Carlos E Rodriguez-Martinez1,2, Monica P Sossa-Briceño3, Jose A Castro-Rodriguez4. 1. Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Carrera 45 No. 26-85, Bogota, Colombia. carerodriguezmar@unal.edu.co. 2. Department of Pediatric Pulmonology and Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad El Bosque, Av. Cra 9 No. 131A-02, Bogota, Colombia. carerodriguezmar@unal.edu.co. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Carrera 45 No. 26-85, Bogota, Colombia. 4. Division of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Av Libertador Bernardo O'Higgins 340, Santiago, Región Metropolitana, Chile.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. RESULTS: A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. RESULTS: A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.
Authors: M J Nuijten; M H Pronk; M J Brorens; Y A Hekster; J H Lockefeer; P A de Smet; G Bonsel; A van der Kuy Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 4.981
Authors: Edward C F Wilson; Erika J Sims; Stanley D Musgrave; Lee Shepstone; Annie Blyth; Jamie Murdoch; H Miranda Mugford; Elizabeth F Juniper; Jon G Ayres; Stephanie Wolfe; Daryl Freeman; Richard F T Gilbert; Ian Harvey; Elizabeth V Hillyer; David Price Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2010 Impact factor: 4.981
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: David Price; Iain Small; John Haughney; Dermot Ryan; Kevin Gruffydd-Jones; Federico Lavorini; Tim Harris; Annie Burden; Jeremy Brockman; Christine King; Alberto Papi Journal: Prim Care Respir J Date: 2013-12
Authors: Luis Manuel Entrenas Costa; Francisco Casas-Maldonado; José Gregorio Soto Campos; Alicia Padilla-Galo; Alberto Levy; Francisco Javier Álvarez Gutiérrez; Ana P Gómez-Bastero Fernández; Concepción Morales-García; Rocío Gallego Domínguez; Gustavo Villegas Sánchez; Luis Mateos Caballero; Antonio Pereira-Vega; Cayo García Polo; Gerardo Pérez Chica; Juan José Martín Villasclaras Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2019-09
Authors: A Padilla-Galo; A J García-Ruiz; R Ch Levy Abitbol; C Olveira; F Rivas-Ruiz; N García-Agua Soler; M Pérez Morales; B Valencia Azcona; B Tortajada-Goitia; I Moya-Carmona; A Levy-Naon Journal: Respir Res Date: 2021-05-27