Cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for asthma: A systematic review
Cargando...
Fecha
2018
TĆtulo de la revista
Publicado en
PharmacoEconomics, 1179-2027, Vol 36, Num 10, 2018, pag 1165-1200
Publicado por
Springer
URL de la fuente
ISSN de la revista
TĆtulo del volumen
Resumen
DescripciĆ³n
Abstract
Objective
The objective of this article was to summarize the findings of all the available studies on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma and assess their methodological quality, as well as to identify the main drivers of the cost effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for the disease.
Methods
A systematic review of the literature in seven electronic databases was conducted in order to identify all the available health economic evidence on alternative pharmacological treatments for asthma published up to April 2017. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.
Results
A total of 72 studies were included in the review, classified as follows: medications for acute asthma treatment (nā=ā5, 6.9%); inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) administered alone or in conjunction with long-acting Ī²-agonists (LABA) or tiotropium for chronic asthma treatment (nā=ā38, 52.8%); direct comparisons between different combinations of ICS, ICS/LABA, leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), and sodium cromoglycate for chronic asthma treatment (nā=ā14, 19.4%); and omalizumab for chronic asthma treatment (nā=ā15, 20.8%). ICS were reported to be cost effective when compared with LTRA for the management of persistent asthma. In patients with inadequately controlled asthma taking ICS, the addition of long-acting Ī²-agonist (LABA) preparations has been demonstrated to be cost effective, especially when combinations of ICS/LABA containing formoterol are used for both maintenance and reliever therapy. In patients with uncontrolled severe persistent allergic asthma, omalizumab therapy could be cost effective in a carefully selected subgroup of patients with the more severe forms of the disease. The quality of reporting in the studies, according to the CHEERS checklist, was very uneven. The main cost-effectiveness drivers identified were the cost or rate of asthma exacerbations, the cost or rate of the use of asthma medications, the asthma mortality risk, and the rate of utilization of health services for asthma.
Conclusions
The present findings are in line with the pharmacological recommendations for stepwise management of asthma given in the most recent evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the disease. The identified reporting quality of the available health economic evidence is useful for identifying aspects where there is room for improvement in future asthma cost-effectiveness studies.
Palabras clave
Keywords
TemƔticas
Preparaciones farmacƩuticas
Asma
Asma