Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND

An economic evaluation was performed analyzing direct medical costs in Canada for the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis (PAR) with budesonide aqueous nasal spray and fluticasone propionate nasal spray. Three hundred fourteen patients with at least a 1-year history of PAR were randomized into a double-blind, parallel-group study of 6 weeks' duration. The treatments were daily doses of budesonide 256 microg, fluticasone propionate 200 microg, or placebo. Both active treatments produced significantly lower mean scores for overall nasal symptoms compared with placebo, and both were well tolerated. Budesonide was significantly more effective than fluticasone in reducing "blocked nose."

METHOD

A retrospective cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing the clinical trial data was performed on the total costs of (1) budesonide-based and (2) fluticasone-based treatment strategies, including the relative importance of the drug costs in both strategies.

RESULTS

The average treatment cost per patient in Canada over 12 months in the budesonide group was CAD 389.85 which was 23.3% lower than in the fluticasone group, which was CAD 508.06, due to lower drug acquisition costs (for the year 1998).

CONCLUSION

Budesonide aqueous nasal spray was shown to be more cost-effective than fluticasone propionate nasal spray in the treatment of perennial allergic rhinitis. This result is valid in the province of Ontario, Canada and in many other settings with the same structure of relative prices. The result is mainly driven by a difference in drug cost.