Thor-Henrik Brodtkorb1, Olle Zetterström, Gustav Tinghög. 1. Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköpings Universitet, Linköping, Sweden. Thor-Henrik.Brodtkorb@ihs.liu.se
Abstract
INTRODUCTION:Airsonett Airshower (AA) is a novel non-pharmaceutical treatment for patients with perennial allergic asthma that uses a laminar airflow directed to the breathing zone of patients during sleep. It has been shown that AA treatment in addition to optimized standard therapy significantly increases asthma-related quality of life among adolescent asthmatics. However, the cost-effectiveness of AA treatment has not yet been assessed. As reimbursement decisions are increasingly guided by results from the cost-effectiveness analysis, such information is valuable for health-care policy-makers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding AA treatment with allergen-free air during night sleep to optimized standard therapy for adolescents with perennial allergic asthma compared with placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a 5-year period. Costs and effects are presented from a Swedish health-care perspective (QALYs). The main outcome of interest was cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: The Airshower strategy resulted in a mean gain of 0.25 QALYs per patient, thus yielding a cost per QALY gained of under euro35 000 as long as the cost of Airshower is below euro8200. CONCLUSIONS: Adding AA treatment to optimized standard therapy for adolescents with perennial allergic asthma compared with placebo is generating additional QALYs at a reasonable cost. However, further studies taking more detailed resource use and events such as exacerbations into account would be needed to fully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AA treatment.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Airsonett Airshower (AA) is a novel non-pharmaceutical treatment for patients with perennial allergic asthma that uses a laminar airflow directed to the breathing zone of patients during sleep. It has been shown that AA treatment in addition to optimized standard therapy significantly increases asthma-related quality of life among adolescent asthmatics. However, the cost-effectiveness of AA treatment has not yet been assessed. As reimbursement decisions are increasingly guided by results from the cost-effectiveness analysis, such information is valuable for health-care policy-makers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of adding AA treatment with allergen-free air during night sleep to optimized standard therapy for adolescents with perennial allergic asthma compared with placebo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was developed to estimate costs and health outcomes over a 5-year period. Costs and effects are presented from a Swedish health-care perspective (QALYs). The main outcome of interest was cost per QALY gained. RESULTS: The Airshower strategy resulted in a mean gain of 0.25 QALYs per patient, thus yielding a cost per QALY gained of under euro35 000 as long as the cost of Airshower is below euro8200. CONCLUSIONS: Adding AA treatment to optimized standard therapy for adolescents with perennial allergic asthma compared with placebo is generating additional QALYs at a reasonable cost. However, further studies taking more detailed resource use and events such as exacerbations into account would be needed to fully evaluate the cost-effectiveness of AA treatment.