Real-world Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness of Qvar Versus FP, a US Study

NCT ID: NCT01287351

Last Updated: 2013-08-05

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

COMPLETED

Total Enrollment

82903 participants

Study Classification

OBSERVATIONAL

Study Start Date

2004-01-31

Study Completion Date

2010-10-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

This study will compare the absolute and relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of asthma management in patients in the USA on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy as HFA-BDP (Qvar®) pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) compared with fluticasone propionate (FP) pMDI. .

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Current asthma guidelines are underpinned by evidence derived from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Although RCT data are considered the gold standard, patients recruited to asthma RCTs are estimated to represent only a small percentage of the real-world asthma population. The poor representation of the asthma population is due to a number of factors, such as tightly-controlled inclusion criteria for RCTs. There is, therefore, a need to carry out real-world observational studies to inform existing guidelines on the effectiveness of available treatments as used in every-day clinical practice in the heterogeneous asthma population.

Asthma management guidelines recommend long-term, daily anti-inflammatory controller therapy to attenuate the chronic airway inflammation of persistent asthma. The choice of inhaled corticosteroid can be guided by practical considerations (e.g., cost factors) as RCTs have so far failed to identify consistent, significant differences in outcomes among the available inhaled corticosteroids, and data from observational studies are lacking.

FP and HFA-BDP are the two main ICS therapies prescribed in the US for the management of asthma. FP is approximately twice as potent and efficacious, on a microgram basis, as BDP. In clinical trials, however, the extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) formulation of BDP has demonstrated potency similar to that of FP. This is felt to be because HFA-BDP shows higher and more even lung deposition than FP, with HFA-BDP, unlike FP, having distribution to both large and small airways.

Owing to similarity of effectiveness of extra-fine HFA-BDP and FP suggested by clinical trial data, and the even lung distribution afforded by the smaller HFA aerosol particles, we hypothesises that extra-fine HFA-BDP may be at least as effective as FP in real-world clinical practice. This hypothesis was supported by a retrospective database study of HFA-BDP versus FP using the UK's General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The study found significantly lower odds for achieving the composite proxy measure for asthma control with FP in both patients initiating ICS therapy (0.77, 95%CI 0.61-0.98) and stepping-up ICS therapy (0.82, 95%CI 0.44-1.52) relative to HFA-BDP. The analysis also revealed that FP was prescribed at significantly higher doses than extra-fine HFA-BDP yet had lower associated odds of achieving asthma control.

In addition to significant health benefits, delivering effective asthma control is critical to reducing the substantial economic burden of asthma, with research indicating annual costs are disproportionately attributable to patients with poorly controlled disease. Recent estimates place the annual figure at 56 billion dollars ($) in the US alone, consisting of direct costs and productivity losses.It is therefore of particular importance to consider outcomes achieved in relation to costs incurred when assessing overall benefit of asthma therapies, with a cost-effectiveness analysis of HFA BDP and FP planned as part of the current study.

The aim of this study is to compare the absolute and relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of asthma management in patients in the US on inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) maintenance therapy as extra-fine HFA-BDP (Qvar®) pressurised metered dose inhaler (pMDI) compared with fluticasone propionate (FP) pMDI to further examine the findings of the UK study, and to identify similarities or differences in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes and prescribing practice between the two countries.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Asthma

Keywords

Explore important study keywords that can help with search, categorization, and topic discovery.

Real-world observational Fluticasone propionate Metred dose inhaler Extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane Asthma management Inhaled corticosteroids Beclomethasone dipropionate USA

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Observational Model Type

COHORT

Study Time Perspective

RETROSPECTIVE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

IPDI: Qvar

ICS initiation as Qvar

extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane beclometasone dipropionate

Intervention Type DRUG

IPDI FP

ICS initiation as fluticasone

Fluticasone propionate

Intervention Type DRUG

IPDA Qvar

ICS step-up as Qvar

extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane beclometasone dipropionate

Intervention Type DRUG

IPDA FP

ICS step-up as fluticasone

Fluticasone propionate

Intervention Type DRUG

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

extra-fine hydrofluoroalkane beclometasone dipropionate

Intervention Type DRUG

Fluticasone propionate

Intervention Type DRUG

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Qvar®

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Aged: 5-80 years:

* Paediatric cohort (aged 5-11 years), and
* Adult cohort (aged 12-60 years)
* Non-smokers aged 61-80 years
* Evidence of asthma:

* a diagnostic code for asthma, (ICD 9 codes: 493xx) or
* ≥2 prescriptions for asthma at different points at any time
* Be on current asthma therapy

* ≥1 other asthma prescription during the outcome period
* Have at least one year of baseline data (prior to the IPD) and at least one year of outcome data (following the IPD).


* Aged 12-60 years (paediatrics included in original study - removed to make comparable with USA data)
* Evidence of asthma: a diagnostic code of asthma or ≥2 scripts for asthma in baseline year at different points in time
* Have definite dosing instructions
* Have at least 1 year of up-to-standard (UTS) baseline data before IPD
* Have at least 1 year of UTS outcome data after IPD. Index dates from 1998 onwards were accepted in the study.

Exclusion Criteria

* had been diagnosed with any chronic respiratory disease at any time other than asthma
* received maintenance oral steroid therapy during baseline.


* Had a diagnostic read code for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at any time
* Had a diagnostic read code for chronic respiratory disease at any time
* Were on maintenance oral steroid therapy at baseline
Minimum Eligible Age

5 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

80 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

i3 Research

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

Teva Branded Pharmaceutical Products R&D, Inc.

INDUSTRY

Sponsor Role collaborator

Research in Real-Life Ltd

NETWORK

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

David Price, Prof., MD

Professor David Price

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Research in Real Life

Cawston, Norfolk, United Kingdom

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United Kingdom

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Herland K, Akselsen JP, Skjonsberg OH, Bjermer L. How representative are clinical study patients with asthma or COPD for a larger "real life" population of patients with obstructive lung disease? Respir Med. 2005 Jan;99(1):11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2004.03.026.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15672843 (View on PubMed)

Travers J, Marsh S, Caldwell B, Williams M, Aldington S, Weatherall M, Shirtcliffe P, Beasley R. External validity of randomized controlled trials in COPD. Respir Med. 2007 Jun;101(6):1313-20. doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2006.10.011. Epub 2006 Nov 17.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 17113277 (View on PubMed)

Appleton SL, Adams RJ, Wilson DH, Taylor AW, Ruffin RE; North West Adelaide Cohort Health Study Team. Spirometric criteria for asthma: adding further evidence to the debate. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2005 Nov;116(5):976-82. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2005.08.034.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16275363 (View on PubMed)

Expert Panel Report 3: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 2007. (Accessed March 2008, at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.pdf.)

Reference Type BACKGROUND

British Guideline on the Management of Asthma, May 2008. 2008. (Accessed 26 June 2008, at http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/101/index.html.)

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Global Strategy for Asthma Management and Prevention, updated 2008. 2008. (Accessed at http://www.ginasthma.org.)

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Fanta CH. Asthma. N Engl J Med. 2009 Mar 5;360(10):1002-14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra0804579. No abstract available.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 19264689 (View on PubMed)

Shepherd J, Rogers G, Anderson R, Main C, Thompson-Coon J, Hartwell D, Liu Z, Loveman E, Green C, Pitt M, Stein K, Harris P, Frampton GK, Smith M, Takeda A, Price A, Welch K, Somerville M. Systematic review and economic analysis of the comparative effectiveness of different inhaled corticosteroids and their usage with long-acting beta2 agonists for the treatment of chronic asthma in adults and children aged 12 years and over. Health Technol Assess. 2008 May;12(19):iii-iv, 1-360. doi: 10.3310/hta12190.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 18485271 (View on PubMed)

Aubier M, Wettenger R, Gans SJ. Efficacy of HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate extra-fine aerosol (800 microg day(-1)) versus HFA-fluticasone propionate (1000 microg day(-1)) in patients with asthma. Respir Med. 2001 Mar;95(3):212-20. doi: 10.1053/rmed.2000.1025.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11266239 (View on PubMed)

Fairfax A, Hall I, Spelman R. A randomized, double-blind comparison of beclomethasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol and fluticasone propionate. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2001 May;86(5):575-82. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62907-9.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11379810 (View on PubMed)

Lasserson TJ, Cates CK, Jones AB, Steele EH, White J. Fluticasone versus HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate for chronic asthma in adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19;2006(2):CD005309. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005309.pub3.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16625634 (View on PubMed)

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, 2010. Data on file.

Reference Type BACKGROUND

Related Links

Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.

http://www.optimumpatientcare.org

Optimum Patient Care is the Research in Real Life's sister company (a social enterprise organisation)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

002/10

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id