Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate plus montelukast: a cost-effective comparison for asthma.
OBJECTIVE
Asthma, owing to its chronic nature, is associated with a substantial economic burden. Healthcare providers need to compare the cost effectiveness of alternative asthma treatment options to ensure that they obtain the best value for money from the resources they control. The objective of the current study was to compare the cost effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in combination with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast in patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) monotherapy.


METHODS
Direct healthcare resource data were prospectively collected during a double-blind, randomized, 12-week clinical study of inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100 microg twice daily (n = 356) and inhaled fluticasone propionate 100 microg twice daily plus oral montelukast 10mg daily (n = 369). Resources were costed in Dutch guilders (NLG) from the perspective of The Netherlands healthcare system using 1999/2000 prices, but have been presented in US dollars and euros. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of successfully treated weeks (based on mean morning PEF values). Secondary measures were episode-free days, symptom-free days, and symptom-free nights.


RESULTS
Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast as measured by the proportion of successfully treated weeks mean 63.3% vs 39.0%; median difference 25%; p < 0.001). Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was also more effective than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast according to the secondary effectiveness measures. The mean total direct daily healthcare costs per patient were 16% higher with fluticasone propionate plus montelukast than with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate mainly due to higher drug costs in the former group (2.25 US dollars vs 1.94; 1.92 euro vs 1.66, respectively; the NLG was fixed against the euro at a rate of 1 euro = NLG2.2 on 31 December 1998; 1 US dollars = NLG1.883, June 2003; 1 US dollars= 0.848 euro, June 2003). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was dominant over fluticasone propionate plus montelukast and sensitivity analyses showed these results to be robust.


CONCLUSIONS
Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a more cost-effective treatment option than fluticasone propionate plus montelukast for patients with symptomatic asthma uncontrolled by ICS.
Pieters
Willem R
WR
Elkerliek Ziekenhuis, Helmond, The Netherlands. wpieters@elkerliek.nl
Wilson
Koo K
KK
Smith
Heather C E
HC
Tamminga
Johannes J
JJ
Sondhi
Seema
S
D000085:Acetates / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000420:Albuterol / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D000730:Androstadienes / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D018927:Anti-Asthmatic Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D001249:Asthma / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics*; D001993:Bronchodilator Agents / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003521:Cyclopropanes; D004338:Drug Combinations; D004359:Drug Therapy, Combination; D000068298:Fluticasone; D000068297:Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D015337:Multicenter Studies as Topic; D009426:Netherlands; D011804:Quinolines / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D013440:Sulfides
D000085:Acetates; D000730:Androstadienes; D018927:Anti-Asthmatic Agents; D001993:Bronchodilator Agents; D003521:Cyclopropanes; D004338:Drug Combinations; D000068297:Fluticasone-Salmeterol Drug Combination; D011804:Quinolines; D013440:Sulfides; D000068298:Fluticasone; C093875:montelukast; D000420:Albuterol