Cost Effectiveness of Leukotriene Receptor Antagonists versus Inhaled Corticosteroids for Initial Asthma Controller Therapy
- 179 Downloads
Background: Information is lacking on the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness — in a primary-care setting — of leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRAs) as an alternative to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) for initial asthma controller therapy.
Objective: To compare the cost effectiveness of LTRAs versus ICS for patients initiating asthma controller therapy.
Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 2-year, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial set in 53 primary-care practices in the UK. Patients aged 1280 years with asthma and symptoms requiring regular antiinflammatory therapy (n = 326) were randomly assigned to LTRAs (n = 162) or ICS (n = 164). The main outcome measures were the incremental costs per point improvement in the Mini Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire, per point improvement in the Asthma Control Questionnaire and per QALY gained from the UK NHS and societal perspectives.
Results: Over 2 years, resource use was similar between the two treatment groups, but the cost to society per patient was significantly higher for the LTRA group, at £711 versus £433 for the ICS group (adjusted difference £204; 95% CI 74, 308) [year 2005 values]. Cost differences were driven primarily by differences in prescription drug costs, particularly study drug costs. There was a nonsignificant (imputed, adjusted) difference between treatment groups, favouring ICS, in QALYs gained at 2 years of −0.073 (95% CI −0.143, 0.010). Therapy with LTRAs was, on average, a dominated strategy, and, at a threshold for willingness to pay of £30 000 per QALY gained, the probability of LTRAs being cost effective compared with ICS was approximately 3% from both societal and NHS perspectives.
Conclusions: There is a very low probability of LTRAs being cost effective in the UK, at 2005 values, compared with ICS for initial asthma controller therapy.
Trial registration: UK National Research Register N0547145240; Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN99132811.
The authors thank all the patients and their families for their participation and support during the study. We gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance of many who have helped this study, including GPs, nurses and administrative staff in the participating practices; Julie Houghton, Emma Koro, Sasha Rust-Andrews and Carole Bull of the research team; Dr Alistair Lipp for advice on study design and delivery; Dr Mark L. Levy (Clinical Research Fellow: Allergy and Respiratory Research Group, Division of Community Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Scotland) for advice on the initial study design and implementation; Jon Bell for advice on peak flow measurement; and Linda Kemp of Respiratory Research Ltd for assistance with the analyses.
This project was funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number 98/34/05). The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Health (UK). Additional support was provided for the implementation of the study from Clement-Clarke International and by unrestricted educational grants from Merck Sharpe and Dohme Ltd, AstraZeneca Ltd and Research in Real Life Ltd who contributed 9% of the total budget.
For a list of the contributions of the authors to the study and their conflicts of interest, see the Supplemental Digital Content 2, http://links.adisonline.com/PCZ/A80.
- 1.British Thoracic Society, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. British guideline on the management of asthma: a national clinical guideline. London: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, 2008 May, updated 2009 Jun [online]. Available from URL: http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/101/index.html [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]Google Scholar
- 2.Global Initiative for Asthma. GINA report, global strategy for asthma management and prevention [online]. Available from URL: http://www.ginasthma.org/GuidelinesResources.asp?l1=2&l2=0 [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]
- 3.British National Formulary. 50th ed. London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2005Google Scholar
- 11.Price D, Musgrave SD, Wilson E, et al. A pragmatic singleblind randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the use of leukotriene receptor antagonists in primary care at steps 2 and 3 of the national asthma guidelines. Health Technol Assess. In pressGoogle Scholar
- 12.NHS Connecting for Health. MIQUEST [online]. Available from URL: http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/miquest [Accessed 2010 Apr 28]
- 13.Apollo Medical Systems. SQL Suite [online]. Available from URL: http://www.apollo-medical.com/products/sql.htm [Accessed 2010 Apr 28]
- 14.Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2005 [online]. Available fromURL: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4133228.xls [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]
- 15.Office for National Statistics. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE). 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13101 [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]Google Scholar
- 16.Office for National Statistics. All items retail prices index (RPI): table RP02. London: Office for National Statistics [online]. Available from URL: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/product.asp?vlnk=9412 [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]
- 17.HM Treasury. The green book: appraisal and evaluation in central government. London: HM Treasury: section 5.49 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/green_book_complete.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]
- 18.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun: section 5.6 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]Google Scholar
- 23.Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, et al. Quality adjusted life years. In: Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, editors. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005: 173–88Google Scholar
- 26.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London: NICE, 2008 Jun: sections 22.214.171.124.25 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/media/B52/A7/TAMethodsGuideUpdatedJune2008.pdf [Accessed 2010 Apr 23]Google Scholar