{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03997779011660189, 'fraction_numerical': 0.025541365907828985, 'mean_word_length': 5.235294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Costs and Resource Use of Mild Persistent Asthma Patients Initiated on Controller Therapy

Background. The treatment of mild persistent asthma is controversial. Objectives. A retrospective database approach was used to evaluate different alternatives to treating mild persistent asthma. We hypothesized that treatment with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) would result in lowest costs than treatment with leukotriene modifiers (LM) and combination therapy with ICS long-acting inhaled β2-agonists (LABA) because it would be associated with fewer acute care visits and hospitalizations than LM and it would have lower drug acquisition costs than both ICS+LABA and LM. Methods. Costs and resource utilization were compared in 1,283 mild persistent asthma patients initiating regular use of either ICS, ICS+LABA, or LM. Mild persistent asthma patients were identified from a privately insured claims database (1999–2005) using an established algorithm. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and generalized linear models were used to compare costs. Results. Of the total patients who met study criteria, 319 patients (24.9%) initiated regular ICS use, 414 (32.3%) ICS+LABA use, and 550 (42.9%) LM use. Over the 1 year after controller therapy initiation, asthma-related direct costs were significantly lower with ICS compared with ICS+LABA or LM ($819 for ICS, $1,094 for ICS+LABA, and $869 for LM, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences in resource use. Conclusion. In this analysis, physicians, despite guideline recommendations, chose to treat patients with mild persistent asthma more often with LM and ICS+LABA than with ICS. However, therapy with ICS was less costly than treatment with either LM or ICS+LABA, primarily due to differences in drug costs, and provided similar outcomes.