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.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

Abstract

Aim:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25–40?kg/m². Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

Results:

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR?=?11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

Conclusions:

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

Healthcare utilization changes in relation to treatment intensification with insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data from a large US managed-care organization

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require exogenous insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control due to the progressive nature of the disease. Insulin aspart is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed for prandial use. This study aimed to illustrate the implications on healthcare costs of adding insulin aspart to basal therapy in a real-world setting.

Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes who intensified previous basal therapy with insulin aspart were identified from a large commercial US healthcare data source between April 2007 and September 2008. Patients were required to have received basal insulin treatment with or without concomitant oral antidiabetic (OAD) therapy for at least 90 days pre- and post-initiation of insulin aspart. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, to analyze the difference of self-comparison between pre- and post insulin aspart add-on.

Results: In total, 1,739 patients with an average age of 56 years were identified, of whom 55% were male. After initiation of insulin aspart, a significant improvement in glycemic control was observed (change in HbA_1c: –0.5%, p=0.0013). Similarly, a reduction of 0.4% in HbA_1c was observed for the subpopulation of 151 patients, who had both pre-and post-index HbA_1c data (p=0.0085). Also, significantly fewer patients used OADs after insulin aspart initiation (56 vs. 64%, p< 0.0001). Overall and diabetes-related healthcare costs also significantly decreased by $2,283 and $2,028, respectively (p≤0.0001). Diabetes-related inpatient visits appear to be the main contributor to total cost (46%); however, after initiation of insulin aspart the number of inpatient visits decreased by 0.50 visits/patient/year (p< 0.05). This decrease was reflected in a large reduction in cost related to inpatient visits ($3,019/patient).

Limitations: A regression to the mean effect may be associated with this pre-post comparison. The ability to make conclusions regarding cause and effect may be limited due to the retrospective design of this study.

Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes achieved better glycemic control and needed less OAD treatment after adding insulin aspart to previous basal therapy. Furthermore, patients experienced on average reduced healthcare utilization after initiation of insulin aspart, which resulted in significant cost savings.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark,Finland, Norway,and Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin when initiating insulin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods:

Efficacy and safety data were derived from a 20-week multi-centre randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trial comparing insulin detemir and NPH insulin in insulin naïve people with T2DM, and short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness analyses were performed. As no significant differences in HbA_1c were observed between the two treatment arms, the model was based on significant differences in favour of insulin detemir in frequency of hypoglycaemia (Rate-Ratio?=?0.52; CI?=?0.44–0.61) and weight gain (Δ?=?0.9?kg). Model outcomes were measured in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) using published utility estimates. Acquisition costs for insulin and direct healthcare costs associated with non-severe hypoglycaemic events were obtained from National Health Service public sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Based on lower incidence of non-severe hypoglycaemic events and less weight gain, the QALY gain from initiating treatment with insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin was 0.01 per patient per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the individual countries were: Denmark, Danish Kroner 170,852 (€22,933); Finland, €28,349; Norway, Norwegian Kroner 169,789 (€21,768); and Sweden, Swedish Krona 226,622 (€25,097) per QALY gained. Possible limitations of the study are that data on hypoglycaemia and relative weight benefits from a clinical trial were combined with hypoglycaemia incidence data from observational studies. These populations may have slightly different patient characteristics.

Conclusions:

The lower risk of non-severe hypoglycaemia and less weight gain associated with using insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin when initiating insulin treatment in insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes provide economic benefits in the short-term. Based on cost/QALY threshold values, this represents good value for money in the Nordic countries. Using a short-term modelling approach may be conservative, as reduced frequency of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain may also have positive long-term health-related implications.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

Abstract

Aims: The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

Materials and methods: Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results: IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.     

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.     

Willingness-to-pay for benefits associated with basal insulin treatment of type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Data from a 20-week trial comparing insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes were analyzed using willingness-to-pay (WTP) data, a proxy for patient preference. The advantages of insulin detemir relative to NPH insulin with respect to a lower hypoglycemia rate and less weight gain were associated with a value of €27.87 per month.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs bolus insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy when glycemic control is sub-optimal with titrated basal insulin glargine and metformin.

Methods: The analysis was based on the recent 4B Study, which compared exenatide BID and lispro TID as add-on therapies in subjects with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled, despite titrated insulin glargine. The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate patient costs and health benefits beyond the 4B Study. The Swedish healthcare perspective was adopted for this analysis; costs are reported in €EUR to aid interpretation. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with exenatide BID compared to lispro TID.

Results: Exenatide BID was associated with an incremental cost of €1,270 and a QALY increase of +0.64 compared with lispro TID over 40 years. The cost per QALY gained with exenatide BID compared with lispro TID was €1,971, which is within conventional limits of cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness results were generally robust to alternative assumptions and values for key model parameters.

Limitations: Extrapolation of trial data over the longer term can be influenced by modeling and parameter uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness results were generally insensitive to alternative values of key model input parameters and across scenarios.

Conclusions: The addition of exenatide BID rather than insulin lispro to basal insulin is associated with similar or better clinical outcomes. Illustrated from the Swedish healthcare perspective, analysis with the Cardiff Diabetes Model demonstrated that exenatide BID represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to lispro TID as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients insufficiently controlled on basal insulin.     

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.     

A real-world,multi-site,observational study of infusion time and treatment satisfaction with rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with intravenous golimumab or infliximab

Objectives: To assess real-world infusion times for golimumab (GLM-IV) and infliximab (IFX) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and factors associated with treatment satisfaction.

Methods: An observational study assessed infusion time including: clinic visit duration, RA medication preparation and infusion time, and infusion process time. Satisfaction was assessed by a modified Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (patient) and study-specific questionnaires (patient and clinic personnel). Comparative statistical testing for patient data utilized analysis of variance for continuous measures, and Fisher’s exact or Chi-square test for categorical measures. Multivariate analysis was performed for the primary time endpoints and patient satisfaction.

Results: One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled from six US sites (72 GLM-IV, 78 IFX). The majority of patients were female (80.0%) and Caucasian (88.7%). GLM-IV required fewer vials per infusion (3.7) compared to IFX (4.9; p?=?.0001). Clinic visit duration (minutes) was shorter for GLM-IV (65.1) compared to IFX (153.1; p?<?.0001), as was total infusion time for RA medication (32.8 GLM-IV, 119.5 IFX; p?<?.0001) and infusion process times (45.8 GLM-IV, 134.1 IFX; p?<?.0001). Patients treated with GLM-IV reported higher satisfaction ratings with infusion time (p?<?.0001) and total visit time (p?=?.0003). Clinic personnel reported higher satisfaction with GLM-IV than IFX specific to medication preparation time, ease of mixing RA medication, frequency of patients requiring pre-medication, and infusion time.

Limitations: Findings may not be representative of care delivery for all RA infusion practices or RA patients.

Conclusions: Shorter overall clinic visit duration, infusion process, and RA medication infusion times were observed for GLM-IV compared to IFX. A shorter duration in infusion time was associated with higher patient and clinic personnel satisfaction ratings.     

Drug wastage and costs to the healthcare system in the care of patients with non-small cell lung cancer in the United States

Background: Lung cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers in the US. This study was designed to evaluate the actual drug wastage and cost to the healthcare system using patient-level retrospective observational electronic medical record (EMR) data from a cohort of lung cancer patients in the US.

Methods: Data from the Flatiron Health advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort was used for this study. Drug administered amount (in mg) was used to determine an optimal set of available vial sizes to minimize waste. Drug wastage was defined as the difference between the drug amount in the optimal set of vials and the administered amount. Wholesale acquisition costs were used to value the cost of drugs, with and without vial sharing assumptions. The amount and cost of waste were quantified over the 2-year study period (January 2015–December 2016).

Results: There were 8,467 eligible patients included in this study, providing data from 103,826 unique drug administrations across multiple lines of therapy. Overall wastage was 4.37% of the total medication used to care for patients. While costs per administration were low, the total cost of wastage for the study population represented $16,630,112 across the 2-year study period. Assuming that vial sharing occurred at the site level slightly reduced waste to 3.74% (reducing costs to $15,953,212 over 2 years).

Conclusions: Drug wastage is an important concern and has implications on healthcare costs in NSCLC. Evaluation of these real-world data suggest that pharmacists and physicians are able to reduce drug wastage by optimizing vial combinations and sharing vials among patients. Even small amounts of reduction in wastage could be useful in reducing healthcare costs in the US; however, caution is needed with drug rounding efforts to ensure patients do not receive a sub-optimal dose of medication.     

A long-term analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 and mix 50/50 versus long-acting basal insulin analogs in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and mix 50/50 (LM50/50) compared with a long-acting analog insulin (LAAI) regimen from the perspective of a US healthcare payer.

Methods:

A published computer simulation model of diabetes was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LM75/25 and LM50/50 vs a LAAI (insulin glargine) from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. Treatment effects in terms of HbA1c benefits were taken from a recent meta-analysis. Direct medical costs including pharmacy, complication, and patient management costs were obtained from published sources. All costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

LM75/25 and LM50/50 were associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.08 and 0.09 years, improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 0.08 QALYs and increases in cost of US$ 1724 and US$ 1720, respectively, when compared with LAAI.

Limitations:

The base case analysis did not capture mild or serious hypoglycemia on the grounds that the hypoglycemia rate odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance in the meta-analysis. In addition, the baseline cohort characteristics were based on an insulin-naïve population, as opposed to the cohorts in the meta-analysis, which were heterogeneous with regard to insulin treatment history.

Conclusions:

Based on a recently published meta-analysis, biphasic analog insulins are likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs vs LAAIs in the long-term treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the US.     

Medical resource utilization and costs for total hip arthroplasty: benchmarking an anterior approach technique in the Medicare population

Aims: The anterior approach (AA) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) is associated with more rapid recovery when compared to traditional approaches. The purpose of this study was to benchmark healthcare resource utilization and costs for patients with THA via AA relative to matched patients.

Materials and methods: This study queried Medicare claims data (2012–2014) to identify patients who received THA via an AA from experienced surgeons, and matched these patients to a control cohort (all THA approaches). Direct and propensity-score matching were employed to maximize similarity between patients and hospitals in the two cohorts. Hospital length of stay (LOS), the proportion of patients discharged to home or home health, and post-acute claim payments during the 90-day episode were assessed. Generalized estimating equations were applied to control for imbalances between the cohorts and clustering of outcomes within hospitals.

Results: A total of 1,794 patients were included after patient matching. Patients who received AA had significantly lower mean hospital LOS vs patients in the control group (2.06?±?1.36 vs 2.98?±?1.58 days, p?<?.0001). The adjusted proportion of patients discharged to home was nearly 20 percentage points higher in the AA cohort vs the control cohort (87.3% vs 68.7%, p?<?.0001). Post-acute claim payments for AA patients were nearly 50% lower than those for control patients ($4,139 vs $7,465, p?<?.0001).

Conclusion: AA patients had significantly lower post-acute care resource use when compared to control patients. Further research is warranted to evaluate the cost effectiveness of AA among surgeons of varying experience levels.     

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of stepwise addition of bolus insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: evaluation of the FullSTEP trial

Background and aims:

Intensification of basal insulin-only therapy in type 2 diabetes is often achieved through addition of bolus insulin 3-times daily. The FullSTEP trial demonstrated that stepwise addition (SWA) of bolus insulin aspart was non-inferior to full basal-bolus (FBB) therapy and reduced the rate of hypoglycemia. Here the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of SWA is evaluated.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact models were developed to assess the cost and quality-of-life (QoL) implications of intensification using SWA compared with FBB in the US setting. At assessment, SWA patients added one bolus dose to their current regimen if the HbA1c target was not met. SWA patients reaching three bolus doses used FBB event rates. Outcomes were evaluated at trial end and projected annually up to 5 years. Models captured hypoglycemic events, the proportion meeting HbA1c target, and self-measured blood glucose. Event rates and QoL utilities were taken from trial data and published literature. Costs were evaluated from a healthcare-payer perspective, reported in 2013 USD, and discounted (like clinical outcomes) at 3.5% annually. This analysis applies to patients with HbA1c 7.0–9.0% and body mass index <40?kg/m².

Results:

SWA was associated with improved QoL and reduced costs compared with FBB. Improvement in QoL and cost reduction were driven by lower rates of hypoglycemia. Sensitivity analyses showed that outcomes were most influenced by the cost of bolus insulin and QoL impact of symptomatic hypoglycemia. Budget impact analysis estimated that, by moving from FBB to SWA, a health plan with 77,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, of whom 7.8% annually intensified to basal-bolus therapy, would save USD 1304 per intensifying patient over the trial period.

Conclusions:

SWA of bolus insulin should be considered a beneficial and cost-saving alternative to FBB therapy for the intensification of treatment in type 2 diabetes.     

The economic burden of switching targeted disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs among rheumatoid arthritis patients

Aims: To estimate real world healthcare costs and resource utilization of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients associated with targeted disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (tDMARD) switching in general and switching to abatacept specifically.

Materials and methods: RA patients initiating a tDMARD were identified in IMS PharMetrics Plus health insurance claims data (2010–2016), and outcomes measured included monthly healthcare costs per patient (all-cause, RA-related) and resource utilization (inpatient stays, outpatient visits, emergency department [ED] visits). Generalized linear models were used to assess (i) average monthly costs per patient associated with tDMARD switching, and (ii) among switchers only, costs of switching to abatacept vs tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) or other non-TNFi. Negative binomial regressions were used to determine incident rate ratios of resource utilization associated with switching to abatacept.

Results: Among 11,856 RA patients who initiated a tDMARD, 2,708 switched tDMARDs once and 814 switched twice (to a third tDMARD). Adjusted average monthly costs were higher among patients who switched to a second tDMARD vs non-switchers (all-cause: $4,785 vs $3,491, p?p?p?p?=?.021), and numerically lower all-cause costs ($4,444 vs $4,741, p?=?0.188). Switchers to TNFi relative to abatacept had more frequent inpatient stays after switch (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.85, p?=?.031), and numerically higher ED visits (IRR = 1.32, p?=?.093). Outpatient visits were less frequent for TNFi switchers (IRR = 0.83, p?Limitations and conclusions: Switching to another tDMARD was associated with higher healthcare costs. Switching to abatacept, however, was associated with lower RA-related costs, fewer inpatient stays, but more frequent outpatient visits compared to switching to a TNFi.