Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

Cost-effectiveness of population-wide genomic screening for Lynch Syndrome and Polygenic Risk Scores to inform Colorectal Cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic screening to identify individuals with Lynch Syndrome (LS) and those with a high polygenic risk score (PRS) promises to personalize Colorectal Cancer (CRC) screening. Understanding its clinical and economic impact is needed to inform screening guidelines and reimbursement policies. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to simulate individuals over a lifetime. We compared LS+PRS genomic screening to standard of care (SOC) for a cohort of US adults at age 30. The Markov model included health states of "no CRC", CRC stages (A-D) and death. We estimated incidence, mortality, and discounted economic outcomes of the population under different interventions. RESULTS: Screening 1000 individuals for LS+PRS resulted in 1.36 fewer CRC cases and 0.65 fewer deaths compared to SOC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $124,415 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); screening had a 69% probability of being cost-effective using a willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY. Setting the PRS threshold at the 90th percentile of the LS+PRS screening program to define individuals at high risk was most likely to be cost-effective compared to 95th, 85th, and 80th percentiles. CONCLUSION: Population-level LS+PRS screening is marginally cost-effective and a threshold of 90th percentile is more likely to be cost-effective than other thresholds.

Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Health Interventions for Asthma or COPD: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Digital interventions such as remote monitoring of symptoms and physiological measurements have the potential to reduce the economic burden of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) but their cost-effectiveness remains unclear. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCT) aims to assess whether digital health interventions can be cost-effective in these patients. DESIGN: Systematic review of RCTs. Study quality was assessed using RoB2 tool. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search in three databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were RCTs with health economic evaluations assessing participants with asthma and/or COPD and comparing a digital health intervention to standard of care. RESULTS: We included 35 RCTs, of which 21 were related to COPD, 13 to asthma and one to both diseases. Overall, studies assessed four categories of digital health interventions: (i) Electronic patient diaries (n = 4), (ii) real-time monitoring (n = 19), (iii) teleconsultations (n = 6) and (iv) others (n = 6). Eleven studies performed a full economic evaluation analysis, while 24 studies performed a partial economic analysis. Most studies involving real-time monitoring or teleconsultations presented economic results in favour of digital health interventions (indicating them to be cost-effective or less expensive than the standard of care). Mixed results were obtained for electronic patient diaries. In the studies that conducted a full economic analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from 3530,93€/QALY and 286,369,28€/QALY. In the studies that conducted a partial economic analysis, the cost differences between the intervention group and the control group ranged from 0,12€ and 85,217,86€. Half studies with low risk of bias concluded that the intervention was economically favourable. CONCLUSION: Although costs varied based on intervention type, follow-up period and country, most studies report digital health interventions to be affordable or associated with decreased costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42023439195.

Economic evaluations of assisted reproductive technologies in high-income countries: a systematic review.

STUDY QUESTION: Which assited reproductive technology (ART) interventions in high-income countries are cost-effective and which are not? SUMMARY ANSWER: Among all ART interventions assessed in economic evaluations, most high-cost interventions, including preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) for a general population and ICSI for unexplained infertility, are unlikely to be cost-effective owing to minimal or no increase in effectiveness. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Approaches to reduce costs in order to increase access have been identified as a research priority for future infertility research. There has been an increasing number of ART interventions implemented in routine clinical practice globally, before robust assessments of evidence on economic evaluations. The extent of clinical effectiveness of some studied comparisons has been evaluated in high-quality research, allowing more informative decision making around cost-effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a systematic review and searched seven databases (MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, ECONLIT, SCOPUS, and CINAHL) for studies examining ART interventions for infertility together with an economic evaluation component (cost-effectiveness, cost-benefit, cost-utility, or cost-minimization assessment), in high-income countries, published since January 2011. The last search was 22 June 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Two independent reviewers assessed publications and included those fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Studies were examined to assess the cost-effectiveness of the studied intervention, as well as the reporting quality of the study. The chosen outcome measure and payer perspective were also noted. Completeness of reporting was assessed against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard. Results are presented and summarized based on the intervention studied. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The review included 40 studies which were conducted in 11 high-income countries. Most studies (n = 34) included a cost-effectiveness analysis. ART interventions included medication or strategies for controlled ovarian stimulation (n = 15), IVF (n = 9), PGT-A (n = 7), single embryo transfer (n = 5), ICSI (n = 3), and freeze-all embryo transfer (n = 1). Live birth was the mostly commonly reported primary outcome (n = 27), and quality-adjusted life years was reported in three studies. The health funder perspective was used in 85% (n = 34) of studies. None of the included studies measured patient preference for treatment. It remains uncertain whether PGT-A improves pregnancy rates compared to IVF cycles managed without PGT-A, and therefore cost-effectiveness could not be demonstrated for this intervention. Similarly, ICSI in non-male factor infertility appears not to be clinically effective compared to standard fertilization in an IVF cycle and is therefore not cost-effective. Interventions such as use of biosimilars or HMG for ovarian stimulation are cheaper but compromise clinical effectiveness. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Lack of both preference-based and standardized outcomes limits the comparability of results across studies. The selection of efficacy evidence offered for some interventions for economic evaluations is not always based on high-quality randomized trials and systematic reviews. In addition, there is insufficient knowledge of the willingness to pay thresholds of individuals and state funders for treatment of infertility. There is variable quality of reporting scores, which might increase uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Investment in strategies to help infertile people who utilize ART is justifiable at both personal and population levels. This systematic review may assist ART funders decide how to best invest to maximize the likelihood of delivery of a healthy child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding for this study. E.C. and R.W. receive salary support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) through their fellowship scheme (EC GNT1159536, RW 2021/GNT2009767). M.D.-T. reports consulting fees from King Fahad Medical School. All other authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero CRD42021261537.

Evaluating the benefits of emicizumab prophylaxis for haemophilia A with inhibitors: A cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis in Thailand's upper-middle income setting.

BACKGROUND: In Thailand, an upper-middle-income country, managing haemophilia A (HA) with inhibitors poses significant challenges, often necessitating bypassing agents (BPAs) for bleeding control. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of emicizumab, a novel prophylactic agent, as an alternative to both episodic and prophylactic BPA treatments from a societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was employed to estimate the lifetime societal costs and outcomes of emicizumab prophylaxis for HA patients with inhibitors. Treatment efficacy, cost, and epidemiological data were obtained through a comprehensive literature review and incorporated into the model. A 5-year budget impact analysis complemented the cost-utility analysis, with a 3% annual discount rate applied to future costs and outcomes. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, emicizumab prophylaxis in HA patients aged 2 years and above demonstrated superior cost-effectiveness, yielding 18.1 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient over a lifetime and resulting in cost savings of 138 million Thai Baht (THB) compared to BPA prophylaxis. Compared to episodic BPA treatment, emicizumab yielded 30.5 QALYs and saved 25 million THB per patient. The 5-year budget impact was projected at 1775 million THB. CONCLUSIONS: Emicizumab offers a cost-saving approach for HA treatment with inhibitors in Thailand, promising significant health benefits and budgetary savings. This supports its potential inclusion in Thailand's National List of Essential Medicines to enhance haemophilia care access. HIGHLIGHTS: Managing haemophilia A (HA) with inhibitors in Thailand, an upper-middle-income country, faces challenges due to limited access to effective treatments or newer drugs for bleeding management. Emicizumab prophylaxis found to as a cost-effective and viable alternative to traditional treatments, effectively preventing bleeding in Thai HA patients over 2 years old with inhibitors. Demonstrating improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs, emicizumab prophylaxis outperforms episodic BPA treatments, positioning it as a superior treatment option for HA patients with inhibitors in Thailand.

Hysterectomy versus chemotherapy for low-risk non-metastatic gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN): A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the cost-effectiveness for hysterectomy versus standard of care single agent chemotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing single agent chemotherapy with hysterectomy using decision analysis and Markov modeling from a healthcare payer perspective in Canada. The base case was a 40-year-old patient with low-risk non-metastatic GTN that completed childbearing. Outcomes were life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and adjusted 2022 costs (CAD). Discounting was 1.5% annually and the time horizon was the patient's lifetime. Model validation included face validity, deterministic sensitivity analyses, and scenario analysis. RESULTS: Mean costs for chemotherapy and hysterectomy arms were $34,507 and $17,363, respectively, while effectiveness measure were 30.37 QALYs and 31.04 LYs versus 30.14 QALYs and 30.82 Lys, respectively. The ICER was $74,526 (USD $54,516) per QALY. Thresholds favoring hysterectomy effectiveness were 30-day hysterectomy mortality below 0.2% and recurrence risk during surveillance above 9.2% (low-risk) and 33.4% (high-risk). Scenario analyses for Dactinomycin and Methotrexate led to similar results. Sensitivity analysis using tornado analysis found the cost to be most influenced by single agent chemotherapy cost and risk of resistance, number of weeks of chemotherapy, and probability of postoperative mortality. CONCLUSION: Compared to hysterectomy, single agent chemotherapy as a first-line treatment costs $74,526 for each additional QALY gained. Given that this cost falls below the accepted $100,000 willingness-to-pay threshold and waitlist limitations within public healthcare systems, these results support the continued use of chemotherapy as standard of care approach for low-risk GTN.

Cost-utility analysis of a telehealth psychological support intervention for people with primary brain tumor: Telehealth Making Sense of brain tumor.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake an economic evaluation of a telehealth psychological support intervention for patients with primary brain tumor (PBT). METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis over 6 months was performed comparing a tailored telehealth-psychological support intervention with standard care (SC) in a randomized control trial. Data were sourced from the Telehealth Making Sense of Brain Tumor (Tele-MAST) trial survey data, project records, and administrative healthcare claims. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on the EuroQol-5D-5L. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 2000 iterations was used to determine sampling uncertainty. Multiple imputation was used for handling missing data. RESULTS: The Tele-MAST trial included 82 participants and was conducted in Queensland, Australia during 2018-2021. When all healthcare claims were included, the incremental cost savings from Tele-MAST were -AU$4,327 (95% CI: -$8637, -$18) while incremental QALY gains were small at 0.03 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.08). The likelihood of Tele-MAST being cost-effective versus SC was 87% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of AU$50,000 per QALY gain. When psychological-related healthcare costs were included only, the incremental cost per QALY gain was AU$10,685 (95% CI: dominant, $24,566) and net monetary benefits were AU$534 (95% CI: $466, $602) with a 65% likelihood of the intervention being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this small randomized controlled trial, the Tele-MAST intervention is a cost-effective intervention for improving the quality of life of people with PBT in Australia. Patients receiving the intervention incurred significantly lower overall healthcare costs than patients in SC. There was no significant difference in costs incurred for psychological health services.

Cost-utility analysis and drug pricing for tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market compared with semaglutide.

AIM: To investigate the most matchable price of tirzepatide (TIRZ) compared with semaglutide (SEMA) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in China. METHODS: The patient cohort and clinical efficacy data were derived from the SURPASS-2 trial. Cost-utility analysis and a binary search were performed to identify the most matchable price of TIRZ from a Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. RESULTS: After lifetime simulation, the quality-adjusted life years of TIRZ 5, 10, 15 mg and SEMA 1 mg were 11.17, 11.21, 11.27 and 11.12 years, respectively. Despite an initial assumption that the annual cost of TIRZ equals that of SEMA, our analysis revealed that TIRZ is probably more cost-effective than SEMA. A thorough evaluation of pricing showed that the cost ranges for TIRZ at doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1628.61-$1846.23, $1738.40-$2140.95 and $1800.30-$2430.81, respectively. After adjustment in the univariate sensitivity analysis, the cost ranges for TIRZ 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1542.68-$1757.57, $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively. These cost intervals were validated through robust probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, except for the cost range for TIRZ 5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, using SEMA as a reference, the annual costs for TIRZ 10 and 15 mg are $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively, for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

Cost-utility analysis and drug pricing of once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in China.

AIM: Insulin icodec is a first once-weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once-weekly insulin icodec versus once-daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin-treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat-to-target trial). Cost-utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base-case analysis results. RESULTS: After a 40-year simulation, the quality-adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17-$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66-$736.34 using one-way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70-$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future. CONCLUSION: Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

Cost-utility analysis of once-weekly insulin icodec and once-daily insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy in China.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to explore the rational pricing range for the once-weekly administration of insulin icodec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in China who have already received basal insulin therapy. METHODS: The data foundation of this study originates from the ONWARDS 4 clinical trial and research materials on Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. By comprehensively applying cost-utility analysis methods and binary search techniques, the appropriate price positioning of insulin icodec was determined from the perspective of China's healthcare system. RESULTS: In the long-term treatment simulation, we found that insulin icodec and insulin glargine performed similarly in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), with 10.15 and 10.07 years, respectively. Although the annual cost of insulin icodec was initially assumed to be equivalent to that of insulin glargine, in-depth analysis revealed that insulin icodec may have higher cost-effectiveness potential. Further price sensitivity analysis indicated that the reasonable cost range of insulin icodec lies between $851.95 and $1358.25. After fine-tuning through univariate sensitivity analysis, this cost range was revised to $784.90 to $1145.96, a conclusion that was robustly validated in subsequent probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario simulations. CONCLUSION: The conclusion drawn from this study is that, with insulin glargine as the cost reference, the economic cost of insulin icodec for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients is expected to range from $784.90 to $1145.96, providing a reference basis for clinical decision-making and healthcare policy formulation.

An Economic Evaluation of Family-Based Versus Traditional Helicobacter pylori Screen-and-Treat Strategy: Based on Real-World Data and Microsimulation Model.

OBJECTIVE: There is an economic evaluation on the family-based Helicobacter pylori screen-and-treat strategy (FBHS) in China. This study aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of the FBHS with the traditional H. pylori screen-and-treat strategy (TBHS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A seven-state microsimulation model, including H. pylori infection and gastric cancer states, was constructed on the basis of the target family samples from 29 provinces in China. Taking a lifetime horizon from a healthcare system perspective, the long-term costs and health outcomes of the FBHS and TBHS screening strategies were simulated separately, and economic evaluations were performed. The model parameters were primarily derived from real-world data, published literature, and expert opinions. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) expressed as cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were performed to assess the uncertainty of the results. RESULTS: The base-case analysis revealed that the average costs for FBHS and TBHS were 563.67 CNY and 574.08 CNY, respectively, with corresponding average QALYs of 14.83 and 14.79. The ICER for the comparison between the two strategies was -214.07, indicating that FBHS was an absolutely dominant strategy with better cost-effectiveness. The results of both one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were robust. When taking into account the added benefit of the higher H. pylori eradication rate in FBHS, the average costs were further reduced, and the average QALYs were increased, solidifying its position as an unequivocally dominant strategy. CONCLUSION: The FBHS is an absolutely dominant and cost-effective strategy that enables an optimized allocation of screening resources. Decision-makers should prioritize FBHS when developing H. pylori prevention and control strategies.

Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in Patients at High Risk for Progression to Severe COVID-19 in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV/r) is an orally administered antiviral indicated for the outpatient treatment of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for disease progression to severe illness. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of NMV/r versus best supportive care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for progression to severe illness from a US health sector perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using a short-term decision-tree (1 year) followed by a lifetime 2-state Markov model (alive and dead). The short-term decision-tree captured costs and outcomes associated with the primary infection and healthcare utilization; survivors of the short-term decision-tree were followed until death assuming US quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), adjusted in the short-term for survivors of mechanical ventilation. Baseline rate of hospitalization and NMV/r effectiveness were taken from an Omicron-era US real-world study. Remaining inputs were informed by previous COVID-19 studies and publicly available US sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all model inputs to test the robustness of model results. RESULTS: NMV/r was found to decrease COVID-19 related hospitalizations (-0.027 per infected case) increase QALYs (+0.030), decrease hospitalization costs (-$1110), and increase total treatment cost (+$271), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $8931/QALY. Results were most sensitive to baseline risk of hospitalization and NMV/r treatment effectiveness parameters. The probabilistic analysis indicated that NMV/r has a >99% probability of being cost-effective at a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold. CONCLUSIONS: NMV/r is cost-effective vs best supportive care for patients at high risk for severe COVID-19 from a US health sector perspective.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Antipsychotic Reduction and Discontinuation in Patients With Long-Term Schizophrenia and Psychosis in English Mental Health Trusts: The RADAR Study.

OBJECTIVES: The current recommended treatment for patients with recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and related conditions is antipsychotic medication. However, many antipsychotic users remain functionally impaired and experience serious physical and mental side effects. This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of a gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy compared with maintenance treatment over 24 months from mental health services, health and social care, and societal perspectives. METHODS: Nineteen mental health trusts recruited patients to the Research into Antipsychotic Discontinuation and Reduction (RADAR) randomized controlled trial. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-5L, with years of full capability calculated from the patient-reported ICECAP-A. Mental health services use and medication was collected from medical records. Other resource use and productivity loss was collected using self-completed questionnaires. Costs were calculated from published sources. RESULTS: A total of 253 participants were randomized: 126 assigned to antipsychotic dose reduction and 127 to maintenance. There were no significant differences between arms in total costs for any perspectives. There were no significant difference in quality-adjusted life-years (-0.035; 95% CI: -0.123 to 0.052), whereas years of full capability were significantly lower in the reduction arm compared with the maintenance arm (baseline-adjusted difference: -0.103; 95% CI: -0.192 to -0.014). The reduction strategy was dominated by maintenance for all analyses and was not likely to be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that gradual antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation strategy is cost-effective compared with maintenance over 2-years for patients with schizophrenia and other recurrent psychotic disorders who are on long-term antipsychotics.

Economic Evaluation of Fasting Mimicking Diet vs Standard Care in Diabetic Patients on Dual or Triple Medications at Baseline in the United States: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: According to most guidelines, dietary interventions are essential in the management of diabetes. Fasting has emerged as potential therapeutic regimes for diabetes. The proof-of-concept study and the fasting in diabetes treatment trial are the first to explore the clinical impact of the Fasting Mimicking Diet (FMD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Their results showed that FMD cycles improve glycemic management and can be integrated into usual care complementary to current guidelines. This economic evaluation aims to assess the 10-year quality-of-life effects, cost implications, and cost-effectiveness of adding a 3-year FMD program to diabetes standard care in diabetic population on dual or triple medications at baseline from the perspective of the US payer. METHODS: We constructed a microsimulation model in TreeAge using a published US-specific diabetes model. The model was populated using FMD effectiveness outcomes and publicly available clinical and economic data associated with diabetes complications, use of diabetes medications, hypoglycemia incidence, direct medical costs in 2021 USD, quality of life, and mortality. All benefits were discounted by 3%. RESULTS: This cost-utility analysis showed that the FMD program was associated with 11.4% less diabetes complications, 67.2% less overall diabetes medication use, and 45.0% less hypoglycemia events over the 10-year simulation period. The program generated an additional effectiveness benefit of 0.211 quality-adjusted life year and net monetary benefit of 41 613 USD per simulated patient. Thus, the FMD program is cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the FMD program is a beneficial first-line strategy in T2DM management.

Cost-effectiveness of an extended-role general practitioner clinic for persistent physical symptoms: results from the Multiple Symptoms Study 3 (MSS3) pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an extended-role general practitioner (GP) symptoms clinic (SC), added to usual care (UC) for patients with multiple persistent physical symptoms (sometimes known as "medically unexplained symptoms"). METHODS: A 52-week within-trial cost-utility analysis of a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing SC+UC (n=178) against UC alone (n=176), conducted from the primary perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal and social services (PSS). Base-case quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using EQ-5D-5L. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation (MI). Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and incremental net monetary benefits (INMBs). Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (using 1000 non-parametric bootstrapped samples) and sensitivity analysis (including societal costs, using SF-6D and capability ICECAP-A outcomes to estimate QALYs and years of full capability (YFC) respectively, varying intervention costs, missing data mechanism assumptions). RESULTS: Multiple imputation analysis showed that, compared to UC alone, SC+UC was more expensive [(adjusted mean cost difference: 704; 95% CI:£605, £807)] and more effective [(adjusted mean QALY difference: 0.0447 (95% CI:0.0067, 0.0826)] yielding an ICER of £15,765/QALY, INMB of £189.22 (95% CI:-£573.62, £948.28) and a 69% probability of the SC+UC intervention arm being cost-effective at a threshold of £20000 per QALY. Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses, but sensitive to missing data assumptions (2 of the 8 scenarios investigated), SF-6D and ICECAP-A quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A Symptoms Clinic is likely to be a potentially cost-effective treatment for patients with persistent physical symptoms.

Cost-effectiveness of the McGill interactive pediatric oncogenetic guidelines in identifying Li-Fraumeni syndrome in female patients with osteosarcoma.

BACKGROUND: Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is a penetrant cancer predisposition syndrome (CPS) associated with the development of many tumor types in young people including osteosarcoma and breast cancer (BC). The McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG) decision-support tool provides a standardized approach to identify patients at risk of CPSs. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis, from the healthcare payer perspective, to compare MIPOGG-guided, physician-guided, and universal genetic testing strategies to detect LFS in female patients diagnosed at an age of less than 18 years with osteosarcoma. We developed a decision tree and discrete-event simulation model to simulate the clinical and cost outcomes of the three genetic referral strategies on a cohort of female children diagnosed with osteosarcoma, especially focused on BC as subsequent cancer. Outcomes included BC incidence, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), healthcare costs, and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). We conducted probabilistic and scenario analyses to assess the uncertainty surrounding model parameters. RESULTS: Compared to the physician-guided testing, the MIPOGG-guided strategy was marginally more expensive by $105 (-$516; $743), but slightly more effective by 0.003 (-0.04; 0.045) QALYs. Compared to MIPOGG, the universal testing strategy was $1333 ($732; $1953) more costly and associated with 0.011 (-0.043; 0.064) additional QALYs. The ICUR for the MIPOGG strategy was $33,947/QALY when compared to the physician strategy; the ICUR for universal testing strategy was $118,631/QALY when compared to the MIPOGG strategy. DISCUSSION: This study provides evidence for clinical and policy decision-making on the cost-effectiveness of genetic referral strategies to identify LFS in the setting of osteosarcoma. MIPOGG-guided strategy was most likely to be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold value of $50,000/QALY.

Economic analyses in cardiac electrophysiology: from clinical efficacy to cost utility.

Cardiac electrophysiology is an evolving field that relies heavily on costly device- and catheter-based technologies. An increasing number of patients with heart rhythm disorders are becoming eligible for cardiac interventions, not least due to the rising prevalence of atrial fibrillation and increased longevity in the population. Meanwhile, the expansive costs of healthcare face finite societal resources, and a cost-conscious approach to new technologies is critical. Cost-effectiveness analyses support rational decision-making in healthcare by evaluating the ratio of healthcare costs to health benefits for competing therapies. They may, however, be subject to significant uncertainty and bias. This paper aims to introduce the basic concepts, framework, and limitations of cost-effectiveness analyses to clinicians including recent examples from clinical electrophysiology and device therapy.

Cost-utility analysis of treating mild stage normal tension glaucoma by surgery in China: a decision-analytic Markov model.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals suffer from normal tension glaucoma (NTG) in China. This study utilized Markov models to evaluate the cost-utility of applying many medications and surgery for mild-stage NTG when disease progression occurred at a mild stage. METHODS: A 10-year decision-analytic Markov model was developed for the cost-utility analysis of treating mild-stage NTG with surgery and increased application of medication. We hypothesized that all 100,000 samples with a mean age of 64 were in mild stages of NTG. Transitional probabilities from the mild to moderate to severe stages and the basic parameters acquired from the CNTGS were calculated. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were calculated for treating all patients with NTG by probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and Monte Carlo simulation. One-way sensitivity analysis were conducted by adjusting the progression rate, cost of medications or trabeculectomy, cost of follow-up, and surgical acceptance rate. RESULTS: The ICUR of treating mild stage NTG with medication over 10 years was $12743.93 per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The ICUR for treating mild stage NTG patients with a 25% and 50% surgery rate with medication were $8798.93 and $4851.93 per QALYs, respectively. In this model, the cost-utility of treating NTG was sensitive to disease progression rate, surgical treatment rate, and medication costs. CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the cost-utility analysis, it was a reasonable and advantageous strategy to administer a lot of medication and surgery for NTG in the mild stages of the disease. In the model, the greater the probability of patients undergoing surgery, the strategy becomes more valuable.

Cost-utility analysis of prenatal diagnosis of congenital cardiac diseases using deep learning.

BACKGROUND: Deep learning (DL) is a new technology that can assist prenatal ultrasound (US) in the detection of congenital heart disease (CHD) at the prenatal stage. Hence, an economic-epidemiologic evaluation (aka Cost-Utility Analysis) is required to assist policymakers in deciding whether to adopt the new technology. METHODS: The incremental cost-utility ratios (CUR), of adding DL assisted ultrasound (DL-US) to the current provision of US plus pulse oximetry (POX), was calculated by building a spreadsheet model that integrated demographic, economic epidemiological, health service utilization, screening performance, survival and lifetime quality of life data based on the standard formula: CUR = Increase in Intervention Costs - Decrease in Treatment costs Averted QALY losses of adding DL to US & POX US screening data were based on real-world operational routine reports (as opposed to research studies). The DL screening cost of 145 USD was based on Israeli US costs plus 20.54 USD for reading and recording screens. RESULTS: The addition of DL assisted US, which is associated with increased sensitivity (95% vs 58.1%), resulted in far fewer undiagnosed infants (16 vs 102 [or 2.9% vs 15.4%] of the 560 and 659 births, respectively). Adoption of DL-US will add 1,204 QALYs. with increased screening costs 22.5 million USD largely offset by decreased treatment costs (20.4 million USD). Therefore, the new DL-US technology is considered "very cost-effective", costing only 1,720 USD per QALY. For most performance combinations (sensitivity > 80%, specificity > 90%), the adoption of DL-US is either cost effective or very cost effective. For specificities greater than 98% (with sensitivities above 94%), DL-US (& POX) is said to "dominate" US (& POX) by providing more QALYs at a lower cost. CONCLUSION: Our exploratory CUA calculations indicate the feasibility of DL-US as being at least cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: There is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population. METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: TAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.