The cost-effectiveness of inhaled fluticasone propionate and budesonide in the treatment of asthma in adults and children

Abstract

Inhaled corticosteroids form the mainstay of the treatment and management of asthma and the results of a meta-analysis comparing two of the most frequently prescribed inhaled corticosteroids, fluticasone propionate and budesonide, administered in a clinically equivalent 1:2 dose ratio to 1980 patients with asthma, demonstrated that fluticasone propionate had an improved efficacy:safety ratio. However, limited data are available on the relative economic benefits of fluticasone propionate and budesonide. The database for clinically relevant parameters, for which the efficacy:safety meta-analysis had demonstrated statistical significance between the two corticosteroids, was used for this pharmacoeconomic analysis. Treatment with fluticasone propionate was more cost-effective than budesonide with respect to improvement in morning peak expiratory flow rate, successfully treated weeks, symptom-free days, symptom-free 24 h and episode-free days. The costs of treatment for fluticasone propionate and budesonide were 7.78 Pounds per week and 12.33 Pounds per week, respectively. The main contributing factor to the higher costs of budesonide was the higher cost of health care contacts, which were 4.53 Pounds per week for budesonide and 0.57 Pounds per week for fluticasone propionate. The pharmacoeconomic difference increased in favour of fluticasone propionate as the criteria for success were made more stringent. These results demonstrate that, for asthma patients requiring modification of therapy treatment with fluticasone propionate is more effective and also cheaper, in terms of overall health-care costs, than treatment with budesonide.