Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the pediatric asthma controller trial

Li Wang, Christopher S. Hollenbeak, David T. Mauger, Robert S. Zeiger, Ian M. Paul, Christine A. Sorkness, Robert F. Lemanske, Fernando Martinez, Robert C. Strunk, Stanley J. Szefler, Lynn M. Taussig

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. Objective: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV1 of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. Results: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC20 subgroup (PC20 <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. Conclusion: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume127
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2011

Fingerprint

montelukast
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Asthma
Pediatrics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Nitric Oxide
Methacholine Chloride
Fluticasone
Health Care Costs
Multicenter Studies
Uncertainty

Keywords

  • childhood asthma
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • fluticasone
  • montelukast
  • pediatric asthma controller trial

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Immunology and Allergy
  • Immunology

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the pediatric asthma controller trial. / Wang, Li; Hollenbeak, Christopher S.; Mauger, David T.; Zeiger, Robert S.; Paul, Ian M.; Sorkness, Christine A.; Lemanske, Robert F.; Martinez, Fernando; Strunk, Robert C.; Szefler, Stanley J.; Taussig, Lynn M.

In: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Vol. 127, No. 1, 01.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Li ; Hollenbeak, Christopher S. ; Mauger, David T. ; Zeiger, Robert S. ; Paul, Ian M. ; Sorkness, Christine A. ; Lemanske, Robert F. ; Martinez, Fernando ; Strunk, Robert C. ; Szefler, Stanley J. ; Taussig, Lynn M. / Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the pediatric asthma controller trial. In: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2011 ; Vol. 127, No. 1.
@article{46742279c9554883bd0fe8d3e69a80fd,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the pediatric asthma controller trial",
abstract = "Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. Objective: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV1 of 12{\%} or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. Results: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95{\%} of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC20 subgroup (PC20 <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. Conclusion: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine.",
keywords = "childhood asthma, cost-effectiveness analysis, fluticasone, montelukast, pediatric asthma controller trial",
author = "Li Wang and Hollenbeak, {Christopher S.} and Mauger, {David T.} and Zeiger, {Robert S.} and Paul, {Ian M.} and Sorkness, {Christine A.} and Lemanske, {Robert F.} and Fernando Martinez and Strunk, {Robert C.} and Szefler, {Stanley J.} and Taussig, {Lynn M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.035",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "127",
journal = "Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology",
issn = "0091-6749",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis of fluticasone versus montelukast in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma in the pediatric asthma controller trial

AU - Wang, Li

AU - Hollenbeak, Christopher S.

AU - Mauger, David T.

AU - Zeiger, Robert S.

AU - Paul, Ian M.

AU - Sorkness, Christine A.

AU - Lemanske, Robert F.

AU - Martinez, Fernando

AU - Strunk, Robert C.

AU - Szefler, Stanley J.

AU - Taussig, Lynn M.

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. Objective: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV1 of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. Results: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC20 subgroup (PC20 <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. Conclusion: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine.

AB - Background: Cost-effectiveness analyses of asthma controller regimens for adults exist, but similar evaluations exclusively for children are few. Objective: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 commonly used asthma controllers, fluticasone and montelukast, with data from the Pediatric Asthma Controller Trial. Methods: We compared the cost-effectiveness of low-dose fluticasone with that of montelukast in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial in children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma. Analyses were also conducted on subgroups based on phenotypic factors. Effectiveness measures included (1) the number of asthma-control days, (2) the percentage of participants with an increase over baseline of FEV1 of 12% or greater, and (3) the number of exacerbations avoided. Costs were analyzed from both a US health care payer's perspective and a societal perspective. Results: For all cost-effectiveness measures studied, fluticasone cost less and was more effective than montelukast. For example, fluticasone treatment cost $430 less in mean direct cost (P < .01) and resulted in 40 more asthma-control days (P < .01) during the 48-week study period. Considering sampling uncertainty, fluticasone cost less and was more effective at least 95% of the time. For the high exhaled nitric oxide (eNO) phenotypic subgroup (eNO ≥25 ppb) and more responsive PC20 subgroup (PC20 <2 mg/mL), fluticasone was cost-effective compared with montelukast for all cost-effectiveness measures, whereas not all the effectiveness measures were statistically different for the other 2 phenotypic subgroups. Conclusion: For children with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma, low-dose fluticasone had lower cost and higher effectiveness compared with montelukast, especially in those with more airway inflammation, as indicated by increased levels of eNO and more responsivity to methacholine.

KW - childhood asthma

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - fluticasone

KW - montelukast

KW - pediatric asthma controller trial

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650887498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=78650887498&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.035

DO - 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.10.035

M3 - Article

VL - 127

JO - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

JF - Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

SN - 0091-6749

IS - 1

ER -