Cost-effectiveness analyses of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination product and fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma II: Study methodologies

PharmacoEconomics

Volumn 16, Issue SUPPL. 2, 1999, Pages 9-14

  Pieters, Willem R ^a   Lundbäck, Bo ^b   Johansson, Gunnar ^c   Palmqvist, Mona ^d   Price, Martin J ^e   Sondhi, Seema ^e   Thwaites, Robert M A ^e   Yan, Songkai ^f  

^a ELKERLIEK HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WORKING LIFE   (Sweden)

^c Nyby Health Care Centre   (Sweden)

^d SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^e GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^f GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FLUTICASONE PROPIONATE; SALMETEROL;

ASTHMA; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MULTICENTER STUDY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RESOURCE MANAGEMENT; REVIEW; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 17644437848     PISSN: 11707690     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/00019053-199916002-00002     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Johansson G, Price MJ, Sondhi S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/100μg vs fluticasone propionate 100μg in adults and adolescents with asthma. III: Results. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 2: 15-21
2. Palmqvist M, Price MJ, Sondhi S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/250μg vs fluticasone propionate 250μg in adults and adolescents with asthma. IV: Results. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 2: 23-28
3. Pieters WR, Landbäck B, Sondhi S, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate 50/500μg vs fluticasone propionate 500μg in patients with corticosteroid-dependent asthma. V: Results. Pharmacoeconomics 1999; 16 Suppl. 2: 29-34
4. Edwards T, Gross G, Mitchell D, et al. The salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate dry powder combination product via Diskus inhaler improves asthma control compared to salmeterol xinafoate or fluticasone propionate dry powder alone [abstract]. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998; 1587: A414
5. Nathan RA, LaForce C, Mitchell D, et al. The salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination (50/100mcg) via Diskus has a rapid onset of effect in asthma patients on salmeterol or inhaled corticosteroids. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159 (3 Pt 2): A637
6. Pieters WR, Steinmetz K-O, Aubier M, et al. Effectiveness of a new salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (50/500μg) combination inhaler in patients with reversible airways obstruction. Eur Respir J 1998; 12 Suppl. 28: 35s
7. White M, Chapiro G, Taylor J, et al. The salmeterol xinafoate/fluticasone propionate dry powder combination product via Diskus inhaler improves asthma control compared to the individual products in patients previously treated with inhaled corticosteroids. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999; 159 (3 Pt 2): A635
8. Booth PC, Capsey LJ, Langdon CG, et al. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of alternative prophylactic therapies in the treatment of adult asthma. Br J Med Econ 1995; 8: 65-72
9. Sculpher MJ, Buxton MJ. The episode-free day as a composite measure of effectiveness. An illustrative economic evaluation of formoterol versus salbutamol in asthma therapy. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4 (5): 345-52
10. Wennergren G, Kristjánsson S, Strannegärd IL. Decrease in hospitalisation for the treatment of childhood asthma with increased use of anti-inflammatory treatment, despite an increase in the prevalence of asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1996; 97 (3): 742-8
11. Kostnader per intagen patient. Värddag, läkarbesök 1993. Stockholm: Landstingsförbundel Utgivningsär, 1995
12. FASS. läkemedel i Sverige; förteckning över humanläkemendel Deltitel, 1998. Stockholm: Läkemedelsinformation (LINFO) Utgivningsär, 1998
13. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6 (4): 327-40