These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An economic evaluation of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever treatment in asthma in general practice.
    Author: Goossens LM, Riemersma RA, Postma DS, van der Molen T, Rutten-van Mölken MP.
    Journal: Adv Ther; 2009 Sep; 26(9):872-85. PubMed ID: 19768640.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: In budesonide/formoterol (Symbicort(R) Turbuhaler(R), AstraZeneca, Lund, Sweden) maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART), patients with asthma take a daily maintenance dose of budesonide/formoterol, with the option of taking additional doses for symptom relief instead of a short-acting beta(2)-agonist (SABA). This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of SMART compared with usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma treated by general practitioners in the Netherlands from a societal perspective. METHODS: The study was linked to a randomized, active-controlled, open-label, multicenter, 12-month clinical trial, with a prospective collection of resource use. One hundred and two patients > or =18 years with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma and daily inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) prior to the trial were included. SMART was given as two inhalations of budesonide/formoterol (100/6 microg) once daily, plus additional doses as needed. The control group was treated according to guidelines, which prescribe medium daily doses of ICS plus an SABA if needed. A long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA) is added if necessary. Effectiveness was measured as the proportion of asthma-control days, Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) scores, the net proportion of patients with relevant ACQ improvement, and the proportion of well-controlled patients. Costs included asthma medication, physician contacts, and absence from work. RESULTS: Mean total costs for SMART were <euro>134.81 lower (95% CI: -<euro>439.48; <euro>44.85). Production losses were <euro>94.10 (95% CI: -<euro>300.60; <euro>0.29) lower for SMART (<euro>10.77 vs. <euro>104.87). No significant differences in health outcomes were seen, with 3.81 fewer asthma-control days per patient-year for SMART (95% CI: -36.8; 30.8), a 0.049 better ACQ score (95% CI: -0.21; 0.29), a 5.8% larger net proportion of improved patients (95% CI: t15.6%; 27.3%), and a 2.1% (95% CI: -25.5; 20.8%) smaller increase in the proportion of well-controlled patients. CONCLUSIONS: Treating primary care patients with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma with SMART instead of ICS plus bronchodilators does not affect health outcomes and does not increase costs; therefore, is likely to be an alternative for guideline-directed treatment, from a health and economic perspective.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]