Comparison of Healthcare Costs Associated with the Use of Two Different Dosing Strategies in Asthma Patients in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam.

Author(s)

Aggarwal B1, Jones PW2, Lan LTT3, Boonsawat W4, Yunus F5, Ismaila AS6, Ascioglu S7
1GSK, Singapore, Singapore, 2GSK, Brentford, UK, 3Respiratory Care Center, University Medical Center, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Vietnam, Viet Nam, 4Division of Respiratory System, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand, Thailand, Thailand, 5Department of Pulmonology and Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas of Indonesia-Persahabatan National Respiratory Referral Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, 6McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada, 7GlaxoSmithKline, Singapore, Singapore

OBJECTIVES

:
Daily inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) and long-acting beta-2-agonist combinations with as-needed relievers (short-acting beta-2-agonist - SABA) are recommended for moderate asthma. ICS-Formoterol combinations can also be used as maintenance and reliever therapy (MART). This study aims to compare direct healthcare costs in three Asian countries with costs data available; Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam of regular twice-daily (bid) fluticasone propionate/salmeterol with as-needed SABA versus budesonide/formoterol MART.

METHODS

:
Healthcare resource utilization parameters were derived from a literature review for randomized trials in adults and adolescents aged >12 years comparing regular bid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol with as-needed SABA strategy versus budesonide/formoterol MART strategy in moderate asthma. The analysis is based on the available 3 head-to-head RCTs; COSMOS (AstraZeneca study code SD-039-0691/16 countries/ 2143 patients), COMPASS (AstraZeneca study code SD-039-0735/ 16 countries/ 3335 patients), and AHEAD (NCT00242775/ 17 countries/ 2309 patients). Economic analyses were conducted from healthcare sector perspective (medication costs + healthcare utilization costs) over one year (GBP/patient/year) and referred to price in government hospitals.

RESULTS

:
The differences in the exacerbation rates between the 2 strategies were small although statistically significant in favor of MART; ranging from a min. 0.04/year to max 0.14/year. Total average (min-max) costs (in GBP/ patient/ year) across the three studies were £184.96 (£131-£289), £146.29 (£110-£180), and £115.40 (£63-£147) for those who used bid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol with as-needed SABA, and £233.12 (£208-£257), £269.21 (£220-£324) and £258.87 (£218-£305) for budesonide/formoterol MART in Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively. On average, total costs/ patient/ year with regular bid fluticasone propionate/salmeterol were 21%, 55% and 46% lower than budesonide/formoterol MART for Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

:
This study (GSK funded 213963) showed that overall, regular bid use of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol is associated with lower direct healthcare costs compared with budesonide/formoterol MART. These findings were fairly consistent across the three studies and the three countries.

Conference/Value in Health Info

2020-11, ISPOR Europe 2020, Milan, Italy

Value in Health, Volume 23, Issue S2 (December 2020)

Code

PRS12

Topic

Economic Evaluation

Topic Subcategory

Trial-Based Economic Evaluation

Disease

Respiratory-Related Disorders

Explore Related HEOR by Topic


Your browser is out-of-date

ISPOR recommends that you update your browser for more security, speed and the best experience on ispor.org. Update my browser now

×