Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden.

Methods:

A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios.

Results:

Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively.

Limitations:

The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.     

The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK

Abstract

Background:

Although chronic migraine is associated with substantial disability and costs, few treatments have been shown to be effective. OnabotulinumtoxinA (Botox, Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA) is the first treatment to be licensed in the UK for the prophylaxis of headaches in adults with chronic migraine. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA in this indication in the UK.

Methods:

A state-transition (Markov) model was developed comparing onabotulinumtoxinA to placebo. Efficacy data and utility values were taken from the pooled Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy (PREEMPT) clinical trials program (n?=?1384). Estimates of resource utilisation were taken from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS), and stopping rules were informed by published medical guidelines and clinical data. This study estimated 2-year discounted costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from the UK National Health Service perspective.

Results:

At 2 years, treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA was associated with an increase in costs of £1367 and an increase in QALYs of 0.1 compared to placebo, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £15,028. Treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA reduced headache days by an estimated 38 days per year at a cost of £18 per headache day avoided. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values had the greatest influence on model results. The ICER remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000–£30,000/QALY in the majority of scenario analyses as well as in probabilistic sensitivity analysis, where onabotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective on 96% of occasions at a threshold of £20,000/QALY and 98% of occasions at £30,000/QALY.

Conclusion:

OnabotulinumtoxinA has been shown to reduce the frequency of headaches in patients with chronic migraine and can be considered a cost-effective use of resources in the UK National Health Service. The uncertainties in the model relate to the extrapolation of clinical data beyond the 56-week trial.     

A cost comparison of long-acting insulin analogs vs NPH insulin-based treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes using routinely collected primary care data from the UK

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate total healthcare costs, HbA1c, and weight changes over a 36-month period in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated on NPH or long-acting insulin analogs.

Methods:

Electronic patient data from 479 general practices in the UK (THIN database) were examined for new users of glargine (n?=?794), detemir (n?=?252), or NPH insulin (n?=?430). Annualized healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in years 1, 2, and 3 following insulin initiation were quantified and compared with baseline, using ANOVA and linear regression models.

Results:

A significant difference (p?<?0.05) in total healthcare costs increases at year 1 vs baseline was observed between glargine and detemir, detemir and NPH, but not between glargine and NPH (increase: +£486, +£635, and +£420 for glargine, detemir, and NPH users, respectively). However, increases by year 3 were not significantly different between the insulins. A propensity score analysis comparing analog and NPH insulin showed that, following insulin initiation, increases in costs were higher with insulin analogs at year one (+£220), but this difference decreased over time in each year following insulin initiation (+£168 and +£146, respectively, for years 2 and 3). HbA1c reductions were not significantly different between the groups at all time points. Differences in weight gain between glargine and NPH were statistically significant at year 1 (0.87?kg vs 1.11?kg) and year 3 (1.15?kg vs 1.57?kg), but other estimates of between-group differences in weight gain were non-significant.

Conclusions:

Following insulin initiation, the difference in healthcare costs of long-acting analogs compared to NPH insulin was transient. By year 3, the cost differences were not significantly different between the two cohorts, driven by an observed reduction in the cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the analog group and an increase in the cost of bolus insulin in the NPH group.     

Cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor versus treatment with imatinib for adult patients with newly diagnosed chronic myeloid leukaemia

Objective: To estimate, from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance, the cost utility of allogeneic stem cell transplantation with matched unrelated donor (MUD-SCT) in newly diagnosed, chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients aged 40 years or younger, relative to the treatment with imatinib.

Methods: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the additional cost of imatinib versus MUD-SCT per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was chosen as a target assessment. ICER was quantified using a Markov cohort modelling approach. The evaluation encompassed 5 years of treatment with either approach, and only direct medical costs (in €, year 2005) were considered.

Results: There were incremental costs of €77,410 for imatinib therapy per QALY gained versus MUD-SCT. No strategy was clearly dominant; on average, during 5 years, cost savings of €63,433 were obtained and 0.82 QALY lost by SCT compared to treatment with imatinib. QALYs gained in CML patients with either treatment resulted in considerable cost to the third-party payer in Germany. The results were particularly sensitive to the price of imatinib.

Conclusions: The analysis finds that imatinib is more costly but more effective (as measured in QALYs) over a 5-year time horizon. The resulting ICER of €77,410 per QALY is higher than commonly cited thresholds. The cost utility of MUD-SCT to treat CML in patients with a European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation score ≤ to 2 compares with that of the imatinib strategy.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

Aims: Dulaglutide is a new once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist administered via a disposable auto-injection pen for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide vs insulin glargine for the management of T2DM from a Japanese healthcare perspective, in accordance with recently approved Japanese Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9) was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of treatment with dulaglutide and insulin glargine. Direct comparative data from the Araki 2015 trial (NCT01584232) was used to inform the analysis. Costs associated with treatment and complications were derived from Japanese sources wherever possible and inflated to 2015 Japanese Yen (JPY). Utilities were based upon a European systematic review of diabetes utilities and adjusted for use in a Japanese population. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were conducted on all inputs and key modeling assumptions.

Results: Dulaglutide 0.75?mg was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and total costs, compared to insulin glargine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 416,280 JPY/QALY gained. Treatment with dulaglutide increased the time alive and free from diabetes-related complications by 4 months. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust to plausible variations in input parameters and modeling assumptions.

Limitations: Key limitations of this study are similar to other cost-utility analyses of diabetes, including the extrapolation of short-term clinical trial data into lifelong durations. In addition, due to the lack of robust published Japanese data, some values were derived from non-Japanese sources.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that dulaglutide 0.75?mg may be a cost-effective treatment alternative to insulin glargine for patients with T2DM in Japan.     

Cost-effectiveness of risk stratification for preventing type 2 diabetes using a multi-marker diabetes risk score

Abstract

Background:

Personalized medicine requires diagnostic tests that stratify patients into distinct groups that may differentially benefit from targeted treatment approaches. This study compared the costs and benefits of two approaches for identifying those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes for entry into a diabetes prevention program. The first approach identified high risk patients using impaired fasting glucose (IFG). The second approach used the PreDx Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) to further stratify IFG patients into high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence and disease progression of diabetes and consequent costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY), comparing alternative approaches for identifying high-risk patients. We modeled direct medical costs, including the costs of the stratification testing, over a 10-year time horizon from a US payer perspective.

Results:

Stratification of IFG patients by the DRS method leads to improved identification and prevention among those at highest risk. At 5 years, the number needed to treat (NNT) in the IFG-only approach was 39 patients to prevent one case of diabetes compared to an NNT of 15 in the IFG?+?DRS approach. When compared to IFG alone, the IFG?+?DRS approach results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,100/QALY gained at 5 years and would become cost saving in 10 years. In contrast and as compared to no stratification, the IFG-only approach would produce an ICER of $235,500/QALY gained at 5 years and $94,600/QALY gained at 10 years. The study findings are limited by the generalizability of the DRS validation study and uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness of diabetes prevention.

Conclusions:

The analysis indicates that the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention can be improved by better identification of patients at highest risk for diabetes using the DRS.     

Quality of life benefits and cost impact of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone versus prolonged release oxycodone in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation: a UK cost-utility analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost effectiveness of prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone (OXN) tablets (Targinact) and prolonged release oxycodone (OXY) tablets (OxyContin) in patients with moderate-to-severe non-malignant pain and opioid-induced constipation (OIC) from the perspective of the UK healthcare system.

Methods:

A cohort model used data from a phase III randomised, controlled trial (RCT). It calculated the cost difference between treatments by combining the cost of pain therapy with costs of laxatives and other resources used to manage constipated patients. SF-36 scores were converted into EQ-5D utility values to calculate the quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

The incremental cost of OXN versus OXY was £159.68 for the average treatment duration of 301 days. OXN gave an incremental QALY gain of 0.0273. The estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £5841.56 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses gave a maximum ICER of £10,347.03. In some scenarios, OXN dominated with a cost saving of up to £4254.70. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that OXN had approximately 96.6% probability of cost effectiveness at the £20,000 threshold.

Limitations:

The model was conservative in predicting the probability of constipation beyond the 12-week RCT period. UK cost of constipation data were limited and based on primary care physician opinion.

Conclusions:

In the base case, direct treatment costs were slightly higher for patients treated with OXN than for those treated with OXY. However, patients treated with OXN experienced a quality of life gain, and had an ICER considerably below thresholds commonly applied in the UK. The model was most sensitive to the estimated cost of constipation with a number of realistic scenarios in the sensitivity analysis demonstrating a cost saving with OXN (OXN dominant). OXN is therefore estimated to be a cost-effective option for treating patients with severe non-malignant pain and OIC.     

A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Background and aims: Insulin degludec is an insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action that exhibits less intra-patient variability in its glucose-lowering activity, and reduces nocturnal, overall, and severe hypoglycemia relative to insulin glargine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec relative to insulin glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2DBOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2DBB) in Denmark.

Methods: A short-term (1 year) cost-utility model was developed to model insulin use, non-severe and severe hypoglycemia, and self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients using insulin degludec and insulin glargine from the perspective of a Danish healthcare payer. Where possible, data were derived from Danish patients with diabetes and meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for the two insulin regimens in each of the three diabetes populations.

Results: Insulin degludec dominated insulin glargine (i.e. reduced costs while improving quality-adjusted life expectancy) in patients with T1D and patients with type 2 diabetes using a basal-only insulin regimen. In the T2DBB cohort, insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 221,063 per QALY gained, which would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 (～DKK 224,000) per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were most affected by changes in hypoglycemia rate ratio assumptions, but were broadly insensitive to changes in individual input parameters.

Conclusions: Insulin degludec reduces incidence of hypoglycemia and improves quality-of-life in patients with diabetes. Over a 1-year time horizon, insulin degludec resulted in cost savings relative to insulin glargine in T1D and T2DBOT cohorts, while being cost-effective in T2DBB.     

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro,insulin glargine,and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum.

Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources.

Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments.

Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs.

Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.     

Cost-effectiveness of osimertinib in the UK for advanced EGFR-T790M non-small cell lung cancer

Aim: This study presents the cost-utility analysis that was developed to inform the NICE health technology assessment of osimertinib vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy (PDC) in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who have progressed on epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (EGFR-TKI) therapy.

Methods and materials: A partitioned survival model with three health states (progression-free, progressed disease, and death) from a UK payer perspective and over lifetime (15 years) was developed. Direct costs included disease management, treatment-related (acquisition, administration, monitoring, adverse events), and T790M testing costs. Efficacy and safety data were taken from clinical trials AURA extension and AURA2 for osimertinib and IMPRESS for PDC. An adjusted indirect treatment comparison was applied to reduce the potential bias in the non-randomized comparison. Parametric functions were utilized to extrapolate survival beyond the observed period. Health state utility values were calculated from EQ-5D data collected in the trials and valued using UK tariffs. Resource use and costs were based on published sources.

Results: Osimertinib was associated with a gain of 1.541 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of £64,283 vs PDC (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]: £41,705/QALY gained). Scenario analyses showed that none of the plausible scenarios produced an ICER above £44,000 per QALY gained, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated a 63.4% probability that osimertinib will be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £50,000.

Limitations: The analysis is subject to some level of uncertainty inherent to phase 2 single-arm data and the immaturity of the currently available survival data for osimertinib.

Conclusions: Osimertinib may be considered a cost-effective treatment option compared with PDC in the second-line setting in patients with EGFR-T790M mutation-positive NSCLC from a UK payer perspective. Further data from the ongoing AURA clinical trial program will reduce the inherent uncertainty in the analysis.     

Cost-effectiveness of zoledronic acid vs clodronic acid for newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma from the United Kingdom healthcare system perspective

Abstract

Objective:

In the Medical Research Council Myeloma IX Study (MMIX), zoledronic acid (ZOL) 4?mg 3–4/week reduced the incidence of skeletal-related events (SREs), increased progression free survival (PFS), and prolonged overall survival (OS), compared with clodronic acid (CLO) 1600?mg daily, in 1970 patients with newly-diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM).

Methods:

An economic model was used to project PFS, OS, the incidence of SREs and adverse events and expected lifetime healthcare costs for patients with newly-diagnosed MM who are alternatively assumed to receive ZOL or CLO. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] of ZOL vs CLO was calculated as the ratio of the difference in cost to the difference in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs were based on results of MMIX and published sources.

Results:

Compared with CLO, treatment with ZOL increases QALYs by 0.30 at an additional cost of £1653, yielding an ICER of £5443 per QALY gained. If the threshold ICER is £20,000 per QALY, the estimated probability that ZOL is cost-effective is 90%.

Limitations:

The main limitation of this study is the lack of data on the effects of zoledronic acid on survival beyond the end of follow-up in the MMIX trial. However, cost-effectiveness was favourable even under the highly conservative scenario in which the timeframe of the model was limited to 5 years.

Conclusions:

Compared with clodronic acid, zoledronic acid represents a cost-effective treatment alternative in patients with multiple myeloma.     

Economic evaluation of sevelamer for the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in chronic kidney disease patients not on dialysis in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives:

To determine the cost effectiveness of sevelamer vs calcium carbonate in patients with chronic kidney disease and not on dialysis (CKD-ND) from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK.

Methods:

A Markov decision analytic model was developed to estimate (1) total life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for patients treated with sevelamer or calcium carbonate; and (2) incremental costs per LY gained (LYG) and per QALY gained for sevelamer vs calcium carbonate. Data informing probability transitions to all-cause death and dialysis inception in CKD-ND patients were taken directly from the INDEPENDENT-CKD study and were extrapolated beyond the 3-year clinical trial using Weibull regression analysis. Estimates of health utility and costs (in £2011) were derived from the published literature.

Results:

Over a lifetime horizon, sevelamer treatment resulted in a gain of 2.05 LYs and 1.56 QALYs per patient, an increase of £37,282 in total costs per patient vs calcium carbonate (3.5% discount), and a per-patient cost of £18,193/LYG and £23,878/QALY gained. Results were robust to alternative assumptions in key parameters; results were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the mean daily dose of sevelamer, impact of sevelamer on dialysis initiation, cost of dialysis, and health utility estimates. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that sevelamer was cost-effective vs calcium carbonate in 93% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000/QALY gained.

Limitations:

While the model simulated a real-world clinical setting, this analysis was subject to limitations common to all decision analytic models, in that it used a mix of data sources and relied on several assumptions. Not all variables that impact real-world outcomes and costs were included in this model.

Conclusions:

Sevelamer is a cost-effective option compared to calcium carbonate for the first-line treatment of hyperphosphatemia in CKD-ND patients in the UK.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer’s perspective

Aims: An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer’s perspective.

Methods: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015?US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ～1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

Conclusions: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.     

The cost-effectiveness of celecoxib vs diclofenac in the treatment of osteoarthritis in the UK; an update to the NICE model using data from the CONDOR trial

Abstract

Objectives:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) health economic model for assessing the cost-effectiveness of celecoxib plus a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) compared to diclofenac plus PPI in the treatment of osteoarthritis has been updated using new adverse event (AE) risks from the CONDOR trial. In light of this new information, this study aimed to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of celecoxib plus PPI compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Methods:

NICE developed a health economic model as part of their 2008 multiple technology assessment of treatments for osteoarthritis. The model was adapted for this study to update the relative risks of adverse events, using data from the CONDOR trial.

Results:

Using the AE data from the CLASS trial alone, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9538 per QALY when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. When the AE data from CONDOR alone is used, this ICER decreases to £4773 per QALY. Using the pooled data from both trials, celecoxib plus PPI has an ICER of £9377 per QALY compared to diclofenac plus PPI.

Discussion:

The results suggest that when new AE risks are used, celecoxib plus PPI remains a cost-effective treatment for OA when compared to diclofenac plus PPI. However, this analysis is limited by the short time horizon, and additional AEs that have not been considered.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

Aims: Up to 30% of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients are unable to achieve HbA1c targets despite optimization of insulin multiple daily injections (MDI). For these patients the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful but under-utilized alternative. The aim of the present analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of initiating CSII in type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve good glycemic control on MDI in the Netherlands. Methods: Long-term projections were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from the OpT2mise trial. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon. The discount rates applied to future costs and clinical outcomes were 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Results: CSII was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with MDI (9.38 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] vs 8.95 QALYs, respectively). The breakdown of costs indicated that ～50% of costs were attributable to diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs of CSII vs MDI were partially offset by the reduction in complications. The ICER was estimated at EUR 62,895 per QALY gained and EUR 60,474 per QALY gained when indirect costs were included. Conclusions: In the Netherlands, CSII represents a cost-effective option in patients with type 2 diabetes who continue to have poorly-controlled HbA1c despite optimization of MDI. Since the ICER falls below the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 80,000 per QALY gained, CSII is likely to represent good-value for money in the treatment of poorly-controlled T2D patients compared with MDI.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel compared to standard care in late stage Parkinson’s disease in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG), compared to standard care (SC) in patients with advanced Parkinson’s disease (aPD) in the UK.

Design:

Markov model to quantify costs and outcomes associated with LCIG versus SC in aPD patients at Hoehn and Yahr (H&Y) stages 3, 4 or 5 experiencing >50% OFF time per day. Time horizon was lifetime, LCIG treatment was assumed to last maximal 5 years after which patients revert to SC. Model comprised 12 aPD health states according to H&Y status and daily time spent in OFF state. Cost analyses are reported from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Uncertainties were assessed through one-way sensitivity analyses.

Comparators:

LCIG, providing patients with continuous dopaminergic stimulation to maximise functional ON time during the day and SC, defined as medically determined best available oral medication.

Main outcome measures:

Cost-effectiveness, based on quality adjusted life years gained, presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.

Results:

Lifetime analysis yields an incremental cost per QALY of £36,024 for LCIG compared to SC (incremental cost £39,644, QALY gain 1.1). Results were sensitive to time on treatment, health state on treatment initiation, and estimates of long term benefit (OWSA results from £32,127 to £66,421 per QALY). Findings must be considered in the context of the study limitations which were mainly due to data availability constraints.

Conclusions:

LCIG is an effective treatment, reducing OFF time and improving quality of life in advanced PD. It provides value for money in levodopa-responsive aPD patients with severe motor fluctuations when no other treatment options are effective or suitable. Given LCIG is an orphan drug, it is reasonable to suggest that it may be considered cost-effective in the UK setting. However, further research is needed to complete current data gaps and increase robustness of the model.