Evaluation of clinical and economic benefits of fluticasone furoate compared with mometasone furoate and budesonide in the treatment of allergic rhinitis

Trial description: Objectives: To calculate the cost-effectiveness reason and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR) using fluticasone furoate compared with mometasone furoate and budesonide. Methods: we developed a cost-effectiveness analysis by mean a Markov model and we developed a meta-analysis for fluticasone furoate and other for mometasone about improve the symptoms of AR using the TOSS scale, for budesonide we used the only one study published in the literature. We calculate number of reports in percent about improves patient’s symptoms, and these results were used like inputs. We made a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. The time horizon was during 12 months. All the costs are expressed in Mexican currency Results: The effectiveness measured by improving of ocular symptoms of AR was superior in the fluticasone group (60.21%) then mometasone (47.95%) and in the end budesonida (28.00%). The annual cost was lower for fluticasone ($6,036), followed by mometasona ($7,962) and the most expensive was budesonide ($10,028), so mometasone and budesonide are dominated by fluticasone. The fluticasone’s efficay was superior to mometasone and budesonida (12.26%) and (32.21%) respectively. The probabilistic analysis cost-effectiveness shows the most of the results are in the quadrant lower cost and more effectiveness (85.9% vs mometasone and 97.5% vs budesonida). Conclusions: To use fluticasone in the treatment of AR is an option more effective with a lower cost for the treatment of AR.