Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A comparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis.
Clin Ther. 1996 Mar-Apr; 18(2):334-46; discussion 302.CT

Abstract

This paper compares cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets within a sample of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms due to mountain cedar allergy. Efficacy was assessed using secondary data analysis of patient ratings of symptoms and their overall assessment of response to treatment within a previously conducted clinical trial. Costs include direct costs of the drugs used for therapy. Patients with documented mountain cedar allergy who were 12 years of age or older (N = 232) had been randomized to either receive intranasal fluticasone propionate, terfenadine, or placebo. The cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 micrograms once daily were more favorable than the ratios for terfenadine 60 mg twice daily. This relationship remained throughout the sensitivity analysis. Because intranasal fluticasone propionate is only available in a fixed package size, the number of efficacy-adjusted days of terfenadine therapy that could be purchased to reach break-even costs for a 30-day supply of fluticasone was calculated. Cost efficacy-adjusted days ranged from 11 to 18 days. If cost-efficacy adjustments are not conducted, the upper end of the range increases from 18 to 22 days, since 22 days of terfenadine could be purchased for the price of a 30-day supply of intranasal fluticasone propionate. Depending on which of the efficacy measures the reader believes, if patients use terfenadine for longer than 11 to 22 days, fluticasone propionate is the more cost-efficacious choice. Because most allergies are seasonal and allergy seasons typically last longer than 11 to 22 days, it is likely that fluticasone propionate will frequently be the more cost-efficacious choice in the patient population represented in this study.

Authors+Show Affiliations

University of South Carolina, College of Pharmacy, Columbia, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Clinical Trial
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

8733993

Citation

Kozma, C M., et al. "A Comparison of Costs and Efficacy of Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate and Terfenadine Tablets for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis." Clinical Therapeutics, vol. 18, no. 2, 1996, pp. 334-46; discussion 302.
Kozma CM, Schulz RM, Sclar DA, et al. A comparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clin Ther. 1996;18(2):334-46; discussion 302.
Kozma, C. M., Schulz, R. M., Sclar, D. A., Kral, K. M., & Mackowiak, J. I. (1996). A comparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis. Clinical Therapeutics, 18(2), 334-46; discussion 302.
Kozma CM, et al. A Comparison of Costs and Efficacy of Intranasal Fluticasone Propionate and Terfenadine Tablets for Seasonal Allergic Rhinitis. Clin Ther. 1996 Mar-Apr;18(2):334-46; discussion 302. PubMed PMID: 8733993.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A comparison of costs and efficacy of intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets for seasonal allergic rhinitis. AU - Kozma,C M, AU - Schulz,R M, AU - Sclar,D A, AU - Kral,K M, AU - Mackowiak,J I, PY - 1996/3/1/pubmed PY - 1996/3/1/medline PY - 1996/3/1/entrez SP - 334-46; discussion 302 JF - Clinical therapeutics JO - Clin Ther VL - 18 IS - 2 N2 - This paper compares cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate and terfenadine tablets within a sample of patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis symptoms due to mountain cedar allergy. Efficacy was assessed using secondary data analysis of patient ratings of symptoms and their overall assessment of response to treatment within a previously conducted clinical trial. Costs include direct costs of the drugs used for therapy. Patients with documented mountain cedar allergy who were 12 years of age or older (N = 232) had been randomized to either receive intranasal fluticasone propionate, terfenadine, or placebo. The cost-efficacy ratios for intranasal fluticasone propionate 200 micrograms once daily were more favorable than the ratios for terfenadine 60 mg twice daily. This relationship remained throughout the sensitivity analysis. Because intranasal fluticasone propionate is only available in a fixed package size, the number of efficacy-adjusted days of terfenadine therapy that could be purchased to reach break-even costs for a 30-day supply of fluticasone was calculated. Cost efficacy-adjusted days ranged from 11 to 18 days. If cost-efficacy adjustments are not conducted, the upper end of the range increases from 18 to 22 days, since 22 days of terfenadine could be purchased for the price of a 30-day supply of intranasal fluticasone propionate. Depending on which of the efficacy measures the reader believes, if patients use terfenadine for longer than 11 to 22 days, fluticasone propionate is the more cost-efficacious choice. Because most allergies are seasonal and allergy seasons typically last longer than 11 to 22 days, it is likely that fluticasone propionate will frequently be the more cost-efficacious choice in the patient population represented in this study. SN - 0149-2918 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/8733993/A_comparison_of_costs_and_efficacy_of_intranasal_fluticasone_propionate_and_terfenadine_tablets_for_seasonal_allergic_rhinitis_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0149-2918(96)80014-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -