Journal
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE
Volume 32, Issue 6, Pages 371-375Publisher
CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462316000593
Keywords
Treatment outcome; Outcome assessment; Seasonal allergic rhinitis; Intranasal corticosteroid; Intranasal combination
Categories
Funding
- Meda Pharmaceutical
- Xcenda
- Millcreek Outcomes Group
- Abbott
- Novo Nordisk
- Certara
- Meda
- Allergan
- AstraZeneca
- Boehringer Ingelheim
- Circassia
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Greer
- Johnson Johnson
- Merck
- Mylan
- Regeneron/Sanofi
- Sunovion
- 3E Therapeutics
- Takeda
- Teva
- Valeant
- Dr. Reddy
- Cipla
- Novartis
- Boehringer-Ingelheim
- Astra Zeneca
- Janssen
- Roche
- Chiesi
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Objectives: Various minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold estimation techniques have been applied to seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR). The objectives of this study are to (i) assess the difference in magnitude of alternative SAR MCID threshold estimates and (ii) evaluate the impact of alternative MCID estimates on health technology assessment (HTA). Methods: Data describing change from baseline of the reflective Total Nasal Symptom Score (rTNSS) for four intranasal SAR treatments were obtained from United States Food and Drug Administration-approved prescribing information. Treatment effects were then compared with anchor-based MCID thresholds derived by Barnes et al. and thresholds obtained from an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) panel. Results: The change in rTNSS score from baseline, represented as the average of the twice-daily recorded scores of the rTNSS, was -2.1 (p < .001) for azelastine hydrochloride 0.10%, 1.35 (p = .014) for ciclesonide, and -1.47 (p < .001) for fluticasone furoate. The change in the rTNSS score from baseline, represented by sum of the AM and PM score, was -2.7 for MP-AzeFlu (p < .001). The rTNSS change from baseline for each product was compared with anchor-based MCID threshold and the AHRQ panel estimates. Comparison of the observed treatment effect to the anchor-based and AHRQ panel MCID thresholds results in different conclusions, with clinically important differences being inferred when anchor-based estimates serve as the reference point. Conclusion: The AHRQ panel MCID threshold for the rTNSS was twelve times larger than the anchor-based estimates resulting in conflicting recommendations on whether different SAR treatments provide clinically meaningful benefit.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available