Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma

Citation
Mpmh. Rutten-van Molken et al., Cost-effectiveness analysis of formoterol versus salmeterol in patients with asthma, PHARMACOECO, 14(6), 1998, pp. 671-684
Citations number
29
Categorie Soggetti
Pharmacology
Journal title
PHARMACOECONOMICS
ISSN journal
11707690 → ACNP
Volume
14
Issue
6
Year of publication
1998
Pages
671 - 684
Database
ISI
SICI code
1170-7690(199812)14:6<671:CAOFVS>2.0.ZU;2-Z
Abstract
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.