The cost effectiveness of chlorofluorocarbon-free beclomethasone dipropionate in the treatment of chronic asthma: a cost model based on a 1-year pragmatic, randomised clinical study

David Brendan Price, John Andrew Francis Haughney, C. Nicholls, M. Duerden, C. Moseley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP; Quae(TM)) with chlorofluorocarbonbeclomethasone dipropionate (CFC-BDP) in patients with chronic stable asthma previously receiving CFC-BDP, from the perspective of a healthcare provider.

Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a 12-month pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, open-label clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of HFA-BDP at approximately half the dose of CFC-BDP in patients with stable asthma.

Setting: International, multicentre study at 57 study sites in the US, UK, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Healthcare costs were calculated for UK-based healthcare [in 1999 as pounds (pound)].

Patients and Participants: Patients (n=473) greater than or equal to12 years of age with currently stable asthma that had been stable (i.e. no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid use in the last 4 weeks) for at least the preceding month.

Main Outcome Measures: Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based upon symptom-free days, improvement in health-related quality of life, and total and drug-only direct healthcare costs.

Results: Patients in the HFA-BDP group experienced a significantly higher percentage of symptom-free days than patients in the CFC-BDP group by the end of the study period (42.4 vs 20.0%; p=0.006). A greater percentage of patients in the HFA-BDP group had a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life than in the CFC-BDP group [35.3 (n=116/329) vs 16.1% (n=18/112)]. Total per patient healthcare costs were similar between the two groups. The average cost per symptom-free day per patient was pound1.36 for HFA-BDP and pound1.81 for CFC-BDP based on total healthcare costs. The incremental cost per symptom-free day for using HFA-BDP instead of CFC-BDP was negative, indicating that HFA-BDP is a dominant strategy and may be a cost-saving intervention compared with CFC-BDP. A sensitivity analysis varying both cost and outcome parameters further supported this finding for most scenarios tested. The cost to achieve a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life over the study period was pound13.24 per improved patient per week for HFA-BDP and pound29.38 per patient per week for CFC-BDP.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that HFA-BDP is a cost-effective intervention when compared with CFC-BDP in this group of patients with stable asthma. In the majority of scenarios HFA-BDP provides more effective asthma control at a similar cost to CFC-BDP.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)653-664
Number of pages11
JournalPharmacoeconomics
Volume20
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002

Keywords

  • FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE
  • EXTRAFINE AEROSOL
  • MODERATE ASTHMA
  • OF-LIFE
  • TRIALS
  • FORMOTEROL
  • EFFICACY
  • OUTCOMES
  • CHILDREN
  • THERAPY

Cite this

@article{d62b5d14a06046c297423fc2d45d9261,
title = "The cost effectiveness of chlorofluorocarbon-free beclomethasone dipropionate in the treatment of chronic asthma: a cost model based on a 1-year pragmatic, randomised clinical study",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP; Quae(TM)) with chlorofluorocarbonbeclomethasone dipropionate (CFC-BDP) in patients with chronic stable asthma previously receiving CFC-BDP, from the perspective of a healthcare provider.Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a 12-month pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, open-label clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of HFA-BDP at approximately half the dose of CFC-BDP in patients with stable asthma.Setting: International, multicentre study at 57 study sites in the US, UK, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Healthcare costs were calculated for UK-based healthcare [in 1999 as pounds (pound)].Patients and Participants: Patients (n=473) greater than or equal to12 years of age with currently stable asthma that had been stable (i.e. no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid use in the last 4 weeks) for at least the preceding month.Main Outcome Measures: Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based upon symptom-free days, improvement in health-related quality of life, and total and drug-only direct healthcare costs.Results: Patients in the HFA-BDP group experienced a significantly higher percentage of symptom-free days than patients in the CFC-BDP group by the end of the study period (42.4 vs 20.0{\%}; p=0.006). A greater percentage of patients in the HFA-BDP group had a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life than in the CFC-BDP group [35.3 (n=116/329) vs 16.1{\%} (n=18/112)]. Total per patient healthcare costs were similar between the two groups. The average cost per symptom-free day per patient was pound1.36 for HFA-BDP and pound1.81 for CFC-BDP based on total healthcare costs. The incremental cost per symptom-free day for using HFA-BDP instead of CFC-BDP was negative, indicating that HFA-BDP is a dominant strategy and may be a cost-saving intervention compared with CFC-BDP. A sensitivity analysis varying both cost and outcome parameters further supported this finding for most scenarios tested. The cost to achieve a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life over the study period was pound13.24 per improved patient per week for HFA-BDP and pound29.38 per patient per week for CFC-BDP.Conclusions: These findings indicate that HFA-BDP is a cost-effective intervention when compared with CFC-BDP in this group of patients with stable asthma. In the majority of scenarios HFA-BDP provides more effective asthma control at a similar cost to CFC-BDP.",
keywords = "FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE, EXTRAFINE AEROSOL, MODERATE ASTHMA, OF-LIFE, TRIALS, FORMOTEROL, EFFICACY, OUTCOMES, CHILDREN, THERAPY",
author = "Price, {David Brendan} and Haughney, {John Andrew Francis} and C. Nicholls and M. Duerden and C. Moseley",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.2165/00019053-200220100-00002",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "653--664",
journal = "Pharmacoeconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost effectiveness of chlorofluorocarbon-free beclomethasone dipropionate in the treatment of chronic asthma: a cost model based on a 1-year pragmatic, randomised clinical study

AU - Price, David Brendan

AU - Haughney, John Andrew Francis

AU - Nicholls, C.

AU - Duerden, M.

AU - Moseley, C.

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP; Quae(TM)) with chlorofluorocarbonbeclomethasone dipropionate (CFC-BDP) in patients with chronic stable asthma previously receiving CFC-BDP, from the perspective of a healthcare provider.Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a 12-month pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, open-label clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of HFA-BDP at approximately half the dose of CFC-BDP in patients with stable asthma.Setting: International, multicentre study at 57 study sites in the US, UK, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Healthcare costs were calculated for UK-based healthcare [in 1999 as pounds (pound)].Patients and Participants: Patients (n=473) greater than or equal to12 years of age with currently stable asthma that had been stable (i.e. no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid use in the last 4 weeks) for at least the preceding month.Main Outcome Measures: Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based upon symptom-free days, improvement in health-related quality of life, and total and drug-only direct healthcare costs.Results: Patients in the HFA-BDP group experienced a significantly higher percentage of symptom-free days than patients in the CFC-BDP group by the end of the study period (42.4 vs 20.0%; p=0.006). A greater percentage of patients in the HFA-BDP group had a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life than in the CFC-BDP group [35.3 (n=116/329) vs 16.1% (n=18/112)]. Total per patient healthcare costs were similar between the two groups. The average cost per symptom-free day per patient was pound1.36 for HFA-BDP and pound1.81 for CFC-BDP based on total healthcare costs. The incremental cost per symptom-free day for using HFA-BDP instead of CFC-BDP was negative, indicating that HFA-BDP is a dominant strategy and may be a cost-saving intervention compared with CFC-BDP. A sensitivity analysis varying both cost and outcome parameters further supported this finding for most scenarios tested. The cost to achieve a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life over the study period was pound13.24 per improved patient per week for HFA-BDP and pound29.38 per patient per week for CFC-BDP.Conclusions: These findings indicate that HFA-BDP is a cost-effective intervention when compared with CFC-BDP in this group of patients with stable asthma. In the majority of scenarios HFA-BDP provides more effective asthma control at a similar cost to CFC-BDP.

AB - Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP; Quae(TM)) with chlorofluorocarbonbeclomethasone dipropionate (CFC-BDP) in patients with chronic stable asthma previously receiving CFC-BDP, from the perspective of a healthcare provider.Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a 12-month pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, open-label clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of HFA-BDP at approximately half the dose of CFC-BDP in patients with stable asthma.Setting: International, multicentre study at 57 study sites in the US, UK, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Healthcare costs were calculated for UK-based healthcare [in 1999 as pounds (pound)].Patients and Participants: Patients (n=473) greater than or equal to12 years of age with currently stable asthma that had been stable (i.e. no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid use in the last 4 weeks) for at least the preceding month.Main Outcome Measures: Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based upon symptom-free days, improvement in health-related quality of life, and total and drug-only direct healthcare costs.Results: Patients in the HFA-BDP group experienced a significantly higher percentage of symptom-free days than patients in the CFC-BDP group by the end of the study period (42.4 vs 20.0%; p=0.006). A greater percentage of patients in the HFA-BDP group had a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life than in the CFC-BDP group [35.3 (n=116/329) vs 16.1% (n=18/112)]. Total per patient healthcare costs were similar between the two groups. The average cost per symptom-free day per patient was pound1.36 for HFA-BDP and pound1.81 for CFC-BDP based on total healthcare costs. The incremental cost per symptom-free day for using HFA-BDP instead of CFC-BDP was negative, indicating that HFA-BDP is a dominant strategy and may be a cost-saving intervention compared with CFC-BDP. A sensitivity analysis varying both cost and outcome parameters further supported this finding for most scenarios tested. The cost to achieve a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life over the study period was pound13.24 per improved patient per week for HFA-BDP and pound29.38 per patient per week for CFC-BDP.Conclusions: These findings indicate that HFA-BDP is a cost-effective intervention when compared with CFC-BDP in this group of patients with stable asthma. In the majority of scenarios HFA-BDP provides more effective asthma control at a similar cost to CFC-BDP.

KW - FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE

KW - EXTRAFINE AEROSOL

KW - MODERATE ASTHMA

KW - OF-LIFE

KW - TRIALS

KW - FORMOTEROL

KW - EFFICACY

KW - OUTCOMES

KW - CHILDREN

KW - THERAPY

U2 - 10.2165/00019053-200220100-00002

DO - 10.2165/00019053-200220100-00002

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 653

EP - 664

JO - Pharmacoeconomics

JF - Pharmacoeconomics

SN - 1170-7690

IS - 10

ER -