ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-utility of as-needed inhaled budesonide/formoterol versus budesonide maintenance therapy combined with as-needed inhaled terbutaline （hereinafter referred to as budesonide maintenance therapy） in patients with mild asthma from the perspective of the Chinese health service system. METHODS A Markov model of mild asthma was established based on an international multicenter randomized controlled clinical study （SYGMA 2 study）； the model cycle was one week， and the model had a whole horizon of 60 years. The cost only included direct medical cost， and utility value was derived from the data of EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level in the SYGMA 2 study and published literature. The total cost and total output of the above two inhalation therapies for patients with mild asthma were calculated， with discount rate of 5%. The stability of the model was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. RESULTS The total cost of as-needed inhaled budesonide/formoterol and budesonide maintenance therapy were 25 884 yuan and 45 822 yuan， respectively， and the effectiveness were 30.51 quality- adjusted life years （QALYs） and 30.50 QALYs， respectively. The former scheme was an absolute advantage. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the price of drug （terbutaline and budesonide/formoterol） and average number of inhalations per day were the main influencing parameters， but they had little influence on the results of basic analysis. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of as-needed budesonide/formoterol being cost-effective was 100%. CONCLUSIONS Compared with budesonide maintenance therapy， as-needed inhalation of budesonide/formoterol in mild asthma patients is more cost-effective.
ABSTRACT
The main goal of asthma treatment is an adequate control of symptoms and a reduction in future exacerbations. To achieve the goal, international guidelines recommend daily use of controllers, such as inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs), even in patients with mild asthma. However, poor adherence is an unavoidable issue in the management of mild asthma. In addition, there is concern about possible adverse reactions and economic burden by unnecessary treatment. Recently, several studies have shown that as-needed use of ICSs has similar effects as regular use of ICSs on the prevention of acute asthmatic exacerbations. However, daily regular use of ICSs seems to be superior in terms of symptom-free days or airway inflammation suppression. Further studies are needed to determine whether symptom-driven use of ICSs can be an effective strategy for the management of mild asthma. Also, it is necessary to develop proper methods that can predict mild asthmatics who experience frequent exacerbations if they stop regular ICSs.
Subject(s)
Humans , Adrenal Cortex Hormones , Asthma , InflammationABSTRACT
Background: Asthma is common chronic disease worldwide. Methylxanthines has been used in the treatment of asthma. The study was undertaken to compare two Methylxanthines theophylline and doxofylline at doses recommended and commonly used in clinical practice in Mild Bronchial Asthma Patients. Methods: Study was conducted in patients of Mild Bronchial Asthma in TB and chest disease department of a medical college hospital. It was randomized, prospective and open label. A total of 107 patients were divided in two group .Group I was administered 400 mg theophylline SR once daily and group II was administered doxofylline 400 mg twice a day orally. Spirometric variables symptom score, and adverse effects were recorded on day 0, 7 and 21 of therapy. Data were compared and analysed using SPSS version 16. Results: Results of the study showed that there was significant improvement in spirometric variables and clinical symptom score compared to pretreatment values after medication in both groups on 7th and 21st days of treatment. But there was no statistically significant difference between improvement in theophylline and doxofylline groups with respect to spirometric variables and symptom score. There was no significant difference in two groups with respect to side effects (p>0.05). Conclusions: It is concluded in Patients of mild Bronchial Asthma Theophylline and doxofylline improve the spirometric and clinical symptoms and doxofylline has no advantage over theophylline in terms of either efficacy or safety on the doses commonly used in current clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Several studies have shown considerable disagreement when using the FEV1 and PEFR to assess the severity of an airflow obstruction. A differential classification of the severity of asthma would lead to serious differences in the evaluation and management of asthma. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the FEV1 and PEFR in asthma patients with mild symptoms. METHODS: In this study, the PEFR and FEV1 were obtained from 92 adult asthma patients with mild symptoms attending an outpatient pulmonary clinic. The mean differences and the limits of agreement in the paired measurements of the FEV1 and PEFR were calculated. RESULTS: There was a considerable correlation between the FEV1 and PEFR measurements when expressed as a % of the predicted values (r=0.686, p<0.01). The 95% limit of agreement (mean difference +/-1.96SD) between the FEV1 % and PEFR % were acceptable(-27.4%~33.8%). In addition, the weighted k(kappa) coefficient for the agreement between the FEV1 % and PEFR % was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.63-0.81), indicating excellent agreement between the two measurements. CONCLUSION: The spirometer (FEV1) and the Mini-Wright peak flow meter (PEFR) can be used interchangeably in adult asthma patients with mild symptom.