Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:08:13.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF NEBULIZED MAGNESIUM SULPHATE IN ACUTE SEVERE ASTHMA IN CHILDREN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2014

Stavros Petrou ,
Angela Boland ,
Kamran Khan ,
Colin Powell ,
Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona ,
John Lowe ,
Iolo Doull ,
Kerry Hood  and
Paula Williamson
Stavros Petrou
Affiliation:
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of [email protected]
Angela Boland
Affiliation:
Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, University of Liverpool
Kamran Khan
Affiliation:
Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, Division of Health Sciences, University of Warwick
Colin Powell
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Cardiff University
Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool
John Lowe
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Cardiff University; Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool
Iolo Doull
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Paediatrics, Children's Hospital for Wales
Kerry Hood
Affiliation:
School of Medicine, Cardiff University
Paula Williamson
Affiliation:
Department of Respiratory Paediatrics, Children's Hospital for Wales
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of nebulized magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) in acute asthma in children from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal social services.

Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted based on evidence from a randomized placebo controlled multi-center trial of nebulized MgSO4 in severe acute asthma in children. Participants comprised 508 children aged 2–16 years presenting to an emergency department or a children's assessment unit with severe acute asthma across thirty hospitals in the United Kingdom. Children were randomly allocated to receive nebulized salbutamol and ipratropium bromide mixed with either 2.5 ml of isotonic MgSO4 or 2.5 ml of isotonic saline on three occasions at 20-min intervals. Cost-effectiveness outcomes were constructed around the Yung Asthma Severity Score (ASS) after 60 min of treatment; whilst cost-utility outcomes were constructed around the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) metric. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds for either: (i) a unit reduction in ASS; or (ii) an additional QALY.

Results: MgSO4 had a 75.1 percent probability of being cost-effective at a GBP 1,000 (EUR 1,148) per unit decrement in ASS threshold, an 88.0 percent probability of being more effective (in terms of reducing the ASS) and a 36.6 percent probability of being less costly. MgSO4 also had a 67.6 percent probability of being cost-effective at a GBP 20,000 (EUR 22,957) per QALY gained threshold, an 8.5 percent probability of being more effective (in terms of generating increased QALYs) and a 69.1 percent probability of being less costly. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the economic evaluation were particularly sensitive to the methods used for QALY estimation.

Conclusions: The probability of cost-effectiveness of nebulized isotonic MgSO4, given as an adjuvant to standard treatment of severe acute asthma in children, is less than 70 percent across accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds for an additional QALY.

Keywords

Economic evaluationAsthmaChildhoodMagnesium sulphate
Type
Assessments
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 354 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Sennhauser, FH, Braun-Fahrlander, C, Wildhaber, JH. The burden of asthma in children: A European perspective. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2005;6:2–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Mohammed, S, Goodacre, S. Intravenous and nebulised magnesium sulphate for acute asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J. 2007;24:823–830.Google Scholar
3. Powell, C, Dwan, K, Milan, SJ, et al. Inhaled magnesium sulfate in the treatment of acute asthma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:CD003898.Google Scholar
4. Powell, C, Kolamunnage-Dona, R, Lowe, J, et al. Magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma in children (MAGNETIC): A randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Yung, M, South, M, Byrt, T. Evaluation of an asthma severity score. J Paediatr Child Health. 1996;32:261–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Powell, CV, Kolamunnage-Dona, R, Lowe, J, et al. MAGNEsium Trial In Children (MAGNETIC): A randomised, placebo-controlled trial and economic evaluation of nebulised magnesium sulphate in acute severe asthma in children. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:v–vi,1–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: NICE, 2008.Google Scholar
8. Curtis, L. Unit costs of health and social care 2009. Canterbury, UK: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2009. www.pssru.ac.uk/uc/uc2009contents.htm (accessed April 12, 2013).Google Scholar
9. Department of Health (DoH). NHS reference costs 2009–2010. London, UK: Department of health; 2011. www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_111591 (accessed April 12, 2013).Google Scholar
10. British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British national formulary. No. 60, September 2010. London, UK: BMA and RPS; 2010. www.bnf.org/bnf/ (accessed April 12, 2013).Google Scholar
11. Office of National Statistics (ONS). Prescription cost analysis: England. London, UK: ONS; 2010. http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/primary-care/prescriptions/prescription-cost-analysis-2010 (accessed April 12, 2013).Google Scholar
12. Brooks, R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72.Google Scholar
13. Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, et al. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141–154.Google Scholar
14. Petrou, S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ. 2003;12:697–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Chan, KS, Mangione-Smith, R, Burwinkle, TM, et al. The PedsQL: Reliability and validity of the short-form generic core scales and Asthma Module. Med Care. 2005;43:256–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Brazier, JE, Yang, Y, Tsuchiya, A, et al. A review of studies mapping (or cross walking) non-preference based measures of health to generic preference-based measures. Eur J Health Econ. 2010;11:215–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Manca, A, Hawkins, N, Sculpher, MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: The importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ. 2005;14:487–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Briggs, A, Clark, T, Wolstenholme, J, et al. Missing. . . presumed at random: Cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 2003;12:377–392.Google Scholar
19. Stinnett, AA, Mullahy, J. Net health benefits: A new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:S68–S80.Google Scholar
20. Eiser, C, Morse, R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Ungar, WJ, Santos, MT. Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:203–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Sterne, JA, White, IR, Carlin, JB, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Figure 1

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 20.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Figure 2

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 20.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 1

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 22.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 2

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 16.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 3

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 17.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 4

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 18 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 5

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 17 KB
Supplementary material: File

Petrou Supplementary Material

Table 6

Download Petrou Supplementary Material(File)
File 17.4 KB