BACKGROUND:Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. METHODS: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV(1) of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. RESULTS: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC(20) subgroup (PC(20) <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. CONCLUSION: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine. Copyright Â
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. METHODS: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV(1) of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. RESULTS: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC(20) subgroup (PC(20) <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. CONCLUSION: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine. Copyright Â
Authors: Christine A Sorkness; Robert F Lemanske; David T Mauger; Susan J Boehmer; Vernon M Chinchilli; Fernando D Martinez; Robert C Strunk; Stanley J Szefler; Robert S Zeiger; Leonard B Bacharier; Gordon R Bloomberg; Ronina A Covar; Theresa W Guilbert; Gregory Heldt; Gary Larsen; Michael H Mellon; Wayne J Morgan; Mark H Moss; Joseph D Spahn; Lynn M Taussig Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2006-11-30 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Talitha L Feenstra; Maureen P M H Rutten-Van Mölken; Johannes C Jager; Liesbeth E M Van Essen-Zandvliet Journal: Pediatr Pulmonol Date: 2002-12
Authors: Sean D Sullivan; Martin Buxton; L Fredrik Andersson; Carl Johan Lamm; Bengt Liljas; Yu Zhi Chen; Romain A Pauwels; Kevin B Weiss Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Iolo Doull; David Price; Mike Thomas; Neil Hawkins; Eugena Stamuli; Maggie Tabberer; Toby Gosden; Helen Rudge Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Jason E Lang; Anne M Fitzpatrick; David T Mauger; Theresa W Guilbert; Daniel J Jackson; Robert F Lemanske; Fernando D Martinez; Robert C Strunk; Robert S Zeiger; Wanda Phipatanakul; Leonard B Bacharier; Jacqueline A Pongracic; Fernando Holguin; Michael D Cabana; Ronina A Covar; Hengameh H Raissy; Monica Tang; Stanley J Szefler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Luke Rudmik; Timothy L Smith; Rodney J Schlosser; Peter H Hwang; Jess C Mace; Zachary M Soler Journal: Laryngoscope Date: 2014-03-11 Impact factor: 3.325
Authors: Hengameh H Raissy; H William Kelly; Michelle Harkins; Stanley J Szefler Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405