ArticleAfrican journal of thoracic and critical care medicine2026
Direct healthcare cost comparison of fluticasone/salmeterol and budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy for moderate to severe asthma in the South African public sector.
Article in African journal of thoracic and critical care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Moderate to severe asthma poses significant health and economic challenges in South Africa (SA), with varying asthma treatment costs. Inhaled corticosteroids/long-acting beta-2-agonists remain the cornerstone of asthma management. However, cost comparisons between fluticasone/salmeterol (FP/salm) and budesonide/formoterol (bud/form) as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART) are limited in low- and middle-income settings. Objectives: To compare the direct treatment costs of regular FP/salm plus as-needed short-acting beta-2-agonist (SABA) with bud/form MART in the SA public sector. Methods: A comparative cost analysis was conducted from the SA public health sector perspective. Costs from the National Department of Health pharmaceutical tender and Uniform Patient Fee Schedule, and clinical effectiveness data on severe exacerbations avoided from three randomised controlled trials (AHEAD, COMPASS, COSMOS), informed annual per-patient costs. Univariate sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the findings. Results: Annual direct per-patient treatment costs for bud/form MART were probably comparable to FP/salm plus as-needed SABA in COMPASS and COSMOS (USD145.84 and USD157.81). In the AHEAD study, a higher-dose bud/form MART regimen was more expensive (USD149.14 v. USD122.65). On average across studies, FP/salm was 0.58% less expensive. Medication costs were the primary cost driver, with variation in bud/form 160/4.5 µg pricing significantly influencing overall cost outcomes. Conclusion: In SA's public sector, FP/salm plus as-needed SABA is comparable to bud/form MART for moderate to severe asthma in terms of cost. Bud/form's price sensitivity suggests potential for improved procurement. Future research should integrate real-world data, include indirect costs, and assess full-spectrum asthma management to inform efficient, equitable policy and evaluate economic impact. Study synopsis:
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.