ArticleValue in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research
Cost-Utility Analysis of Long-Acting Beta Agonists versus Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists in Older Adults with Persistent Asthma Receiving Concomitant Inhaled Corticosteroid Therapy.
Article in Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 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.
- Quantifying the direct costs of diabetic retinopathy in a mixed healthcare system: a hospital-based study from governmental and patient perspectives.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- The US Food and Drug Administration's drug safety recommendations and long-acting beta2-agonist dispensing pattern changes in adult asthma patients: 2003-2012.Journal of asthma and allergy · 2017Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLong-acting beta agonists (LABA) and leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA) are the major add-on treatments in older adults with persistent asthma when inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) fail to achieve adequate asthma control.
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-utility of ICS + LABA treatment compared with ICS + LTRA treatment in older adults with asthma.
methodsA Markov model was used to estimate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy associated with ICS + LABA treatment versus ICS + LTRA treatment in older adults with asthma in the United States from the health system perspective. The HCUPnet 2010 national statistics were used to extract the costs associated with asthma and cardiovascular hospitalizations, and inpatient mortality associated with these events. Event probabilities were predicted using Medicare 2009-2010 claims for older adults with asthma. Treatment costs were estimated on the basis of average wholesale drug price listings, and utility estimates were extracted from the literature. To account for uncertainty, one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed.
resultsThe model predicted that, compared with ICS + LTRA treatment, ICS + LABA treatment costs $5,823 more while gaining 0.03 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $209,090 per QALY. Hospitalization probabilities and posthospitalization utilities were the most influential parameters in the one-way sensitivity analysis. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis using Monte-Carlo simulations showed that the probabilities that ICS + LTRA treatment is cost-effective compared with ICS + LABA treatment are 77% and 62% at $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY gained willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively.
conclusionsThe cost-effectiveness of ICS + LABA treatment is economically unfavorable in older adults when compared with LTRA as add-on treatment.
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.