Mpmh. Rutten-van Molken et al., Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma, PHARMACOECO, 14(6), 1998, pp. 671-684
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the relative economic con
sequences of treating asthmatics with twice daily dry powder formoterol 12
mu g as compared with salmeterol 50 mu g from a societal perspective.
Design and Setting: A randomised, 6-month, open-label study including 482 p
atients with asthma was conducted in Italy, Spain, France, Switzerland, the
UK and Sweden.
Medical costs included the costs of medications, physician services, emerge
ncy room visits, hospital admissions and lung function and other tests. Tra
vel costs and costs of production loss were also calculated. Unit prices we
re estimated from external sources. To pool the costs of the 6 countries, E
uropean currencies were converted to US dollars using 1995 exchange rates.
Outcome measures were the number of episode-free days (EFDs) and the number
of patients reaching a clinically relevant improvement in quality of lift:
as measured using the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire.
Main outcome measures and results: There were no significant differences be
tween the 2 treatment arms in the frequency of emergency room visits, hospi
tal admissions, use of rescue medication or contacts with general practitio
ners (GPs), specialists or nurses. Median medical costs over 6 months were
$US828 per patient with formoterol and $US850 with salmeterol. This differe
nce was not statistically significant. In both groups, about 60% of all day
s were episode-free. Average costs per EFD were about $US9 for both treatme
nts. The average cost per patient reaching a clinically relevant improvemen
t in quality of life was between $US1300 and $US1400. Incremental cost-effe
ctiveness ratios were not calculated because both costs and outcomes were n
ot significantly different. Asthma-related absenteeism ranged between 3 day
s and 6 months per patient in both groups.
Conclusions: There was no evidence to suggest that either treatment was mor
e cost effective than the other.