gms | German Medical Science

16th Annual Meeting of the German Drug Utilisation Research Group (GAA)

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie

19.11. - 20.11.2009, Berlin

Consumption of intranasal corticosteroid-containing sprays (INS) for the treatment of allergic rhinitis – a comparison of "real life" prescription data of treatment with budesonide and mometasone in Germany

Meeting Abstract

Search Medline for

  • O. Schöffski - Lehrstuhl für Gesundheitsmanagement, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany
  • corresponding author B. Becker - Essex Pharma GmbH, Germany

Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie e.V. (GAA). 16. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie. Berlin, 19.-20.11.2009. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2009. Doc09gaa25

DOI: 10.3205/09gaa25, URN: urn:nbn:de:0183-09gaa253

Published: November 5, 2009

© 2009 Schöffski et al.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.


Outline

Text

Background and aim: Intranasal corticosteroids (INS) are approved for the treatment of seasonal allergic and persistent rhinitis. Comparison of INS treatment cost often based on the assumption of one single defined daily dose for all different corticosteroids. The aim of the analysis was to quantify and compare INS doses consumed in real-life treatment.

Material and method: The German IMS Disease Analyzer database was analyzed which contains representative data on prescriptions and diagnoses of more than 11 mil patients (pts) reported from office-based physicians. Pts with allergic rhinitis were initially prescribed for budesonide- (BUD) or mometasone- (MOM) containing INS between Oct 2004 and Sep 2006. Follow-up period was 2 years and pts had to have at least one additional INS prescription in the second year. Descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression modelling was performed for comparing the INS consumption of pts treated by general practitioners (GP) and ear-nose-throat specialists (ENT).

Results: 2350 (BUD)/14.554 (MOM) pts from GP and 660/8516 pts from the ENT were analyzed. The portion of pts with persistent allergic rhinitis was 13.1% (BUD) vs 7.6% (MOM) in the GP and 7.4% vs 7.0% in the ENT cohort. The average number of puffs prescribed per patient was BUD/MOM: 183.0/77.0CHECK (at index day), 198.6/ 83.2 (after 45 days), 215.0/ 91.0 (after 90 days) and 318.2/129.7 (after 365 days) in the GP cohort and 190.7/97.9, 218.1/113.3, 255.2/127.9 and 468.4/195.5 in the ENT cohort. Regression analysis showed significant factors of –105.4 to –186.6 in the GP cohort (ENT: –90,9 and –260,2) for the influence of the INS type on the consumption over time.

Conclusions: The mean consumption of MOM in INS treatment of allergic rhinitis was much lower compared to BUD. This finding is against the common practice in Germany to assume an identical defined daily dose of the two different INS substances for comparison of treatment costs.