ArticleAdvances in therapy2016
FP/FORM Versus FP/SAL Within Clinical Practice: An Updated Budget Impact Analysis in Asthma.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inhaled Formoterol-Fluticasone Single Inhaler Therapy in Asthma: Real-World Efficacy, Budget Impact, and Potential to Improve Adherence.Canadian respiratory journal · 2020Review
- Perspective on the Budgetary Impact of FP/FORM pMDI on Treatment and Management of Exacerbation in Moderate-to-Severe Asthma Patients in Singapore.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPressurized 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.
methodsPatient 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.
resultsTotal 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.
conclusionThe 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.
fundingMundipharma, UK.
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.