ArticleClinical drug investigation1998
Cost effectiveness of fluticasone and budesonide in patients with moderate asthma.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluticasone versus beclomethasone or budesonide for chronic asthma in adults and children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2007Pooled it
- A systematic review of economic evaluations of therapy in asthma.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2010Article
- Inhaled fluticasone propionate. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma.PharmacoEconomics · 2000Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the relative cost effectiveness of fluticasone via metered dose inhaler and budesonide via Turbuhaler((R)) in corticosteroid-naive patients with moderate asthma from a third-party payer perspective (German Sickness Funds). PATIENTS AND
methodsA retrospective economic assessment of direct medication costs of treatment was performed on data from a prospective, randomised, parallel group, 6-week clinical trial. 457 corticosteroid-naive patients between the ages of 18 and 70 years with moderate asthma were included in the intention-to-treat analysis.
resultsThe fluticasone group had a higher proportion of successfully treated patients (those with a peak expiratory flow rate improvement of >/=10%) [47 vs 42%], a higher average proportion of symptom-free days (40 vs 34%) and lower direct healthcare costs [1997 Deutschmarks (DM)] per day (DM4.23 vs DM5.19) than the budesonide group. Therefore, the daily costs per successfully treated patient (DM9.00 vs DM12.36) and the cost per symptom-free day (DM10.58 vs DM15.26) were both lower with fluticasone than with budesonide. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that these results were relatively robust over a wide range of plausible assumptions.
conclusionThese results showed that from the perspective of a third-party payer, fluticasone was more cost effective than budesonide over the 6-week study period.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.