forced expiratory lung volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) and patient-reported quality of life (QOL) as assessed via the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for each treatment arm and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment relative to the next best alternative. Economic efficiency frontiers were identified. Sensitivity analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Cost analysis with respect to FEV(1) revealed an economic efficiency frontier formed by placebo, ipratropium bromide 40 microg, and formoterol 12 microg at their respective FEV(1) levels, with cost-effectiveness ratios of $30.18, $53.50, and $142.04, respectively, per FEV(1). The ICER for ipratropium over placebo was $273.03; for formoterol 12 microg over ipratropium, $1611.32. Cost analysis with respect to QOL showed an economic efficiency frontier formed by placebo and formoterol 12 microg at their respective QOL outcomes, with cost-effectiveness ratios of $25.96 and $32.56, respectively, per QOL score change. The cost-effectiveness ratio for ipratropium was $69.40,which was not on the QOL economic efficiency frontier. The ICER for formoterol 12 microg over placebo was $34.51 per QOL score point.

CONCLUSIONS

Formoterol 12 microg provided greater QOL outcome than ipratropium bromide at an additional cost of $554.28 per year. Further research would be necessary to assess whether the differences in outcomes, particularly QOL, observed in the short term with formoterol would lead to favorable long-term health and economic outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of eformoterol Turbohaler versus salmeterol Accuhaler in children with symptomatic asthma

We conducted an economic evaluation in a UK setting based on a 12-week prospective randomized open-label parallel-group comparison of eformoterol Turbohaler 12 microg b. i.d. with salmeterol Accuhaler 50 microg b. i.d. in children aged 6-17 with symptomatic asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting beta2-agonists. The principal effectiveness measure was percentage of symptom-free days with no short-acting beta2-agonist use during the study period. Asthma-related medication, unscheduled physician contacts and hospitalizations were collected prospectively and cost to the UK NHS calculated using year 2,000 prices. The economic evaluation included 73 patients in the eformoterol group and 72 patients in the salmeterol group. The mean age of patients was 11.6 years (eformoterol) and 11.8 years (salmeterol). The mean percentage of symptom-free days with no short-acting beta2-agonist use was 39% in the eformoterol group and 30% in the salmeterol group. Mean per patient daily cost was 1.15 pounds in the eformoterol group and 1.39 pounds in the salmeterol group. Both cost and effectiveness differences favoured eformoterol (P < 0.05; one-sided). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the results to be robust to changes in effectiveness, price and resource utilisation parameters. Eformoterol delivered by Turbohaler was found to be significantly more effective and less expensive than salmeterol Accuhaler in this study.

The whole story: treatment outcomes with Symbicort

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that has a considerable socioeconomic impact. Asthma management guidelines have been introduced to help provide better long-term control of asthma. Although recommended guidelines may increase the direct medication costs, the overall direct costs of asthma may be reduced due to fewer exacerbations. In addition, indirect costs due to lost productivity and mortality are reduced and patients have an improved quality of life. Inhaled corticosteroids are first-line therapy in the treatment of persistent asthma. Against this background, we have assessed the cost-effectiveness of Symbicort (budesonide and formoterol in a single inhaler), a treatment that provides better control of asthma compared with budesonide alone. While the prescribing costs of Symbicort were found to be higher than for budesonide alone, these were partially offset by reduced costs due to fewer asthma exacerbations and a reduced need for other medications. Combined long-term therapy with budesonide and formoterol also improves patient quality of life compared with budesonide alone. Two other factors associated with asthma treatment success and cost-effectiveness are patient/physic an education and good patient adherence to prescribed therapy. The introduction of a single inhaler that is easy to use in simple treatment regimens may improve patient adherence to prescribed medication, thus resulting in improved asthma control and fewer exacerbations. Treatment with Symbicort is more cost-effective than treatment with budesonide alone.