Cargando…

FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma

INTRODUCTION: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) such as fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) are commonly used for the treatment of asthma in the UK. Previously, a budget impact analysis demonstrated that use of FP and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) pMDI as an alternative to FP/SAL p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farrington, Emily, Saunders, Alison, Heron, Louise, Dunlop, William
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27084726
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0317-6
_version_ 1782434104718917632
author Farrington, Emily
Saunders, Alison
Heron, Louise
Dunlop, William
author_facet Farrington, Emily
Saunders, Alison
Heron, Louise
Dunlop, William
author_sort Farrington, Emily
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) such as fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) are commonly used for the treatment of asthma in the UK. Previously, a budget impact analysis demonstrated that use of FP and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) pMDI as an alternative to FP/SAL pMDI, would be a cost-saving option for the UK National Health Service (NHS). This budget impact analysis aimed to update the existing analysis with prescription volume data and real-world evidence since the introduction of FP/FORM to the UK market. METHODS: Patient Data (IMS Information Solutions UK Ltd) moving annual total (MAT) August 2015 were used to ascertain the number of units of pMDI prescribed. Annual costs to the NHS in terms of drug, administration, monitoring and adverse event costs, were used to estimate the potential budget impact for FP/FORM and FP/SAL. Costs were calculated for current prescription volumes (12% FP/FORM, 88% FP/SAL), and for different prescription volume scenarios (FP/FORM at 0%, 25%, 50% and 100%). Real-world evidence and budget impact at a clinical commissioning group (CCG) level were also considered. RESULTS: Total annual costs per person year were less with FP/FORM (£625) than with FP/SAL (£734). Annual costs to the NHS based on the current prescription volumes and clinical trial data were estimated at £210.0M, however, based on real-world evidence, costs were estimated at £179.8M. For all scenarios with increased FP/FORM prescription volumes, the annual total costs to the NHS decreased. This was reflected at a CCG level. CONCLUSION: The use of FP/FORM as an alternative to FP/SAL can result in cost savings for the NHS when assessing drug, administration, monitoring and adverse events costs. The inclusion of data released since the launch of FP/FORM within the budget impact analysis demonstrates that the potential cost savings to the NHS that were previously published are being translated to clinical practice. FUNDING: Mundipharma, UK.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4882365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48823652016-06-21 FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma Farrington, Emily Saunders, Alison Heron, Louise Dunlop, William Adv Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: Pressurized metered-dose inhalers (pMDI) such as fluticasone propionate and salmeterol (FP/SAL) are commonly used for the treatment of asthma in the UK. Previously, a budget impact analysis demonstrated that use of FP and formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) pMDI as an alternative to FP/SAL pMDI, would be a cost-saving option for the UK National Health Service (NHS). This budget impact analysis aimed to update the existing analysis with prescription volume data and real-world evidence since the introduction of FP/FORM to the UK market. METHODS: Patient Data (IMS Information Solutions UK Ltd) moving annual total (MAT) August 2015 were used to ascertain the number of units of pMDI prescribed. Annual costs to the NHS in terms of drug, administration, monitoring and adverse event costs, were used to estimate the potential budget impact for FP/FORM and FP/SAL. Costs were calculated for current prescription volumes (12% FP/FORM, 88% FP/SAL), and for different prescription volume scenarios (FP/FORM at 0%, 25%, 50% and 100%). Real-world evidence and budget impact at a clinical commissioning group (CCG) level were also considered. RESULTS: Total annual costs per person year were less with FP/FORM (£625) than with FP/SAL (£734). Annual costs to the NHS based on the current prescription volumes and clinical trial data were estimated at £210.0M, however, based on real-world evidence, costs were estimated at £179.8M. For all scenarios with increased FP/FORM prescription volumes, the annual total costs to the NHS decreased. This was reflected at a CCG level. CONCLUSION: The use of FP/FORM as an alternative to FP/SAL can result in cost savings for the NHS when assessing drug, administration, monitoring and adverse events costs. The inclusion of data released since the launch of FP/FORM within the budget impact analysis demonstrates that the potential cost savings to the NHS that were previously published are being translated to clinical practice. FUNDING: Mundipharma, UK. Springer Healthcare 2016-03-26 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC4882365/ /pubmed/27084726 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0317-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Farrington, Emily
Saunders, Alison
Heron, Louise
Dunlop, William
FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title_full FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title_fullStr FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title_full_unstemmed FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title_short FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma
title_sort fp/form versus fp/sal within clinical practice: an updated budget impact analysis in asthma
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4882365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27084726
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12325-016-0317-6
work_keys_str_mv AT farringtonemily fpformversusfpsalwithinclinicalpracticeanupdatedbudgetimpactanalysisinasthma
AT saundersalison fpformversusfpsalwithinclinicalpracticeanupdatedbudgetimpactanalysisinasthma
AT heronlouise fpformversusfpsalwithinclinicalpracticeanupdatedbudgetimpactanalysisinasthma
AT dunlopwilliam fpformversusfpsalwithinclinicalpracticeanupdatedbudgetimpactanalysisinasthma