Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Jonathan Geoffrey Ayres, M. Price, J. Efthimiou

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    26 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a debilitating disease and places a large financial burden on health-care systems and society. We prospectively evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who were symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy. Methods: An economic analysis was performed in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing FP 1000 mug/day with placebo in 281 patients aged 45-79 years with symptomatic moderate-to-severe COPD. Data on clinical efficacy health-care resource use and productivity loss associated with the management of COPD were prospectively collected. The main outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness of achieving a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FFV1 and of remaining exacerbation-free throughout the study. The economic evaluation was costed from the perspective of the NHS (direct costs) and of society (direct and indirect costs). Results: FP was significantly more effective than placebo in terms of the proportions of patients demonstrating a : 10% improvement in FEV1 (32 vs. 19%; P=0.02) and remaining free of moderate/severe exacerbations (75 vs. 63%; P=0.02).The difference between the groups in total costs was not significantly different. Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the additional clinical benefits of FP relative to placebo, in terms of a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FEV1 or an increased number of patients free of moderate/severe exacerbations, were achieved at minimal additional costs from an NHS perspective (additional E0.25 per day for both) or at a net saving from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to changes in the underlying assumptions. Conclusions: Treatment with FP was associated with statistically significant clinical benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD currently symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy As the differences in direct and total costs compared with placebo were small and non-significant, this treatment can be considered cost effective in this patient population. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)212-220
    Number of pages8
    JournalRespiratory Medicine
    Volume97
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2003

    Keywords

    • chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • fluticasone propionate
    • cost-effectiveness
    • INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS
    • CHRONIC-BRONCHITIS
    • ASTHMA
    • BURDEN
    • COPD
    • BUDESONIDE
    • MODERATE
    • MILD

    Cite this

    Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial. / Ayres, Jonathan Geoffrey; Price, M.; Efthimiou, J.

    In: Respiratory Medicine, Vol. 97, No. 3, 03.2003, p. 212-220.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{fad1713034c44b589ab560f00e878c54,
    title = "Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial",
    abstract = "Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a debilitating disease and places a large financial burden on health-care systems and society. We prospectively evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who were symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy. Methods: An economic analysis was performed in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing FP 1000 mug/day with placebo in 281 patients aged 45-79 years with symptomatic moderate-to-severe COPD. Data on clinical efficacy health-care resource use and productivity loss associated with the management of COPD were prospectively collected. The main outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness of achieving a greater than or equal to10{\%} improvement in FFV1 and of remaining exacerbation-free throughout the study. The economic evaluation was costed from the perspective of the NHS (direct costs) and of society (direct and indirect costs). Results: FP was significantly more effective than placebo in terms of the proportions of patients demonstrating a : 10{\%} improvement in FEV1 (32 vs. 19{\%}; P=0.02) and remaining free of moderate/severe exacerbations (75 vs. 63{\%}; P=0.02).The difference between the groups in total costs was not significantly different. Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the additional clinical benefits of FP relative to placebo, in terms of a greater than or equal to10{\%} improvement in FEV1 or an increased number of patients free of moderate/severe exacerbations, were achieved at minimal additional costs from an NHS perspective (additional E0.25 per day for both) or at a net saving from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to changes in the underlying assumptions. Conclusions: Treatment with FP was associated with statistically significant clinical benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD currently symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy As the differences in direct and total costs compared with placebo were small and non-significant, this treatment can be considered cost effective in this patient population. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.",
    keywords = "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, fluticasone propionate, cost-effectiveness, INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS, CHRONIC-BRONCHITIS, ASTHMA, BURDEN, COPD, BUDESONIDE, MODERATE, MILD",
    author = "Ayres, {Jonathan Geoffrey} and M. Price and J. Efthimiou",
    year = "2003",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1053/rmed.2003.1441",
    language = "English",
    volume = "97",
    pages = "212--220",
    journal = "Respiratory Medicine",
    issn = "0954-6111",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial

    AU - Ayres, Jonathan Geoffrey

    AU - Price, M.

    AU - Efthimiou, J.

    PY - 2003/3

    Y1 - 2003/3

    N2 - Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a debilitating disease and places a large financial burden on health-care systems and society. We prospectively evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who were symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy. Methods: An economic analysis was performed in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing FP 1000 mug/day with placebo in 281 patients aged 45-79 years with symptomatic moderate-to-severe COPD. Data on clinical efficacy health-care resource use and productivity loss associated with the management of COPD were prospectively collected. The main outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness of achieving a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FFV1 and of remaining exacerbation-free throughout the study. The economic evaluation was costed from the perspective of the NHS (direct costs) and of society (direct and indirect costs). Results: FP was significantly more effective than placebo in terms of the proportions of patients demonstrating a : 10% improvement in FEV1 (32 vs. 19%; P=0.02) and remaining free of moderate/severe exacerbations (75 vs. 63%; P=0.02).The difference between the groups in total costs was not significantly different. Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the additional clinical benefits of FP relative to placebo, in terms of a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FEV1 or an increased number of patients free of moderate/severe exacerbations, were achieved at minimal additional costs from an NHS perspective (additional E0.25 per day for both) or at a net saving from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to changes in the underlying assumptions. Conclusions: Treatment with FP was associated with statistically significant clinical benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD currently symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy As the differences in direct and total costs compared with placebo were small and non-significant, this treatment can be considered cost effective in this patient population. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

    AB - Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a debilitating disease and places a large financial burden on health-care systems and society. We prospectively evaluated the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone propionate (FP) treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD, who were symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy. Methods: An economic analysis was performed in a 6-month, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing FP 1000 mug/day with placebo in 281 patients aged 45-79 years with symptomatic moderate-to-severe COPD. Data on clinical efficacy health-care resource use and productivity loss associated with the management of COPD were prospectively collected. The main outcome measures were the incremental cost-effectiveness of achieving a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FFV1 and of remaining exacerbation-free throughout the study. The economic evaluation was costed from the perspective of the NHS (direct costs) and of society (direct and indirect costs). Results: FP was significantly more effective than placebo in terms of the proportions of patients demonstrating a : 10% improvement in FEV1 (32 vs. 19%; P=0.02) and remaining free of moderate/severe exacerbations (75 vs. 63%; P=0.02).The difference between the groups in total costs was not significantly different. Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the additional clinical benefits of FP relative to placebo, in terms of a greater than or equal to10% improvement in FEV1 or an increased number of patients free of moderate/severe exacerbations, were achieved at minimal additional costs from an NHS perspective (additional E0.25 per day for both) or at a net saving from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analysis showed that these results were robust to changes in the underlying assumptions. Conclusions: Treatment with FP was associated with statistically significant clinical benefits in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD currently symptomatic on regular bronchodilator therapy As the differences in direct and total costs compared with placebo were small and non-significant, this treatment can be considered cost effective in this patient population. (C) 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

    KW - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

    KW - fluticasone propionate

    KW - cost-effectiveness

    KW - INHALED CORTICOSTEROIDS

    KW - CHRONIC-BRONCHITIS

    KW - ASTHMA

    KW - BURDEN

    KW - COPD

    KW - BUDESONIDE

    KW - MODERATE

    KW - MILD

    U2 - 10.1053/rmed.2003.1441

    DO - 10.1053/rmed.2003.1441

    M3 - Article

    VL - 97

    SP - 212

    EP - 220

    JO - Respiratory Medicine

    JF - Respiratory Medicine

    SN - 0954-6111

    IS - 3

    ER -