Determining economic feasibility of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol vs montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma using a net benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves

• Published in: Annals of allergy, asthma, & immunology Vol. 95; no. 2; p. 181
• Main Authors: Borker, Rohit, Emmett, Amanda, Jhingran, Priti, Rickard, Kathleen, Dorinsky, Paul
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.08.2005
• Subjects: Acetates - economics; Acetates - therapeutic use; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Albuterol - analogs & derivatives; Albuterol - economics; Albuterol - therapeutic use; Androstadienes - economics; Androstadienes - therapeutic use; Anti-Asthmatic Agents - economics; Anti-Asthmatic Agents - therapeutic use; Asthma - drug therapy; Asthma - economics; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Double-Blind Method; Drug Combinations; Drug Costs; Female; Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; Humans; Leukotriene Antagonists - economics; Leukotriene Antagonists - therapeutic use; Male; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Quinolines - economics; Quinolines - therapeutic use; Respiratory Function Tests
• ISSN: 1081-1206
• DOI: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)61209-4

The choice of treatment can have a major impact on the total costs associated with asthma care. To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of twice-daily treatment with inhaled fluticasone propionate-salmeterol via Diskus, 100/50 microg, with that of once-daily treatment with oral montelukast as initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma uncontrolled with a short-acting beta2-agonist alone. Data from a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, 12-week clinical trial were analyzed. Efficacy end points included (1) symptom-free days (SFDs) during the 12-week period and (2) a 12% or greater increase in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline. The economic analysis was performed from a payer's perspective, and hence only direct costs were included in the analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which is the mean difference in average costs divided by the mean difference in average effectiveness, was calculated for both effectiveness outcomes (SFDs and FEV1). For the SFDs end point, the ICER for fluticasone propionate-salmeterol vs montelukast was $2.87 (95% confidence interval, -$1.08 to $6.65), indicating that it costs, on average, an extra $2.87 per day for an additional SFD with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol than with montelukast. With regard to FEV1, the ICER was $1.79 (95% confidence interval, -$0.72 to $3.86), indicating that it costs, on average, an extra $1.79 per day to achieve a lung function improvement of 12% or greater from baseline with fluticasone propionate-salmeterol than with montelukast. At a widely acceptable ceiling ratio of $9.95 per day, the probability of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol being more cost-effective than montelukast was 99.8% for SFDs and was almost 100% for an FEV1 improvement of 12% of greater. Treating 2 main components of asthma, inflammation and smooth muscle dysfunction, using fluticasone propionate-salmeterol is more cost-effective than using a single mediator antagonist alone, such as montelukast, as initial maintenance therapy for persistent asthma in patients treated with a short-acting beta2-agonist only.