Costs of Single Maintenance and Reliever Therapy vs Traditional Therapy for Asthma

Importance: Despite strong guideline support, single maintenance and reliever therapy (SMART) for asthma is underused in the US. Limited insurance coverage of SMART-compatible inhalers remains a major barrier to its adoption. Objective: To compare the annual asthma management costs of SMART vs traditional therapy from a US health care payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a probabilistic decision-tree model with Monte Carlo simulations to compare the total asthma management costs for patients prescribed SMART vs traditional therapy, conducting analyses from September 1, 2024, to March 13, 2025. Input data were extracted through a systematic review of 6 randomized clinical trials as well as current asthma guidelines. Exposures: SMART vs traditional therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was annual asthma-related costs to health care payers. Model inputs, including exacerbation rates and expected inhaler utilization, were extracted from prior randomized clinical trials. Morbidity data and medication costs were obtained from national databases and inflated to 2024 US dollars. Analyses used a 1-year time horizon and were repeated with and without quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) considered. Results: The model includes 11988 individuals with moderate to severe asthma who participated in the randomized clinical trials. For patients prescribed SMART, the estimated total annual cost of asthma management was $2181 (95% CI, $1606-$2939) per patient compared with $2235 (95% CI, $1595-$3267) for traditional therapy. SMART was associated with an incremental gain of 0.0006 QALYs (95% CI, 0.0003-0.0011 QALYs) per patient. SMART was less costly in 57% of simulations when QALYs were excluded, was more cost-effective in 67% of simulations when QALYs were included, and produced a mean incremental net monetary benefit of $118 (95% CI, -$344 to $663) per patient per year. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this economic analysis suggest that SMART was associated with modest cost savings and improved health outcomes compared with traditional asthma therapy. Given its cost-effectiveness, demonstrated effectiveness, and strong guideline endorsement, expanding insurance coverage of SMART may reduce asthma-related morbidity while lowering costs to US health care payers.