BACKGROUND: The results of a recent meta-analysis comparing 2 inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide, demonstrated that FP had an improved efficacy-to-safety ratio compared with budesonide. However, limited data are available on the relative economic benefits of these 2 regimens. OBJECTIVE: This pharmacoeconomic analysis used individual patient data from studies in the meta-analysis to compare the relative cost-efficacy of 2 asthma regimens from the perspective of a US third-party payer. METHODS: This analysis included all 7 studies in the meta-analysis that compared budesonide with FP dosed at approximately half the dose of budesonide and that included measurement of daily morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). RESULTS: The total daily per-person cost of asthma management was higher for patients treated with budesonide than with FP ($3.00 vs $2.25, respectively). Treatment with FP had greater cost-efficacy than treatment with budesonide, based on a range of outcome measures that included improvement in morning PEF, symptom-free days, and episode-free days. The daily cost per effectively treated patient (an increase in PEF of > or = 10%) was $5.62 with FP and $10.05 with budesonide. The cost per symptom-free day was $4.36 with FP, compared with $6.67 with budesonide. The cost per episode-free day was $5.60 with FP and $9.42 with budesonide. The pharmacoeconomic difference continued to favor FP as the criteria for success were made more stringent and the cost of budesonide was lowered. CONCLUSION: Based on data from the 7 randomized, controlled trials, treatment of asthma with FP was more effective and less expensive, using US health care assumptions and costs, than treatment with budesonide.
BACKGROUND: The results of a recent meta-analysis comparing 2 inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate (FP) and budesonide, demonstrated that FP had an improved efficacy-to-safety ratio compared with budesonide. However, limited data are available on the relative economic benefits of these 2 regimens. OBJECTIVE: This pharmacoeconomic analysis used individual patient data from studies in the meta-analysis to compare the relative cost-efficacy of 2 asthma regimens from the perspective of a US third-party payer. METHODS: This analysis included all 7 studies in the meta-analysis that compared budesonide with FP dosed at approximately half the dose of budesonide and that included measurement of daily morning peak expiratory flow (PEF). RESULTS: The total daily per-person cost of asthma management was higher for patients treated with budesonide than with FP ($3.00 vs $2.25, respectively). Treatment with FP had greater cost-efficacy than treatment with budesonide, based on a range of outcome measures that included improvement in morning PEF, symptom-free days, and episode-free days. The daily cost per effectively treated patient (an increase in PEF of > or = 10%) was $5.62 with FP and $10.05 with budesonide. The cost per symptom-free day was $4.36 with FP, compared with $6.67 with budesonide. The cost per episode-free day was $5.60 with FP and $9.42 with budesonide. The pharmacoeconomic difference continued to favor FP as the criteria for success were made more stringent and the cost of budesonide was lowered. CONCLUSION: Based on data from the 7 randomized, controlled trials, treatment of asthma with FP was more effective and less expensive, using US health care assumptions and costs, than treatment with budesonide.