Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus inhaled corticosteroids for initial asthma controller therapy: A pragmatic trial
Faculty of Health, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. PharmacoEconomics
(Impact Factor: 2.45).
05/2010; 28(7):585-95. DOI: 10.2165/11537560-000000000-00000
Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness--in a primary-care setting--of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for initial asthma controller therapy.
To compare the cost effectiveness of LTRAs versus ICS for patients initiating asthma controller therapy.
An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 12-80 years with asthma and symptoms requiring regular anti-inflammatory therapy (n = 326) were randomly assigned to LTRAs (n = 162) or ICS (n = 164). The main outcome measures were the incremental costs per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire and per QALY gained from the UK NHS and societal perspectives.
Over 2 years, resource use was similar between the two treatment groups, but the cost to society per patient was significantly higher for the LTRA group, at pounds sterling 711 versus pounds sterling 433 for the ICS group (adjusted difference pounds sterling 204; 95% CI 74, 308) [year 2005 values]. Cost differences were driven primarily by differences in prescription drug costs, particularly study drug costs. There was a nonsignificant (imputed, adjusted) difference between treatment groups, favouring ICS, in QALYs gained at 2 years of -0.073 (95% CI -0.143, 0.010). Therapy with LTRAs was, on average, a dominated strategy, and, at a threshold for willingness to pay of pounds sterling 30,000 per QALY gained, the probability of LTRAs being cost effective compared with ICS was approximately 3% from both societal and NHS perspectives.
There is a very low probability of LTRAs being cost effective in the UK, at 2005 values, compared with ICS for initial asthma controller therapy.
UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.
Available from: Don Husereau
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Economic evaluations of health interventions pose a particular challenge for reporting because substantial information must be conveyed to allow scrutiny of study findings. Despite a growth in published reports, existing reporting guidelines are not widely adopted. There is also a need to consolidate and update existing guidelines and promote their use in a user-friendly manner. A checklist is one way to help authors, editors, and peer reviewers use guidelines to improve reporting. OBJECTIVE: The task force's overall goal was to provide recommendations to optimize the reporting of health economic evaluations. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement is an attempt to consolidate and update previous health economic evaluation guidelines into one current, useful reporting guidance. The CHEERS Elaboration and Explanation Report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force facilitates the use of the CHEERS statement by providing examples and explanations for each recommendation. The primary audiences for the CHEERS statement are researchers reporting economic evaluations and the editors and peer reviewers assessing them for publication. METHODS: The need for new reporting guidance was identified by a survey of medical editors. Previously published checklists or guidance documents related to reporting economic evaluations were identified from a systematic review and subsequent survey of task force members. A list of possible items from these efforts was created. A two-round, modified Delphi Panel with representatives from academia, clinical practice, industry, and government, as well as the editorial community, was used to identify a minimum set of items important for reporting from the larger list. RESULTS: Out of 44 candidate items, 24 items and accompanying recommendations were developed, with some specific recommendations for single study-based and model-based economic evaluations. The final recommendations are subdivided into six main categories: 1) title and abstract, 2) introduction, 3) methods, 4) results, 5) discussion, and 6) other. The recommendations are contained in the CHEERS statement, a user-friendly 24-item checklist. The task force report provides explanation and elaboration, as well as an example for each recommendation. The ISPOR CHEERS statement is available online via Value in Health or the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices - CHEERS Task Force webpage (http://www.ispor.org/TaskForces/EconomicPubGuidelines.asp). CONCLUSIONS: We hope that the ISPOR CHEERS statement and the accompanying task force report guidance will lead to more consistent and transparent reporting, and ultimately, better health decisions. To facilitate wider dissemination and uptake of this guidance, we are copublishing the CHEERS statement across 10 health economics and medical journals. We encourage other journals and groups to consider endorsing the CHEERS statement. The author team plans to review the checklist for an update in 5 years.
Value in Health 03/2013; 16(2):231-250. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 · 3.28 Impact Factor
Available from: Michael E Wechsler
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The goal of asthma treatment is to control the disease according to guidelines issued by bodies such as the Global Initiative for Asthma. Effective control is dependent upon evaluation of symptoms, initiation of appropriate treatment and minimization of the progressive adverse effects of the disease and its therapies. Although individual outcome measures have been shown to correlate with asthma control, composite endpoints are preferred to enable more accurate and robust monitoring of the health of the individual patient. A number of validated instruments are utilized to capture these component endpoints; however, there is no consensus on the optimal instrument for use in clinical trials. The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) has been shown to be a valid, reliable instrument that allows accurate and reproducible assessment of asthma control that compares favourably with other commonly used instruments. This analysis provides a summary of the use of ACQ in phase II, III and IV asthma trials. Comparisons between the ACQ and other instruments are also presented. Our analysis suggests that the ACQ is a valid and robust measure for use as a primary or secondary endpoint in future clinical trials.
Allergy 07/2014; 69(9). DOI:10.1111/all.12415 · 6.03 Impact Factor
Available from: Jonathan Grigg
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background:Real-life studies are needed to determine the cost-effectiveness of asthma therapies in clinical practice.Aim:To compare the cost-effectiveness of extrafine-particle inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) with standard size-particle ICS in the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US).Methods:These retrospective matched cohort analyses used large electronic databases to study asthma-related outcomes for patients in the UK (12-60 years old; n=1730) and US (12-80 years; n=10,312) prescribed extrafine beclomethasone or fluticasone as their first ICS therapy for asthma. Patients were matched on demographic characteristics and asthma severity during 1 baseline year, and asthma control and asthma-related costs were compared during 1 outcome year.Results:In both the UK and US, adjusted odds of risk-domain asthma control were similar, whereas the odds of overall control (no hospitalisation or oral steroids for asthma, no antibiotics for lower respiratory infection, limited reliever use) were greater for extrafine ICS in both countries (UK odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.50). Asthma-related annual costs, adjusted for baseline, were significantly lower for extrafine-particle ICS cohorts in both countries (UK difference, â '£66 (95% CI,â '93 to â '37)). Cost-effectiveness analyses using the two measures of asthma control found 92 and 98% probabilities of extrafine-particle ICS being the preferred treatment strategy (less costly and more effective than standard size-particle ICS) in the UK, and 84 and 100% probabilities in the US.Conclusions:Initiating ICS therapy for asthma as extrafine-particle ICS seems the dominant treatment option (less costly and more effective) compared with standard size-particle ICS in both the UK and the US. © 2014 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK/Macmillan Publishers Limited.
npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine 10/2014; 24:14081. DOI:10.1038/npjpcrm.2014.81
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.