Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over

Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre, Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development , University of Southampton, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) (Impact Factor: 5.03). 06/2008; 12(19):iii-iv, 1-360. DOI: 10.3310/hta12190
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone and ICS used in combination with a long-acting beta2 agonist (LABA) in the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged over 12 years.
Major electronic bibliographic databases, e.g. MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched up to February/March 2006 (and updated again in October 2006).
A systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness studies was conducted. Cost comparison and cost-consequence analyses were performed where appropriate.
The assessment of clinical effectiveness was based on the 67 randomised controlled trials selected from the 5175 reports identified through the systematic literature search. The most frequently reported relevant outcomes were lung function, symptoms, use of rescue medication and adverse events. The trials varied considerably. In the trials that compared low-dose ICS versus ICS and high-dose ICS versus ICS, there were few significant differences in clinical effectiveness, although a few of the trials had assessed non-inferiority between the comparators rather than superiority. At doses of 400, 800 and 'high-level' doses of 1500 or 1600 microg/day, beclometasone dipropionate (BDP) appears to be the current cheapest ICS product both with the inclusion and exclusion of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC)-propelled products. A significant treatment benefit for combination ICS/LABA therapy across a range of outcomes compared with ICS alone was identified [when the ICS was double the accepted clinically equivalent dose of the ICS in the combination inhaler, and dry powder inhalers (DPIS) were used to deliver the drugs]. When a formoterol fumarate (FF)/salmeterol (SAL) combination inhaler and a budesonide (BUD)/FF combination inhaler were each compared with their constituent drugs delivered in separate inhalers, there were very few statistically significant differences between the treatments across the various efficacy outcomes and the rate of adverse events. Combination inhalers were more often cheaper than doubling the dose of ICS alone. However, the costs were highly variable and dependent on both the dose required and the preparation used in the trials. The estimated mean annual cost of FP/SAL combination varied from being 94 pounds cheaper to 109 pounds more expensive than the alternative of BUD at a higher dose. The BUD/FF combination varied from being 163 pounds cheaper to 66 pounds more expensive than the higher dose of either BUD or FP. When the combination inhalers were compared to each other, the results were mixed, with the FP/SAL combination significantly superior on some outcomes and the BUD/FF combination superior on others; however, meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the two treatments in the rate of adverse events. Taking an ICS with a LABA as either of the two currently available combination products, FP/SAL and BUD/FF, is usually cheaper than taking the relevant constituent drugs in separate inhalers. At very high doses of BUD (1600 microg/day), however, the BUD/FF combination inhaler can be up to 156 pounds more expensive than having the same drugs in separate inhalers. In terms of the relative costs associated with taking one of the combination inhalers, at low dose (400 microg BUD or 200 microg FP/day) the cheapest combination inhaler is FP/SAL as a pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) (Seretide Evohaler). However, this is only slightly cheaper than using BUD/FF as a DPI (Symbicort Turbohaler). At higher dose levels (800 microg BUD or 500 microg FP/day) FP/SAL as either pMDI aerosol (Seretide Evohaler) or a DPI (Seretide Accuhaler) is the cheapest combination product available, but again only slightly cheaper than the DPI BUD/FF combination (Symbicort Turbohaler). It should be highlighted, however, that the three head-to-head trials that compared the effects of FP/SAL with BUD/FF used the FP/SAL DPI combination inhaler, Seretide Accuhaler.
The evidence indicates that there are few consistent significant differences in effects between the five ICS licensed for use in adults and adolescents over the age of 12 years, at either low or high dose. On average, BDP products currently tend to be the cheapest ICS available and tend to remain so as the daily ICS dose required increases. There is evidence that the addition of a LABA to an ICS is potentially more clinically effective than doubling the dose of ICS alone, although consistent significant differences between the two treatment strategies are not observed for all outcome measures. The cost differences between combination therapy compared with ICS monotherapy are highly variable and dependent on the dose required and the particular preparations used. For the combination therapies of ICS/LABA there are potential cost savings with the use of combination inhalers compared with separate inhalers, with few differences between the two treatment strategies in terms of effects. The only exception to this cost saving is with BUD/FF at doses higher than 1200 microg/day, where separate inhaler devices can become equivalent to or cheaper than combination inhalers. Neither of the two combination inhalers (FP/SAL or BUD/FF) is consistently superior in terms of treatment effect. A comparison of the costs associated with each combination therapy indicates that at low dose FP/SAL delivered via a pMDI is currently the cheapest combination inhaler but only marginally cheaper than BUD/FF delivered as a DPI. At higher doses, both the FP/SAL combination inhalers (PMDI and DPI) are marginally cheaper than BUD/FF (DPI). Future trials of treatment for chronic asthma should standardise the way in which outcome measures are defined and measured, with a greater focus on patient-centred outcomes. For informing future cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses from a UK NHS perspective, there is a need for longitudinal studies that comprehensively track the care pathways followed when people experience asthma exacerbations of different severity. Further research synthesis, quantifying the adverse effects of the different ICS, is required for treatment choices by patients and clinicians to be fully informed.

Download full-text


Available from: Petra Harris, Sep 25, 2015
159 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In dit onderzoek wordt nagegaan in hoeverre de richtlijnen van medische specialisten en huisartsen voor de top 5 van belangrijkste geneesmiddelengroepen, gemeten naar uitgaven in 2007, aandacht besteden aan doelmatigheid. Bij de meeste richtlijnen is maar beperkt aandacht besteed aan economische overwegingen. De richtlijnen Cardiovasculair risicomanagement en de richtlijn Angststoornissen zijn de enige richtlijnen waarbij het aspect ‘doelmatigheid’ op systematische wijze is meegenomen. Weinig of geen aandacht voor doelmatigheid leidt niet automatisch tot een verkeerde aanbeveling. In de richtlijnen over maagzuurremmers en astma is bijvoorbeeld nauwelijks rekening gehouden met economische overwegingen, maar zijn de aanbevelingen uit de richtlijnen in overeenstemming met de conclusies uit de literatuur ten aanzien van doelmatigheid. Economische informatie kan worden gebruikt om aanbevelingen aan te scherpen, beter te onderbouwen of te differentiëren naar specifieke subgroepen van patiënten. Een HTA- expert binnen een richtlijnwerkgroep kan de kwaliteit van economische evaluaties en toepasbaarheid voor de Nederlandse setting beoordelen en bijdragen tot een goede integratie van deze kennis in de aanbevelingen van de richtlijn. Economic evidence in practice guidelines for medications: results of a ‘quick scan’ The present paper examined the extent to which guidelines of medical specialists and general practitioners with respect to the five most important medications by means of expenditures in 2007 consider cost effectiveness. Most guidelines pay only limited attention to economic evidence. The guidelines on cardiovascular risk management and anxiety disorders are the only guidelines which systematically regard cost effectiveness of medications. Little or no attention for economic evidence does not necessarily lead to wrong recommendations. For example, the guidelines on stomach complaints and asthma hardly consider economic evidence. Nevertheless, the recommendations of these guidelines are in agreement with the conclusions in the literature regarding cost-effectiveness. Economic evaluations may be used to support recommendations or differentiate between specific subgroup of patients. Appointing an economic expert to guideline development committees could allow for the quality of the economic evaluations and their applicability to the Dutch setting to be assessed. The economic expert could contribute to the integration of economic considerations in guidelines of medical specialists and general practitioners. Keywords: Guidelines, Medication, Evaluation, Cost effectiveness, Quick Scan richtlijnen-medicatie-evaluatie-doelmatigheid-quick Scan
    05/2010; 88(4):175-181. DOI:10.1007/BF03089593
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) combinations are the preferred maintenance therapy for adult asthma patients uncontrolled by ICS alone. Supporting data are largely from mixed populations of adolescents and adults, although ICS/LABA combinations are not approved for adolescents in all countries. This analysis evaluates overall asthma control in asthma patients aged >or=16 years receiving ICS/LABA combinations. This was a post hoc analysis of asthma patients aged >or=16 years in a randomized, double-blind/open-label extension, parallel-group study. Patients received fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort Turbuhaler), fixed maintenance-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair Diskus) or adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol. Patients used terbutaline or salbutamol for as-needed reliever medication. The primary efficacy variable was the odds of having a well controlled asthma week during the randomized treatment period. ICS/LABA regimens were well tolerated and efficacious, and the odds for achieving a well controlled asthma week did not differ between groups in this sub-analysis. The number of exacerbations was similar between fixed-dose regimens; however, there were trends toward fewer exacerbations requiring hospitalization/emergency room treatment in the fixed- and adjustable maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol groups (three and two events, respectively) than in the fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate group (eight events). Improvements in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) were small but significantly greater with fixed-dose budesonide/formoterol versus fixed-dose salmeterol/fluticasone propionate. This post hoc analysis supports the use of ICS/LABA combinations in adults aged >or=16 years.
    Clinical Drug Investigation 01/2010; 30(7):439-51. DOI:10.2165/11533420-000000000-00000 · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Three fixed maintenance-dose inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (ICS/LABA) combinations for the treatment of asthma are currently available: salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair/Adoair) budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort) and beclometasone/formoterol (Foster). All of these combinations have proven efficacy in terms of controlling symptoms, improving lung function and reducing the rate of exacerbations compared with ICSs and LABAs administered separately. Budesonide/formoterol is also approved for use as maintenance and reliever therapy in a number of countries (Symbicort SMART). Many of the studies supporting the use of budesonide/formoterol combination therapies have included populations of adolescents and adults aged >11 years. This post hoc analysis compared the efficacy of ICS/LABA fixed maintenance-dose treatment with budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in patients with persistent asthma aged > or =16 years. Following 2-weeks' run-in, 2866 adults aged > or =16 years were randomized to: fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol 640 microg/18 microg per day, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 100 microg/500 microg per day plus terbutaline as needed, or budesonide/formoterol 320 microg/9 microg per day plus additional inhalations as needed (budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy). Outcome measures included time to first severe asthma exacerbation (primary outcome) and number of severe asthma exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy prolonged time to first severe exacerbation versus budesonide/formoterol and salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance dose (p = 0.037 and p = 0.0089, respectively). Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, fixed maintenance-dose budesonide/formoterol reduced the risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room visits by 28% (relative rate [RR] 0.72; 95% CI 0.53, 0.98; p = 0.034) and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy by 37% (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46, 0.87; p = 0.0043). All treatments provided similar improvements in lung function, asthma control days and asthma-related quality of life. Budesonide/formoterol fixed maintenance dose or maintenance and reliever therapy provides similar improvements in current asthma control and reduces the future risk of hospitalizations/emergency-room treatments versus salmeterol/fluticasone propionate fixed maintenance-dose treatment, providing additional clinical benefit to asthma patients aged > or =16 years.
    Clinical Drug Investigation 09/2010; 30(9):565-79. DOI:10.2165/11533450-000000000-00000 · 1.56 Impact Factor
Show more