Literature DB >> 24194361

Budget impact analysis of a fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) for asthma.

William Dunlop1, Louise Heron, Georgia Fox, Maire Greaney.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The economic burden of asthma on the UK National Health Service (NHS) is the largest among allergic diseases. Current asthma guidelines recommend adding a long acting β2-agonist (LABA) to a low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) in patients who are on ICS monotherapy and have uncontrolled asthma. The fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol xinafoate (FP/SAL), available in a pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) device, is the most commonly prescribed ICS/LABA combination. An additional fixed-dose combination of fluticasone propionate and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) in pMDI is now available. In a 12-week non-inferiority study, FP/FORM demonstrated comparable efficacy to FP/SAL. The present analysis estimates the annual budget impact for the UK NHS using FP/FORM as an alternative to FP/SAL.
METHODS: Current pMDI prescribing data were from a real-world UK patient database (Cegedim Strategic Data). Annual costs to the NHS for drug acquisition, administration, and monitoring were estimated for FP/FORM and FP/SAL and used to assess the potential budget impact for the NHS for the use of FP/FORM instead of FP/SAL. Varying rates of uptake, adherence, adverse event-related costs, and resource use associated with switching treatment were assessed in scenario analyses.
RESULTS: Assuming similar levels of ICS use with both regimens, annual drug acquisition costs per person were lower with FP/FORM (£412) than with FP/SAL (£509). The difference in acquisition costs and otherwise comparable input costs between the treatments, results in potential annual savings of £15,110,279 to the NHS, assuming uptake of FP/FORM over FP/SAL in 50% of existing patients. The introduction of FP/FORM results in cost savings for the NHS in all of the assessed scenario analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: The comparable efficacy and lower acquisition costs of FP/FORM compared with FP/SAL make it a cost-saving option for the UK NHS for the treatment of asthma patients requiring combination maintenance therapy using a pMDI.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24194361     DOI: 10.1007/s12325-013-0062-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Adv Ther        ISSN: 0741-238X            Impact factor:   3.845


  1 in total

1.  FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma.

Authors:  Emily Farrington; Alison Saunders; Louise Heron; William Dunlop
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2016-03-26       Impact factor: 3.845

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.