Objective: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of SFC compared with MON for the control of persistent asthma in children. Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation on a 12-week prospective randomized open-label parallel-group comparison of SFC versus MON in children with symptomatic asthma receiving inhaled corticosteroids and short-acting β2-agonists. Asthma-related medication, unscheduled physician contacts and hospitalizations were collected prospectively. The main effectiveness measure was percentage of asthma-controlled week with no short-acting β2-agonist use during the study period. The analysis was conducted from the Mexican healthcare perspective using 2010 unit cost prices, and only direct costs were considered, all costs are reported in US dollar. The model was made fully probabilistic to reflect the joint uncertainty in the model parameters. Results: Over the whole treatment period, the median percentages of asthma-controlled weeks were 83.3% in the SFC group and 66.7% in the MON group (SFC-MON difference, 16.7%; 95% CI, 8.316.7; P < 0.001 in favor of SFC). The mean total cost of the SFC regimen was $ 2,323 compared with $ 3,230 for the MON regimen. The SFC was the dominant strategy (both more effective and less expensive) using the SFC was associated with an incremental cost per additional asthma-controlled of $ (5,467). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis tested numerous assumptions about the model cost and efficacy parameters and found that the results were robust to most changes. Conclusions: This analysis demonstrates that, compared with MON, SFC may be cost saving from the Mexican health care perspective for the treatment of pediatric patients with asthma. SFC provided a reduction in the number of severe exacerbations, frequent asthma symptoms and rescue medication use. Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis indicated the dominance of SFC because of both lower costs and greater efficacy.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Health Policy
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health