Author:
Vallejo-Aparicio Laura Amanda,Molina Jesús,Ojanguren Iñigo,Viejo Casas Ana,Huerta Alicia,Svedsater Henrik
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
The Salford Lung Study in asthma (SLS asthma) is a 12-month, open-label randomised clinical trial comparing clinical effectiveness of initiating once-daily inhaled combination of fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) 184/22 mcg or 92/22 mcg, with continuing optimized usual care (UC) with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) alone, or in combination with a long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA), in asthmatic patients followed in primary care in the UK. The objective of the analysis is to estimate the economic impact of these results when applied in Spain.
Methods
A 1-year cost–consequence model was populated with SLS asthma, adopting the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective. 775,900 of diagnosed asthmatic patients ≥ 18 years old currently managed with UC in Spain were included in the analysis. Effectiveness data included the percentage of patients per Asthma Control Test (ACT) category at 24 and 52 weeks from SLS asthma. Direct costs (pharmacological and per ACT category) were estimated from Spanish public sources and literature (€, 2018). Base case analysis assumed an increased use of FF/VI from 10 to 20% within 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results
Within the 775,900 asthmatic patients analysed, substitution of UC with FF/VI was associated with reduced costs due to ACT improvement, leading to potential total annual savings of €4,927,672. Sensitivity analyses ranged from €6,012,975 to €14,783,015 cost savings associated with FF/VI. An analysis considering patients only on ICS/LABA showed potential cost savings of €8,207,448.
Conclusions
The improved asthma control for FF/VI compared with UC observed in SLS asthma could be translated into potential savings for the Spanish NHS. These results may be useful for decision makers.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
Reference30 articles.
1. Global Initiative for Asthma: Global strategy for asthma management and prevention. 2018 GINA report.
https://ginasthma.org/2018-gina-report-global-strategy-for-asthma-management-and-prevention
. Accessed July 2018
2. European Community Respiratory Health Survey: Variations in the prevalence of respiratory symptoms self-reported asthma attacks, and use of asthma medication in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS). Eur. Respir. J. 9, 687–695 (1996)
3. National Institute of Statistics (INE): Hospital discharges and stays caused by sex and main diagnosis. National results. Hospital morbidity survey 2016.
https://www.ine.es/dyngs/INEbase/es/operacion.htm?c=Estadistica_C&cid=1254736176778&menu=ultiDatos&idp=1254735573175
. Accessed July 2018
4. Martínez-Moratalla, J., Almar, E., Antó, J.M.: Cambios en el tratamiento del asma en la cohorte española del European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) en el período 1991–2001. Perspectiva del tiempo. (Changes in asthma treatment in the Spanish cohort of the European Community Respiratory Health Survey (ECRHS) from 1991–2001: a perspective over time). Arch. Bronconeumol. 49(3), 113–118 (2013). (Spanish)
5. Martínez-Moragón, E., Serra-Batlles, J., De Diego, A., Palop, M., Casan, P., Rubio-Terrés, C., et al.: Coste económico del paciente asmático en España (estudio AsmaCost). (Economic cost of treating the patient with asthma in Spain: the AsmaCost study). Arch. Bronconeumol. 45(10), 481–486 (2009). (Spanish)
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献