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
AbstractObjective: To compare the cost effectiveness of hydrofluoroalkane 134a-beclomethasone dipropionate (HFA-BDP; Qvar(TM)) with chlorofluorocarbon-beclomethasone dipropionate (CFC-BDP) in patients with chronic stable asthma previously receiving CFC-BDP, from the perspective of a healthcare provider. Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on a 12-month pragmatic, randomised, parallel group, open-label clinical trial assessing safety and efficacy of HFA-BDP at approximately half the dose of CFC-BDP in patients with stable asthma. Setting: International, multicentre study at 57 study sites in the US, UK, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Healthcare costs were calculated for UK-based healthcare [in 1999 as pounds (Lstg )]. Patients and Participants: Patients (n = 473) >=12 years of age with currently stable asthma that had been stable (i.e. no exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroid use in the last 4 weeks) for at least the preceding month. Main Outcome Measures: Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios based upon symptom-free days, improvement in health-related quality of life, and total and drug-only direct healthcare costs. Results: Patients in the HFA-BDP group experienced a significantly higher percentage of symptom-free days than patients in the CFC-BDP group by the end of the study period (42.4 vs 20.0%; p = 0.006). A greater percentage of patients in the HFA-BDP group had a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life than in the CFC-BDP group [35.3 (n = 116/329) vs 16.1% (n = 18/112)]. Total per patient healthcare costs were similar between the two groups. The average cost per symptom-free day per patient was Lstg 1.36 for HFA-BDP and Lstg 1.81 for CFC-BDP based on total healthcare costs. The incremental cost per symptom-free day for using HFA-BDP instead of CFC-BDP was negative, indicating that HFA-BDP is a dominant strategy and may be a cost-saving intervention compared with CFC-BDP. A sensitivity analysis varying both cost and outcome parameters further supported this finding for most scenarios tested. The cost to achieve a clinically significant improvement in health-related quality of life over the study period was Lstg 13.24 per improved patient per week for HFA-BDP and Lstg 29.38 per patient per week for CFC-BDP. Conclusions: These findings indicate that HFA-BDP is a cost-effective intervention when compared with CFC-BDP in this group of patients with stable asthma. In the majority of scenarios HFA-BDP provides more effective asthma control at a similar cost to CFC-BDP.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer Healthcare | Adis in its journal PharmacoEconomics.
Volume (Year): 20 (2002)
Issue (Month): 10 ()
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://pharmacoeconomics.adisonline.com/
Antiasthmatics; Asthma; Beclomethasone; Cost effectiveness; Pharmacoeconomics;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods
- D - Microeconomics
- I - Health, Education, and Welfare
- Z - Other Special Topics
- I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
- I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other
- I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
- I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dave Dustin).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.