Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review
The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.
A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (n = 5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting β-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (n = 38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (n = 14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (n = 15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting β-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.
The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.
The authors thank Mr. Charlie Barret for his editorial assistance.
Dr. RM conceptualized and designed the study, carried out the initial analyses, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final version as submitted. Dr. SB critically reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final version as submitted. Dr. CR carried out the initial analyses, reviewed and revised the manuscript, and approved the final version as submitted. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript as submitted and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of interest
Carlos E. Rodriguez-Martinez, Monica P. Sossa-Briceno, and Jose A. Castro-Rodriguez declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 8.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien B, Stoddart GL, et al. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.Google Scholar
- 12.Shepherd J, Rogers G, Anderson R, Main C, Thompson-Coon J, Hartwell D, et al. Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over. Health technology assessment. 2008;12(19):iii–iv, 1–360.Google Scholar
- 26.Powell CV, Kolamunnage-Dona R, Lowe J, Boland A, Petrou S, Doull I, et al. MAGNEsium Trial In Children (MAGNETIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of nebulised magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma in children. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17(45):v–vi, 1–216.Google Scholar
- 28.Schreck DM, Babin S. Comparison of racemic albuterol and levalbuterol in the treatment of acute asthma in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(7):842–7.Google Scholar
- 42.Lundback B, Jenkins C, Price MJ, Thwaites RM. Cost-effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product 50/250 microg twice daily and budesonide 800 microg twice daily in the treatment of adults and adolescents with asthma. International Study Group. Respir Med. 2000;94(7):724–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Lundborg M, Wille S, Bjermer L, Tilling B, Lundgren M, Telg G, et al. Maintenance plus reliever budesonide/formoterol compared with a higher maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol plus formoterol as reliever in asthma: an efficacy and cost-effectiveness study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(5):809–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.Price D, Haughney J, Duerden M, Nicholls C, Moseley C. 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. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(10):653–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Price D, Small I, Haughney J, Ryan D, Gruffydd-Jones K, Lavorini F, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of switching asthma patients from fluticasone-salmeterol to extra-fine particle beclometasone-formoterol: a retrospective matched observational study of real-world patients. Prim Care Respir J. 2013;22(4):439–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Borker R, Emmett A, Jhingran P, Rickard K, Dorinsky P. Determining economic feasibility of fluticasone propionate-salmeterol vs montelukast in the treatment of persistent asthma using a net benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2005;95(2):181–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 74.Price D, Musgrave S, Wilson E, Sims E, Shepstone L, Blyth A, et al. A pragmatic single-blind randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the use of leukotriene receptor antagonists in primary care at steps 2 and 3 of the national asthma guidelines (ELEVATE study). Health Technol Assess. 2011;15(21):1–132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 80.Wang L, Hollenbeak CS, Mauger DT, Zeiger RS, Paul IM, Sorkness CA, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;127(1):161–6, 6.e1.Google Scholar
- 81.Wilson EC, Price D, Musgrave SD, Sims EJ, Shepstone L, Murdoch J, et al. Cost effectiveness of leukotriene receptor antagonists versus long-acting beta-2 agonists as add-on therapy to inhaled corticosteroids for asthma: a pragmatic trial. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(7):597–608.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 95.Dal Negro RW, Pradelli L, Tognella S, Micheletto C, Iannazzo S. Cost-utility of add-on omalizumab in difficult-to-treat allergic asthma in Italy. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011;43(2):45–53.Google Scholar
- 98.Perera BJ. Efficacy and cost effectiveness of inhaled steroids in asthma in a developing country. Archives of disease in childhood. 1995;72(4):312–5 (discussion 5–6).Google Scholar
- 100.Stempel DA. Economic analysis of asthma practices. American journal of managed care. 2000;6(17 Suppl):S930–6; (discussion S7–9).Google Scholar
- 102.Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). British guideline on the management of asthma: a national clinical guideline. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2016.Google Scholar
- 103.Global Initiative for Asthma. Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, 2017. http://www.ginasthma.org. Accessed 9 Jan 2018
- 104.Tadrous M, Khuu W, Lebovic G, Stanbrook MB, Martins D, Paterson JM, et al. Real-world health care utilization and effectiveness of omalizumab for the treatment of severe asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2018;120(1):59–65.e2.Google Scholar
- 111.Weinstein MC, O’Brien B, Hornberger J, Jackson J, Johannesson M, McCabe C, et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices—Modeling Studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar