Table 4.
Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio in subgroups based on baseline levels of eNO and PC20 1
| Group |
ΔDC ΔACD |
ΔDC ΔFEV |
ΔDC Avoided Exacer 1 |
ΔSC ΔACD |
ΔSC ΔFEV |
ΔSC Avoided Exacer 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. low eNO | 71# | −12* (−45, −7) | −1940 # | 95# | −17* (−61, −2) | −2605 # |
| B. high eNO | −5* (−9, −4) | −14* (−36, −8) | −640* (−1617, −389) | −8* (−13, −5) | −21* (−56, −11) | −964* (−2138, −597) |
| C. low PC20 | −5 * (−9, −4) | −10 * (−17, −7) | −621* (−1532, −400) | −10 * (−17, −8) | −18 * (−10, −35) | −1125 * (−2516, −661) |
| D. high PC20 | 12 # | −33 # | −6157 # | 7 # | −20 # | −3707 # |
A. Fluticasone N = 43 and Montelukast N = 35
B. Fluticasone N = 36 and Montelukast N = 40
C. Fluticasone N = 54 and Montelukast N =51
D. Fluticasone N = 25 and Montelukast N =24
*
fluticasone dominated montelukast at least 95% of the time in bootstrap analysis.
#
no statistically significant difference in effectiveness between fluticasone and montelukast.
1
This table shows that fluticasone dominated montelukast in the high eNO subgroup and the more responsive PC20 subgroup during the 48-week study period.