Cost-effectiveness analysis of budesonide/formoterol SMART therapy versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed SABA among patients ≥12 years with moderate asthma from the Chinese societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol as reliever therapy for asthma patients ≥12 years from the societal perspective in China.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed with three health states (non-exacerbation, exacerbation, and death) with a lifetime horizon. The exacerbation rates were obtained from a prospective cohort study conducted in Chinese asthma patients. Healthcare resources utilization data were estimated based on current clinical asthma management guidelines. Asthma-related mortality, cost input and utility values were derived from public database and literature. Model robustness was assessed with one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus salbutamol, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy led to fewer exacerbation events (13.6 vs. 15.9) and 0.0077 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gain at an additional cost of ¥196.38 over lifetime. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was ¥25,409.98 per QALY gained. The variables that had most impact on the model output included drug costs and medication adherence. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of ¥257,094/QALY (3 times of gross domestic product per capita in China in 2022), the probability of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy being cost-effective versus salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol was 83.00%.

CONCLUSION

From the societal perspective, budesonide/formoterol reliever and maintenance therapy is likely to be a cost-effective option compared with salmeterol/fluticasone plus as-needed salbutamol for Chinese asthma patients ≥12 years.