Cargando…

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

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 ev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Price, David, Small, Iain, Haughney, John, Ryan, Dermot, Gruffydd-Jones, Kevin, Lavorini, Federico, Harris, Tim, Burden, Annie, Brockman, Jeremy, King, Christine, Papi, Alberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6443103/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24186700
http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/pcrj.2013.00088
Descripción
Sumario: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 β(2)-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.