Outcomes and costs of patients with persistent asthma treated with beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane or fluticasone propionate.

OBJECTIVE: Examine outcomes and costs of patients with persistent asthma who initiated treatment with beclomethasone dipropionate hydrofluoroalkane (BDP-HFA) or fluticasone propionate (FP). METHODS: MedStat's Commercial Claims and Encounters database (July 1, 2002-June 30, 2007) was utilized. Patients (n=13,968) were included if they initiated treatment with BDP-HFA or FP (first use=index date). Patients also met these criteria: (a) no receipt of other study medication in the 1-year post-period; (b) persistent asthma in the 1-year pre-period; (c) age 5-64 years; (d) no diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; and (e) continuous insurance coverage from 1 year pre-period to 1 year post-period. Multivariate regressions examined the probability of an ER visit or hospitalization, probability of reaching alternative adherence thresholds, and costs. RESULTS: Receipt of BDP-HFA, compared with FP, was associated with a 17% reduction in the odds of an ER visit (OR=0.834, 95% CI 0.751 to 0.925), a 30% reduction in the odds of an asthma-related ER visit (OR=0.697, 95% CI 0.571 to 0.852), and an increase in the odds of obtaining a medication possession ratio (MPR) of at least 50% (OR=1.324; 95% CI 1.164 to 1.506) or 75% (OR=1.311; 95% CI 1.072 to 1.604). Total medical costs ($5063 vs. $5377, P=0.0042), prescription drug costs ($2336 vs. $2581, P<0.0001), and ER costs ($185 vs. $249, P<0.0001) were significantly lower among the BDP-HFA cohort. Asthma-related outpatient ($191 vs. $224, P<0.0001) and ER costs ($28 vs. $45, P<0.001) were significantly lower in the BDP-HFA group, while asthma-related inpatient ($101 vs. $59, P<0.0001) and drug costs ($451 vs. $540, P<0.0001) were significantly lower in the FP cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that receipt of BDP-HFA, compared with receipt of FP, is associated with a decreased probability of ER visits or asthma-related ER visits and higher odds of reaching a medical possession ratio threshold of 50% or 75%. Receipt of BDP-HFA was also associated with lower total drug costs and lower total medical costs.

Costs and resource use of mild persistent asthma patients initiated on controller therapy.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of mild persistent asthma is controversial. OBJECTIVES: A retrospective database approach was used to evaluate different alternatives to treating mild persistent asthma. We hypothesized that treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would result in lowest costs than treatment with leukotriene modifiers (LM) and combination therapy with ICS long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists (LABA) because it would be associated with fewer acute care visits and hospitalizations than LM and it would have lower drug acquisition costs than both ICS+LABA and LM. METHODS: Costs and resource utilization were compared in 1,283 mild persistent asthma patients initiating regular use of either ICS, ICS+LABA, or LM. Mild persistent asthma patients were identified from a privately insured claims database (1999-2005) using an established algorithm. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and generalized linear models were used to compare costs. RESULTS: Of the total patients who met study criteria, 319 patients (24.9%) initiated regular ICS use, 414 (32.3%) ICS+LABA use, and 550 (42.9%) LM use. Over the 1 year after controller therapy initiation, asthma-related direct costs were significantly lower with ICS compared with ICS+LABA or LM ($819 for ICS, $1,094 for ICS+LABA, and $869 for LM, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences in resource use. CONCLUSION: In this analysis, physicians, despite guideline recommendations, chose to treat patients with mild persistent asthma more often with LM and ICS+LABA than with ICS. However, therapy with ICS was less costly than treatment with either LM or ICS+LABA, primarily due to differences in drug costs, and provided similar outcomes.