Search

Background: Inhaled corticosteroids have been shown to reduce rates of hospitalization and emergency department use compared with leukotriene receptor antagonists., Objective: To examine differences in the probability of asthma-related hospitalizations, probability of switching or augmentin, with another therapy, and costs for patients treated with fluticasone propionate vs montelukast., Methods: The study involved a 24-month retrospective analysis of patients with claims for asthma treatment (primary diagnosis International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision code of 493.xx) between January 1, 1997, and June 30, 2000, and at least I outpatient pharmaceutical claim for fluticasone propionate (44 microg) or montelukast (5 or 10 mg). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the probability of asthma-related hospitalizations and switching or augmenting to another therapy, asthma costs, and total health care costs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by replicating all of the analyses by age strata (ages 4-17 years and > or = 18 years) and varying lengths of follow-up., Results: Patients receiving fluticasone propionate had a 62% lower risk of experiencing an asthma-related hospitalization within 1 year and a 44% lower risk of switching or augmenting to another asthma controller medication compared with montelukast. Asthma-related health care expenditures for montelukast patients were dollar 339 higher than for fluticasone propionate users (P < .001). Overall health care expenditures (asthma and nonasthma) were also dollar 1,197 higher in the montelukast group., Conclusions: Compared with montelukast-treated patients, patients treated with low-dose fluticasone propionate had a significantly lower risk of experiencing an asthma-related hospitalization, a lower risk of switching or augmenting with another controller, and significantly lower asthma and total health care costs.

Patients with difficult-to-treat or suboptimally controlled asthma consume a disproportionate share of asthma health care resources. Treatment strategies that minimize exacerbations may decrease the need for unscheduled medical services, reduce emergency department visits, and minimize asthma-related hospitalizations. Clinical trial evidence indicates the immunoglobulin-E blocker omalizumab reduces the frequency of asthma exacerbations, minimizes symptoms, and improves lung function in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma that is inadequately controlled by inhaled corticosteroid therapy. Treatment with omalizumab of patients with suboptimally controlled asthma may reduce the clinical and economic burden of asthma.

The ratio of controller-to-reliever medication use has been proposed as a measure of treatment quality for asthma patients. In this study we examine the effects of plan-level mean out-of-pocket asthma medication patient copayments and other features of benefit plan design on the use of controller medications alone, controller and reliever medications (combination therapy), and reliever medications alone. The 1995--2000 MarketScan claims data were used to construct plan-level out-of-pocket copayment and physician/practice prescriber preference variables for asthma medications. Separate multinomial logit models were estimated for patients in fee-for-service (FFS) and non-FFS plans relating benefit plan design features, physician/practice prescribing preferences, patient demographics, patient comorbidities, and county-level income variables to patient-level asthma treatment patterns. We find that the controller-to-reliever ratio rose steadily over 1995--2000, along with out-of-pocket payments for asthma medications, which rose more for controllers than for relievers. After controlling for other variables, however, plan-level mean out-of-pocket copayments were not found to have a statistically significant influence on patient-level asthma treatment patterns. On the other hand, physician/practice prescribing patterns strongly influenced patient-level treatment patterns. There is no strong statistical evidence that higher levels of out-of-pocket copayments for prescription drugs influence asthma treatment patterns. However, physician/practice prescribing preferences influence patient treatment.

Background: Although asthma and allergic rhinitis commonly occur together, the nature of the association has yet to be determined. Treatments for one condition could potentially alleviate the coexisting condition., Objective: Patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma were studied to test the hypothesis that treating allergic rhinitis reduces health care utilization for co-morbid asthma., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was carried out with 1994-1995 MarketScan claims data. The cohort was limited to patients with both allergic rhinitis and asthma, aged 12 to 60 years, who were continuously enrolled and had no evidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Allergic rhinitis treatment and asthma-related events (hospitalizations and emergency department visits) were identified. An incidence density ratio (IDR) associated with exposure to allergic rhinitis treatment was calculated. A multivariate Poisson regression was estimated, and the parameter estimates were transformed into IDRs for each explanatory variable. An allergic rhinitis treatment indicator was included in all regressions., Results: The study sample population consisted of 4944 patients with allergic asthma, approximately 73% of whom were treated for their allergic rhinitis. Asthma-related events occurred more often for the untreated group compared with the treated group, 6.6% compared with 1.3%. An IDR of 0.49 for the treatment group (P =.001) indicates that the risk of an asthma-related event for the treated group was about half that for the untreated group., Conclusion: In summary, those who were treated for allergic rhinitis have a significantly lower risk of subsequent asthma-related events (emergency department visits or hospitalizations) than those who were not treated.

Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that affects 10 to 17.5 million people and leads to more than $5 billion in treatment costs in the Unites States annually. This retrospective study is an initial step in understanding the beneficial economic outcomes of inhaled corticosteroid therapy by determining whether differences exist in healthcare utilization expenditures for three inhaled corticosteroids available for use in the United States: (1) beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril/Schering and Beclovent/Allan & Hanburys); (2) flunisolide (Aerobid/Forest); and (3) and triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort/Rhône-Poulenc Rorer). This study was based on an analysis of 4,441 patients with at least one pharmaceutical claim for one of the study drugs, using inpatient, outpatient, and prescription drug claims data obtained from The MEDSTAT Group's MarketScan database for calendar years 1990 through 1993. We tested a null hypothesis for no differences in total asthma treatment costs, when drugs were excluded, using multivariate linear regression modeling controlling for patient demographic and clinical characteristics that might affect the study outcome. We found that, after excluding study drug payments and controlling for other contributing factors, total asthma healthcare expenditures to triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) users were higher than those for beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users. When study drug costs were included in the expenditure measure, both triamcinolone acetonide (Azmacort) and flunisolide (Aerobid) users had higher expenditures than did beclomethasone dipropionate (Vanceril and Beclovent) users. No significant differences in expenditures were detected between Vanceril and Beclovent patients, a finding consistent with the fact that these drugs are the same type of inhaled corticosteroid. Other factors contributing to differences in total asthma healthcare costs included patient age, patterns of switching among and continuing with study drugs, prestudy asthma utilization or drug proxy severity, and comorbidities of precipitating illnesses.