Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

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

  • Stavros Petrou (a1), Angela Boland (a2), Kamran Khan (a3), Colin Powell (a4), Ruwanthi Kolamunnage-Dona (a5), John Lowe (a6), Iolo Doull (a7), Kerry Hood (a4) and Paula Williamson (a7)...

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Sennhauser, FH, Braun-Fahrlander, C, Wildhaber, JH. The burden of asthma in children: A European perspective. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2005;6:27.
2. Mohammed, S, Goodacre, S. Intravenous and nebulised magnesium sulphate for acute asthma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Emerg Med J. 2007;24:823830.
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.
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;1:301308.
5. Yung, M, South, M, Byrt, T. Evaluation of an asthma severity score. J Paediatr Child Health. 1996;32:261264.
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,1216.
7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: NICE, 2008.
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).
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).
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).
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).
12. Brooks, R. EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:5372.
13. Dolan, P, Gudex, C, Kind, P, et al. The time trade-off method: Results from a general population study. Health Econ. 1996;5:141154.
14. Petrou, S. Methodological issues raised by preference-based approaches to measuring the health status of children. Health Econ. 2003;12:697702.
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;43:256265.
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;11:215225.
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;14:487496.
18. Briggs, A, Clark, T, Wolstenholme, J, et al. Missing. . . presumed at random: Cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ. 2003;12:377392.
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:S68S80.
20. Eiser, C, Morse, R. Quality-of-life measures in chronic diseases of childhood. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1157.
21. Ungar, WJ, Santos, MT. Quality appraisal of pediatric health economic evaluations. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:203210.
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.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Figure 1

 Word (21 KB)
21 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Figure 2

 Word (21 KB)
21 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 1

 Word (22 KB)
22 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 2

 Word (16 KB)
16 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 3

 Word (18 KB)
18 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 4

 Word (18 KB)
18 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 5

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Petrou Supplementary Material
Table 6

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed