ArticleClinical drug investigation2012
Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of beclomethasone/formoterol versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol in patients with moderate to severe asthma.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00394368 (DOUBLE BLIND, MULTINATIONAL, MULTICENTRE, PARALLEL-GROUP DESIGN CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF CHF 1535), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
DOUBLE BLIND, MULTINATIONAL, MULTICENTRE, PARALLEL-GROUP DESIGN CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE EFFICACY AND TOLERABILITY OF CHF 1535 (BECLOMETHASONE DIPROPIONATE 100 µg + FORMOTEROL 6 µg) pMDI VIA HFA-134a vs. FLUTICASONE 125 µg + SALMETEROL 25 µg pMDI (SERETIDE®) IN THE 12-WEEK TREATMENT OF ADULT PATIENTS WITH MODERATE TO SEVERE PERSISTENT ASTHMA
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health-related quality of life in adult patients with asthma according to asthma control and severity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Pooled it
- Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Treatments for Asthma: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- The Impact of Wildfire Smoke on Asthma Control in California: A Microsimulation Approach.GeoHealth · 2024Article
- The pharmacoeconomics of the state-of-the-art drug treatments for asthma: a systematic review.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2021Article
- Article
- Small airway dysfunction and bronchial asthma control : the state of the art.Asthma research and practice · 2015Review
- 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.Primary care respiratory journal : journal of the General Practice Airways Group · 2013Observational
- Decision-making analysis for allergen immunotherapy versus nasal steroids in the treatment of nasal steroid-responsive allergic rhinitis.American journal of rhinology & allergyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAsthma is a chronic disease characterized by acute symptomatic episodes with variable severity and duration. Pharmacological asthma management aims to achieve and maintain control without side effects, thus improving quality of life and reducing the economic impact. Recently, a clinical trial showed the non-inferiority of beclomethasone/formoterol (BDP/F) versus fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) in adults with moderate to severe persistent asthma. However, this study did not provide evidence on costs and did not quantify quality-of-life parameters.
objectiveThe objective of the present study was to assess the cost effectiveness and cost utility of BDP/F versus FP/S in patients with moderate to severe asthma from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS).
methodsA Markov model (MM) was used, with five health states for the different levels of asthma control: successful control, sub-optimal control, outpatient-managed exacerbation, inpatient-managed exacerbation, and death. Model data were derived from the ICAT SE study and from expert panels. Three outcomes were considered: time spent in successful control state, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
resultsThe model shows that BDP/F treatment led to a slight increase of weeks in successful control compared with FP/S, with a lower cost. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis highlights that in 64% and 68% of the Monte Carlo simulations, BDP/F outperformed FP/S in terms of weeks in successful control and QALYs. Considering the expected cost of the two strategies, in 90% of simulations BDP/F was the least expensive choice. In particular, BDP/F was cost saving as compared with FP/S in about 63% and 59% of simulations as shown by the cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis, respectively.
conclusionOverall, from the Italian NHS perspective, BDP/F treatment is associated with a reduction in cost and offers a slight increase of effectiveness in terms of weeks spent in successful control and QALYs.
Indexed as
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.