Jefferson Antonio Buendía1, Diana Guerrero Patiño2, Hernan Lucio Talamoni3. 1. Research group in Pharmacology and Toxicology "INFARTO", Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Facultad de Medicina, University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia. 2. Corporación Universitaria Adventista, Sede Medellin, Medellín, Colombia. 3. Departamento de Clinica Pediatrica, Seccion de Neumonologia Pediátrica, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previously evidence has demonstrated that as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol reduced the risk of severe exacerbations compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in an adolescent with mild asthma. Concerns as if the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in adolescents with mild asthma in Colombia. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.03 QALYs and per patient per year on low-dose budesonide-formoterol. The cost difference per person was US$-4 per patient per year in favor of budesonide- formoterol. The position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in adolescents with mild asthma. This evidence should promote economic evaluations in developed and developing countries for the inclusion of new drugs in health insurance plans.
BACKGROUND: Previously evidence has demonstrated that as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol reduced the risk of severe exacerbations compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in an adolescent with mild asthma. Concerns as if the extra benefit offered by this drug outweighs the additional cost. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of as-needed combination low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) reliever therapy in adolescents with mild asthma in Colombia. METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was created to estimate the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients with mild asthma in Colombia. Total costs and QALYs of low-dose budesonide-formoterol compared with short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) were calculated over a lifetime horizon. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated at a willingness-to-pay value of $19,000. RESULTS: The model suggests a potential gain of 0.03 QALYs and per patient per year on low-dose budesonide-formoterol. The cost difference per person was US$-4 per patient per year in favor of budesonide- formoterol. The position of dominance negates the need to calculate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In the one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, our base-case results were robust to variations of all assumptions and parameters. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, low-dose budesonide-formoterol as a reliever was found to be cost-effective when added to usual care in adolescents with mild asthma. This evidence should promote economic evaluations in developed and developing countries for the inclusion of new drugs in health insurance plans.