Economics of "essential use exemptions" for metered-dose inhalers under the Montreal Protocol.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has led to rapid reductions in the use of ozone-depleting substances worldwide. However, the Protocol provides for "essential use exemptions" (EUEs) if there are no "technically and economically feasible" alternatives. An application that might qualify as an "essential use" is CFC-powered medical metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) for the treatment of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and the US and other nations have applied for exemptions in this case. One concern is that exemptions are necessary to ensure access to medications for low-income uninsureds. We examine the consequences of granting or withholding such exemptions, and conclude that government policies and private-sector programs are available that make it economically feasible to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in this application, thereby furthering the global public health objectives of the Montreal Protocol without compromising the treatment of patients who currently receive medication by means of MDIs.

Hydrofluoroalkane-134a beclomethasone as a dominant economic asthma therapy.

Inhaled corticosteroids for asthma treatment have become mainstay of therapy for patients with persistent asthma. Numerous inhaled corticosteroids are available but to date no prospective cost-effectiveness studies have been reported using exclusively US patients and costs. The purpose of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of HFA-bectomethasone (QVAR) compared to CFC-beclomethasone (Vanceril) using data from a year-long prospective randomized, open label, parallel multicenter trial. Eligibility criteria required patients to have been on a stable dose of CFC-BDP prior to enrollment. Patients were randomized to either HFA-BDP at approximately half their previous daily dose of CFC-BDP or to continue CFC-BDP Effectiveness data, in terms of symptom-free days (SFDs), were used in a cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from the viewpoint of managed care. Patients receiving HFA-BDP reported a greater increase (median = 22.1) in the number of SFDs than those receiving CFC-BDP (median = 14.3) (P = 0.03). Total costs of care were less for patients taking HFA-BDP (median = dollars 668) compared to CFC-BDP (median = dollars 977). The median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollars -5.77 (95% CI: dollars -68.08 to dollars -4.08). The results of this analysis indicate that HFA-BDP was a dominant therapy (more effective, less costly) compared to CFC-BDP.