Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Beclomethasone/Formoterol versus Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with Moderate to Severe Asthma

Gerzeli, Simone; Rognoni, Carla; Quaglini, Silvana; Cavallo, Maria Caterina; Cremonesi, G; Papi, Alberto

doi:10.2165/11598940-000000000-00000

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These improvements are associated with better health-related quality of life [122, 130, 131] and cost-effectiveness [132, 133]. Additionally, in most studies the Authors observed that the mean daily dose of iCSs was much higher for the large particle aerosols compared to the small particle aerosols of BDP/Form.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small airway dysfunction and bronchial asthma control : the state of the art

Cottini¹,

Lombardi

Micheletto³

2015

asthma res and pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to national and international guidelines, achieving and maintaining asthma control is a major goal of disease management. In closely controlled clinical trials, good asthma control can be achieved , with the medical treatments currently available, in the majority of patients , but large population-based studies suggest that a significant proportion of patients in real-life setting experience suboptimal levels of asthma control and report lifestyle limitations with a considerable burden on quality of life. Poor treatment adherence and persistence, failure to use inhalers correctly, heterogeneity of asthma phenotypes and associated co-morbidities are the main contributing factors to poor disease control. Now, it is widely accepted that peripheral airway dysfunction , already present in patients with mild asthma, is a key contributor of worse control. The aim of this paper is to investigate the association between small-airways dysfunction and asthma symptoms/control. We therefore performed a PubMed search using keywords : small airways; asthma (limits applied: Humans, English language) and selected papers with a study population of asthmatic patients, reporting measurement of small-airways parameters and clinical symptoms/control.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Small airway dysfunction and bronchial asthma control : the state of the art

Cottini¹,

Lombardi

Micheletto³

2015

asthma res and pract

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 of 20 patients in the irst group versus 12 of 20 patients in the second with a statistically signi icant difference (p 0.02). In a work of 2013, Kew and other [20] evaluated the ef icacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol in a single inhaler used for maintenance and rescue therapy compared with the use of luticasone/salmeterol or budesonide/formoterol in combination with salbutamol as rescue medication. The results obtained showed that patients treated with the combination budesonide/formoterol, both as maintenance therapy that as emergency therapy, showed a lower number of asthma exacerbations, fewer hospitalizations and a reduction in the use of oral steroids compared patients treated with SABA as needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol 92/22 μg once-a-day vs Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol 100/6 μg b.i.d. in asthma patients: a 12-week pilot study

Terzano¹,

Oriolo²

2017

J Pulmonol Respir Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two of the most recent LABA/ICS combinations for treatment of persistent asthma are Fluticasone furoate/ Vilanterol 92/22 μg (Ellipta) and Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol 100/6 μg (Nexthaler). Objective:To compare once-daily Fluticasone/ Vilanterol combination with twice daily Beclomethasone/ Formoterol association in moderate asthma, in terms of quality of life and lung function.Methods: Fourty patients with moderate asthma treated with Beclomethasone/Formoterol 100/6 μg or Fluticasone/Vilanterol 92/22 μg. We revalued patients in terms of lung function and Asthma Control Test, at 4, 8 and 12 weeks to assess any differences between the two groups. After 4 weeks, thirty-one of the fourty patients were evaluated in terms of respiratory function at predetermined time intervals.Result: In patients treated with beclomethasone/formoterol FEV1 presented a mean value of 78% at the third visit and of 79.1% during the fi nal check, compared with 74.5% and to 75.8% in patients in treatment with fl uticasone/vilanterol (p 0.01). Mean values of IC and MMEF25-75% were higher in patients treated with beclomethasone/formoterol compared with fl uticasone/vilanterol. For the dyspnea it was a difference at the third observation. For the nocturnal symptoms and the use of rescue drug there was a signifi cant difference, except at the beginning. For the perception of control by patients, there was a difference in the two groups at the beginning, after 4 and 8 weeks. Total ACT score showed a signifi cant difference after 4, 8 and 12 weeks. In the group treated with beclomethasone/formoterol FEV1 value was signifi cantly higher at a distance of four hours after drug administration (p 0.04) and after the second dose (p 0.02) compared with the group treated with fl uticasone/vilanterol. Discussion: Patients in treatment with beclomethasone/formoterol showed improved asthma control and nocturnal symptoms and more stable respiratory function compared with patients receiving fl uticasone/ vilanterol.

show abstract

“…Four studies (16%) did not report any funding sources. Most of the CEA studies using effectiveness evidence (7/8, 87.5%) (7,15,16,22,25,31) reported that the interventions were cost-effective, while only 4 out of 9 (44.4%) (18,20,28,32) CEA studies using efficacy evidence were cost-effective.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

25 cost-effectiveness studies were included. Ten (40.0%) studies were effectiveness-based, yet 15 (60.0%) studies were efficacy-based. Of 17 studies using endpoints that could be compared to WTP threshold, 7 out of 8 (87.5%) effectiveness-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results, whereas 4 out of 9 (44.4%) efficacy-based studies yielded favorable cost-effectiveness results. The adjusted odds ratio was 15.12 (95% confidence interval; 0.59 to 388.75) for effectiveness-based versus efficacy-based achieving favorable cost-effectiveness findings. More asthma cost-effectiveness studies used efficacy-based evidence. Studies using effectiveness-based evidence trended toward being more likely to disseminate favorable cost-effective findings than those using efficacy. Health policy decision makers should pay attention to the type of clinical evidence used in cost-effectiveness studies for accurate interpretation and application.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility of Beclomethasone/Formoterol versus Fluticasone Propionate/Salmeterol in Patients with Moderate to Severe Asthma

Abstract: Overall, from the Italian NHS perspective, BDP/F treatment is associated with a reduction in cost and offers a slight increase of effectiveness in terms of weeks spent in successful control and QALYs.

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Small airway dysfunction and bronchial asthma control : the state of the art

Small airway dysfunction and bronchial asthma control : the state of the art

Fluticasone furoate/Vilanterol 92/22 μg once-a-day vs Beclomethasone dipropionate/Formoterol 100/6 μg b.i.d. in asthma patients: a 12-week pilot study

Does the use of efficacy or effectiveness evidence in cost-effectiveness analysis matter?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About