OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of fluticasone via metered dose inhaler and budesonide via Turbuhaler((R)) in corticosteroid-naive patients with moderate asthma from a third-party payer perspective (German Sickness Funds). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective economic assessment of direct medication costs of treatment was performed on data from a prospective, randomised, parallel group, 6-week clinical trial. 457 corticosteroid-naive patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years with moderate asthma were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The fluticasone group had a higher proportion of successfully treated patients (those with a peak expiratory flow rate improvement of >/=10%) [47 vs 42%], a higher average proportion of symptom-free days (40 vs 34%) and lower direct healthcare costs [1997 Deutschmarks (DM)] per day (DM4.23 vs DM5.19) than the budesonide group. Therefore, the daily costs per successfully treated patient (DM9.00 vs DM12.36) and the cost per symptom-free day (DM10.58 vs DM15.26) were both lower with fluticasone than with budesonide. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these results were relatively robust over a wide range of plausible assumptions. CONCLUSION: These results showed that from the perspective of a third-party payer, fluticasone was more cost effective than budesonide over the 6-week study period.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of fluticasone via metered dose inhaler and budesonide via Turbuhaler((R)) in corticosteroid-naive patients with moderate asthma from a third-party payer perspective (German Sickness Funds). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective economic assessment of direct medication costs of treatment was performed on data from a prospective, randomised, parallel group, 6-week clinical trial. 457 corticosteroid-naive patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years with moderate asthma were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: The fluticasone group had a higher proportion of successfully treated patients (those with a peak expiratory flow rate improvement of >/=10%) [47 vs 42%], a higher average proportion of symptom-free days (40 vs 34%) and lower direct healthcare costs [1997 Deutschmarks (DM)] per day (DM4.23 vs DM5.19) than the budesonide group. Therefore, the daily costs per successfully treated patient (DM9.00 vs DM12.36) and the cost per symptom-free day (DM10.58 vs DM15.26) were both lower with fluticasone than with budesonide. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these results were relatively robust over a wide range of plausible assumptions. CONCLUSION: These results showed that from the perspective of a third-party payer, fluticasone was more cost effective than budesonide over the 6-week study period.
Authors: M P Rutten-van Mölken; E K Van Doorslaer; M C Jansen; E E Van Essen-Zandvliet; F F Rutten Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 1993-10 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: M P Rutten-van Mölken; E K Van Doorslaer; M C Jansen; H A Kerstjens; F F Rutten Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 21.405