Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
immunology and microbiology
Cost-effectiveness of asthma control: An economic appraisal of the GOAL study
Allergy: European Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 61, No. 5, Year 2006
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Background: The Gaining Optimal Asthma ControL (GOAL) study has shown the superiority of a combination of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (SFC) compared with fluticasone propionate alone (FP) in terms of improving guideline defined asthma control. Methods: Clinical and economic data were taken from the GOAL study, supplemented with data on health related quality of life, in order to estimate the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) results for each of three strata (previously corticosteroid-free, low- and moderate-dose corticosteroid users). A series of statistical models of trial outcomes was used to construct cost effectiveness estimates across the strata of the multinational GOAL study including adjustment to the UK experience. Uncertainty was handled using the non-parametric bootstrap. Cost-effectiveness was compared with other treatments for chronic conditions. Result: Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate improved the proportion of patients achieving totally and well-controlled weeks resulting in a similar QALY gain across the three strata of GOAL. Additional costs of treatment were greatest in stratum 1 and least in stratum 3, with some of the costs offset by reduced health care resource use. Cost-effectiveness by stratum was £7600 (95% CI: £4800-10 700) per QALY gained for stratum 3; £11 000 (£8600-14 600) per QALY gained for stratum 2; and £13 700 (£11 000-18 300) per QALY gained for stratum 1. Conclusion: The GOAL study previously demonstrated the improvement in total control associated with the use of SFC compared with FP alone. This study suggests that this improvement in control is associated with cost-per-QALY figures that compare favourably with other uses of scarce health care resources. Copyright © Blackwell Munksgaard 2006.
Authors & Co-Authors
Briggs, Andrew H.
United Kingdom, Glasgow
University of Glasgow
Ireland, Dublin
Icon Plc
Bousquet, Jean J.
France, Montpellier
Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve
Wallace, M. V.
United Kingdom, Brentford
Glaxosmithkline Plc.
Busse, William Walter
United States, Madison
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health
Clark, Timothy J.H.
United Kingdom, London
Imperial College London
Pedersen, Soøren Erik
Denmark, Odense
Syddansk Universitet
Bateman, E. D.
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town Lung Institute
Statistics
Citations: 85
Authors: 7
Affiliations: 8
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01038.x
ISSN:
01054538
e-ISSN:
13989995
Research Areas
Disability