Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus inhaled corticosteroids for initial asthma controller therapy: a pragmatic trial.
ABSTRACT 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.
- SourceAvailable from: filt.de[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Outcome data are needed to base recommendations for controller asthma medication use in school-aged children. We sought to determine intraindividual and interindividual response profiles and predictors of response to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and a leukotriene receptor antagonist (LTRA). An ICS, fluticasone propionate (100 mug twice daily), and an LTRA, montelukast (5-10 mg nightly, age dependent), were administered to children ages 6 to 17 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma using only as-needed bronchodilators in a multicenter, double-masked, 2-sequence, 16-week crossover trial. Clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to these controllers were evaluated. Improvements in most clinical asthma control measures occurred with both controllers. However, clinical outcomes (asthma control days [ACDs], the validated Asthma Control Questionnaire, and albuterol use), pulmonary responses (FEV(1)/forced vital capacity, peak expiratory flow variability, morning peak expiratory flow, and measures of impedance), and inflammatory biomarkers (exhaled nitric oxide [eNO]) improved significantly more with fluticasone than with montelukast treatment. eNO was both a predictor of ACDs (P = .011) and a response indicator (P = .003) in discriminating the difference in ACD response between fluticasone and montelukast. The more favorable clinical, pulmonary, and inflammatory responses to an ICS than to an LTRA provide pediatric-based group evidence to support ICSs as the preferred first-line therapy for mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in children. eNO, as a predictor of response, might help to identify individual children not receiving controller medication who achieve a greater improvement in ACDs with an ICS compared with an LTRA.Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 02/2006; 117(1):45-52. · 12.05 Impact Factor
- Health Policy 01/1990; 16:199-208. · 1.51 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to understand systematic differences in utility values derived from the EQ-5D and the SF-6D in two respiratory populations with heterogeneous disease severity. This study involved secondary analysis of data from two cross-sectional surveys of patients with asthma (N = 228; Hungary) and COPD (N = 176; Sweden). Disease severity was defined according to GINA and GOLD guidelines for asthma and COPD, respectively. EQ-5D and SF-6D scores and their distributional characteristics were compared across the two samples by disease severity level. Within each patient population, mean EQ-5D and SF-6D scores were similar for the overall group and for those with moderate disease. Mean scores varied for patients with mild and severe disease. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the asthma group by severity levels were 0.89 versus 0.80, 0.70 versus 0.73, 0.63 versus 0.64, and 0.51 versus 0.63, respectively. EQ-5D versus SF-6D scores in the COPD group by severity levels were 0.85 versus 0.80, 0.73 versus 0.73, 0.74 versus 0.73, and 0.53 versus 0.62, respectively. Results suggest the EQ-5D and SF-6D do not yield consistent utility values in patients with asthma and COPD due to differences in underlying valuation techniques and the EQ-5D's limited response options relative to mild disease.Quality of Life Research 01/2009; 18(2):267-72. · 2.41 Impact Factor