One-year claims analysis comparing inhaled fluticasone propionate with zafirlukast for the treatment of asthma.

Abstract

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that fluticasone propionate (FP) has better objective as well as subjective clinical outcomes than zafirlukast (ZA) in the treatment of asthma. The goal of this study was to determine whether the superiority of FP over ZA observed in clinical trials is supported under actual practice conditions. A retrospective cohort analysis of pharmacy and medical claims for asthma was performed. Patients were identified who had at least 1 ICD-9 (493.XX) claim for asthma and were recently prescribed inhaled FP or ZA. Subjects could not have had a claim for any inhaled corticosteroid or oral leukotriene modifier in the 9 months before initiation of FP or ZA. They were subsequently observed for 12 months. A total of 725 persons were new users of FP and 309 of ZA. FP was associated with a 70% reduced risk for hospitalization (P =.0232), a 49% lower risk for an emergency department event (P =.0546), and a 51% reduction in combined emergency department events and hospitalizations (P =.0268) when compared with ZA. Adjusted annual asthma care costs declined significantly for FP and increased for ZA. The adjusted mean difference in annual asthma costs was $215 less per patient for FP (P <.0001). Asthma care costs decreased for patients treated with FP and increased for patients treated with ZA. Furthermore, FP-treated patients had significantly lower risks of asthma-related hospitalization than ZA patients. This study supports results seen in clinical trials comparing these two medications.