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.

David Price, Iain Small, John Haughney, Dermot Ryan, Kevin Gruffydd-Jones, Federico Lavorini, Tim Harris, Annie Burden, Jeremy Brockman, Christine King, Alberto Papi
{"title":"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.","authors":"David Price,&nbsp;Iain Small,&nbsp;John Haughney,&nbsp;Dermot Ryan,&nbsp;Kevin Gruffydd-Jones,&nbsp;Federico Lavorini,&nbsp;Tim Harris,&nbsp;Annie Burden,&nbsp;Jeremy Brockman,&nbsp;Christine King,&nbsp;Alberto Papi","doi":"10.4104/pcrj.2013.00088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Efficacy trials suggest that extra-fine particle beclometasone dipropionate-formoterol (efBDP-FOR) is comparable to fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SAL) in preventing asthma exacerbations at a clinically equivalent dosage. However, switching from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR has not been evaluated in real-world asthma patients.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The REACH (Real-world Effectiveness in Asthma therapy of Combination inHalers) study investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching typical asthma patients from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective matched (1:3) observational study of 1,528 asthma patients aged 18-80 years from clinical practice databases was performed. Patients remaining on FP-SAL (n=1,146) were compared with those switched to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosage (n=382). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups for the year before and after the switch. Non-inferiority (at least equivalence) of efBDP-FOR was tested against FP-SAL by comparing exacerbation rates during the outcome year.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>efBDP-FOR was non-inferior to FP-SAL (adjusted exacerbation rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.37)). Switching to efBDP-FOR resulted in significantly better (p<0.05) odds of achieving overall asthma control (no asthma-related hospitalisations, bronchial infections, or acute oral steroids; salbutamol ≤200μg/day) and lower daily short-acting β2-agonist usage at a lower daily ICS dosage (mean -130μg/day FP equivalents; p<0.001). It also reduced mean asthma-related healthcare costs by £93.63/patient/year (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Asthma patients may be switched from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower ICS dosage with no reduction in clinical effectiveness but a significant reduction in cost.</p>","PeriodicalId":48998,"journal":{"name":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00088","citationCount":"41","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary Care Respiratory Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 41

Abstract

Background: Efficacy trials suggest that extra-fine particle beclometasone dipropionate-formoterol (efBDP-FOR) is comparable to fluticasone propionate-salmeterol (FP-SAL) in preventing asthma exacerbations at a clinically equivalent dosage. However, switching from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR has not been evaluated in real-world asthma patients.

Aims: The REACH (Real-world Effectiveness in Asthma therapy of Combination inHalers) study investigated the clinical and cost effectiveness of switching typical asthma patients from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR.

Methods: A retrospective matched (1:3) observational study of 1,528 asthma patients aged 18-80 years from clinical practice databases was performed. Patients remaining on FP-SAL (n=1,146) were compared with those switched to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) dosage (n=382). Clinical and economic outcomes were compared between groups for the year before and after the switch. Non-inferiority (at least equivalence) of efBDP-FOR was tested against FP-SAL by comparing exacerbation rates during the outcome year.

Results: efBDP-FOR was non-inferior to FP-SAL (adjusted exacerbation rate ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.37)). Switching to efBDP-FOR resulted in significantly better (p<0.05) odds of achieving overall asthma control (no asthma-related hospitalisations, bronchial infections, or acute oral steroids; salbutamol ≤200μg/day) and lower daily short-acting β2-agonist usage at a lower daily ICS dosage (mean -130μg/day FP equivalents; p<0.001). It also reduced mean asthma-related healthcare costs by £93.63/patient/year (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Asthma patients may be switched from FP-SAL to efBDP-FOR at an equivalent or lower ICS dosage with no reduction in clinical effectiveness but a significant reduction in cost.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

哮喘患者从氟替卡松-沙美特罗转向超细颗粒倍氯米松-福莫特罗的临床和成本效益:一项对现实世界患者的回顾性匹配观察性研究
背景:疗效试验表明,超细颗粒倍氯米松双丙酸-福莫特罗(efBDP-FOR)与丙酸氟替卡松-沙美特罗(FP-SAL)在临床等效剂量下预防哮喘加重的效果相当。然而,从FP-SAL到efBDP-FOR的转换尚未在现实哮喘患者中进行评估。目的:REACH(联合吸入器治疗哮喘的实际效果)研究调查了将典型哮喘患者从FP-SAL转换为efBDP-FOR的临床和成本效益。方法:对临床数据库中1528例18 ~ 80岁哮喘患者进行回顾性匹配(1:3)观察性研究。继续使用FP-SAL的患者(n= 1146)与使用同等或更低吸入皮质类固醇(ICS)剂量的efBDP-FOR的患者(n=382)进行比较。研究人员比较了两组在转换前后一年的临床和经济结果。通过比较结果年内的恶化率,对efBDP-FOR与FP-SAL进行非劣效性(至少等效)测试。结果:efBDP-FOR不逊于FP-SAL(调整后加重率比1.01 (95% CI 0.74 ~ 1.37))。结论:哮喘患者可以在同等或更低的ICS剂量下从FP-SAL切换到efBDP-FOR,临床疗效没有降低,但成本显著降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Primary Care Respiratory Journal
Primary Care Respiratory Journal PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信