Utility valuation of health states for haemophilia and related complications in Europe and in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: There is currently a paucity of health utility data describing the consequences of haemophilia and related complications. AIM: To quantify the impact of distinct stages of severity of haemophilia and disease-related complications on health-related quality of life, expressed as health utilities in Europe and the United States. METHODS: Nine health state descriptions were developed based on literature review and interviews with haematologists and haemophilia patients. Three descriptions characterized the impact of mild, moderate and severe haemophilia without inhibitors. Six descriptions characterized disease-related complications added to the moderate haemophilia description (arthroscopic synovectomy, prosthetic joint replacement, chronic pain, spontaneous bleed, traumatic bleed and end-stage joint disease). Time trade-off (TTO) interviews were conducted with 100 adults from the general public in the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United States. Mean TTO-derived utility values were expressed on a scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health). RESULTS: Utility values obtained for the health states corresponding to mild (0.73-0.86), moderate (0.68-0.76) and severe (0.64-0.71) haemophilia followed the increase in severity. The addition of a complication to the "moderate" state leads to a decrease in the associated utility value. The most severe disutility (0.23-0.36) across all countries was associated with the burden of end-stage joint disease. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the value that the French, Italian, German, Swedish, United States and UK populations ascribe to the avoidance of disease progression in haemophilia without inhibitors. Improved treatment options hold a potential for important benefits to haemophilia patients.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.