In a two-stage detection program, subjects with signs of obstructive airway disease were selected from a random sample of the general population. Subjects (n = 82) were randomly assigned to either fluticasone propionate 250 microg twice a day or placebo twice a day via pMDI in a 1-yr, double-blind trial if they met criteria for persistent airway obstruction, increased bronchial hyperresponsiveness, or a rapid decline in FEV(1). Main outcome measures were postbronchodilator FEV(1), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and direct medical cost. Secondary measures were prebronchodilator FEV(1), PC(20), health-related quality of life (CRQ), symptom-free weeks, episode-free weeks, exacerbations, and indirect cost. Subgroup analysis was based on reversibility of obstruction. Analysis revealed a significant gain in postbronchodilator FEV(1) (98 ml/yr; p = 0.01) in favor of fluticasone. Only subjects with reversible obstruction showed an improvement in PC(20) (1.4 doubling dose; p = 0.03). Early treatment resulted in 2.7 QALYs gained per 100 treated subjects (p = 0.17) and in a clinically relevant improvement in dyspnea (CRQ; p < 0.03). The incremental cost effectiveness ratios were US$13,016/QALY for early treatment and US$33,921/QALY for the combination of detection and treatment. The incremental cost for one additional subject with a clinically relevant difference in dyspnea was US$1,674. In conclusion, early intervention with fluticasone resulted in significant health gains at relatively low financial cost.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mölken et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: