Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness models for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: IPECAD modeling workshop cross-comparison challenge.

INTRODUCTION: The credibility of model-based economic evaluations of Alzheimer's disease (AD) interventions is central to appropriate decision-making in a policy context. We report on the International PharmacoEconomic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) Modeling Workshop Challenge. METHODS: Two common benchmark scenarios, for the hypothetical treatment of AD mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and mild dementia, were developed jointly by 29 participants. Model outcomes were summarized, and cross-comparisons were discussed during a structured workshop. RESULTS: A broad concordance was established among participants. Mean 10-year restricted survival and time in MCI in the control group ranged across 10 MCI models from 6.7 to 9.5 years and 3.4 to 5.6 years, respectively; and across 4 mild dementia models from 5.4 to 7.9 years (survival) and 1.5 to 4.2 years (mild dementia). DISCUSSION: The model comparison increased our understanding of methods, data used, and disease progression. We established a collaboration framework to assess cost-effectiveness outcomes, an important step toward transparent and credible AD models.

Complementary pre-screening strategies to uncover hidden prodromal and mild Alzheimer's disease: Results from the MOPEAD project.

INTRODUCTION: The Models of Patient Engagement for Alzheimer's Disease (MOPEAD) project was conceived to explore innovative complementary strategies to uncover hidden prodromal and mild Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia cases and to raise awareness both in the general public and among health professionals about the importance of early diagnosis. METHODS: Four different strategies or RUNs were used: (a) a web-based (WB) prescreening tool, (2) an open house initiative (OHI), (3) a primary care-based protocol for early detection of cognitive decline (PC), and (4) a tertiary care-based pre-screening at diabetologist clinics (DC). RESULTS: A total of 1129 patients at high risk of having prodromal AD or dementia were identified of 2847 pre-screened individuals (39.7%). The corresponding proportion for the different initiatives were 36.8% (WB), 35.6% (OHI), 44.4% (PC), and 58.3% (DC). CONCLUSION: These four complementary pre-screening strategies were useful for identifying individuals at high risk of having prodromal or mild AD.

Relative efficacy of lasmiditan versus rimegepant and ubrogepant as acute treatments for migraine: network meta-analysis findings.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of head-to-head trials, comprehensive evidence comparing onset of efficacy of novel agents for acute treatment of migraine is lacking. This study aimed to explore the relative efficacy of lasmiditan (serotonin [5-hydroxytryptamine] 1F receptor agonist) versus rimegepant and ubrogepant (calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists) for the acute oral treatment of migraine through network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Data included in the NMA were identified through a systematic literature search (conducted April 2018, updated May/December 2020) of phase II-IV, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with chronic/episodic migraine with/without aura. Treatments included: lasmiditan 50, 100, 200 mg; rimegepant 75 mg; ubrogepant 25, 50, 100 mg. Pairwise treatment comparisons from Bayesian fixed-effect/random-effects NMA, adjusted by baseline risk where appropriate, were conducted. Comparisons were reported as odds ratios with 95% credible intervals. Early-onset efficacy endpoints included: pain freedom at 2 hours and pain relief at 1 and 2 hours. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) profiles were summarised. Heterogeneity and inconsistency in the network were explored; sensitivity analyses investigated robustness of findings. RESULTS: Across 12 RCTs included in the base case, females represented >80% of included patients (mean age 37.9-45.7 years). Odds of achieving both pain freedom and pain relief at 2 hours were higher with lasmiditan 100 and 200 mg versus rimegepant 75 mg and ubrogepant 25 and 50 mg. Results for pain relief at 1 hour were consistent with those at 2 hours, but fewer comparisons were available. There were no statistically significant differences between lasmiditan 50 mg and ubrogepant or rimegepant for any outcome. Sensitivity analyses were in the same direction as base case analyses. Most commonly reported ADRs (incidence ≥2%) were: dizziness, fatigue, paraesthesia, sedation, nausea/vomiting and muscle weakness with lasmiditan; nausea with rimegepant; and nausea, somnolence and dry mouth with ubrogepant. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy findings of this indirect comparison indicate that lasmiditan 100 mg or 200 mg might be an appropriate acute treatment option for patients with migraine seeking a fast onset of action. Differently from rimegepant and ubrogepant, lasmiditan use is associated with mainly neurological events, which are mostly mild or moderate in severity and self-limiting. 350/350 words.

Obtaining EQ-5D-5L utilities from the disease specific quality of life Alzheimer's disease scale: development and results from a mapping study.

PURPOSE: The Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QoL-AD) is commonly used to assess disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as rated by patients and their carers. For cost-effectiveness analyses, utilities based on the EQ-5D are often required. We report a new mapping algorithm to obtain EQ-5D indices when only QoL-AD data are available. METHODS: Different statistical models to estimate utility directly, or responses to individual EQ-5D questions (response mapping) from QoL-AD, were trialled for patient-rated and proxy-rated questionnaires. Model performance was assessed by root mean square error and mean absolute error. RESULTS: The response model using multinomial regression including age and sex, performed best in both the estimation dataset and an independent dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended mapping algorithm allows researchers for the first time to estimate EQ-5D values from QoL-AD data, enabling cost-utility analyses using datasets where the QoL-AD but no utility measures were collected.

Factors associated with long-term impact on informal caregivers during Alzheimer's disease dementia progression: 36-month results from GERAS.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, in caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, factors associated with subjective (personal, physical, emotional, and social) and objective (informal caregiver time and costs) caregiver burden. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal European observational study: post-hoc analysis. SETTING: Clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling patients in France and Germany aged ≥ 55 years (n = 969) with probable AD and their informal caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL), 12-item Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI-12), Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI), informal caregiver basic and instrumental ADL hours (Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument), and informal caregiver costs. Mixed-effect models of repeated measures (MMRM) were run, including baseline and time-dependent covariates (change from baseline [CFB] to 18 months in MMSE, ADCS-ADL, and NPI-12 scores) associated with CFB in ZBI score/informal caregiver time over 36 months (analyzed using linear regression models) and informal caregiver costs over 36 months (analyzed using generalized linear models). RESULTS: Greater decline in patient function (ADCS-ADL) over 18 months was associated with increased subjective caregiver burden (ZBI), hours, and costs over 36 months. Increased behavioral problems (NPI-12) over 18 months also negatively impacted ZBI. Cognitive decline (MMSE) over 18 months did not affect change in caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term informal caregiver burden was driven by worsening functional abilities and behavioral symptoms but not cognitive decline, over 18 months in community-dwelling patients with AD dementia. Identifying the drivers of caregiver burden could highlight areas in which interventions may benefit both caregivers and patients.

Alternative Weighting Approaches for Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparisons via a Common Comparator.

BACKGROUND: Adjusted indirect comparisons (anchored via a common comparator) are an integral part of health technology assessment. These methods are challenged when differences between studies exist, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, outcome definitions, patient characteristics, as well as ensuring the choice of a common comparator. OBJECTIVES: Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) can address these challenges, but the appropriate application of MAICs is uncertain. Examples include whether to match between individual-level data and aggregate-level data studies separately for treatment arms or to combine the arms, which matching algorithm should be used, and whether to include the control treatment outcome and/or covariates present in individual-level data. RESULTS: Results from seven matching approaches applied to a continuous outcome in six simulated scenarios demonstrated that when no effect modifiers were present, the matching methods were equivalent to the unmatched Bucher approach. When effect modifiers were present, matching methods (regardless of approach) outperformed the Bucher method. Matching on arms separately produced more precise estimates compared with matching on total moments, and for certain scenarios, matching including the control treatment outcome did not produce the expected effect size. The entropy balancing approach was used to determine whether there were any notable advantages over the method proposed by Signorovitch et al. When unmeasured effect modifiers were present, no approach was able to estimate the true treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the Bucher approach (no matching), the MAICs examined demonstrated more accurate estimates, but further research is required to understand these methods across an array of situations.

The MOPEAD project: Advancing patient engagement for the detection of "hidden" undiagnosed cases of Alzheimer's disease in the community.

In most, if not all health systems, dementia is underdiagnosed, and when diagnosis occurs, it is typically at a relatively late stage in the disease process despite mounting evidence showing that a timely diagnosis would result in numerous benefits for patients, families, and society. Moving toward earlier diagnoses in Alzheimer's disease (AD) requires a conscientious and collective effort to implement a global strategy addressing the multiple causes hindering patient engagement at different levels of society. This article describes the design of the Models of Patient Engagement for Alzheimer's Disease project, an ongoing EU-funded public-private multinational initiative that will compare four innovative patient engagement strategies across five European countries regarding their ability to identify individuals with prodromal AD and mild AD dementia, which are "hidden" in their communities and traditionally not found in the typical memory clinic setting. The strategies include an online AD citizen science platform, an open house initiative at the memory clinics, and patient engagement at primary care and diabetologist clinics.

Resource Use and Cost of Alzheimer's Disease in France: 18-Month Results from the GERAS Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: There is little longitudinal data on resource use and costs associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) in France. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate resource use and societal costs associated with AD in a French cohort of patients and their caregivers and the effect of patient cognitive decline on costs over an 18-month period. METHODS: Community-dwelling patients with mild, moderate, or moderately severe/severe AD dementia (n = 419) were followed-up for 18 months. Total societal costs were estimated by applying 2010 unit costs to resource use, including outpatient visits, hospital days, institutionalization, and caregiver hours. Cognitive function was assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination scores. RESULTS: Mean cumulative total costs over the 18-month period were €24,140 for patients with mild AD dementia, €34,287 for those with moderate AD dementia, and €44,171 for those with moderately severe/severe AD dementia (P < 0.001; ANOVA comparison between severity groups). The biggest contributor to total societal costs was caregiver informal care (>50% of total costs at all stages of AD dementia). Cognitive decline (≥3-point decrease in Mini-Mental State Examination score or institutionalization) was associated with a 12.5% increase in total costs (P = 0.02). Significant differences were observed across severity groups for caregiver time (P < 0.001); mean monthly caregiver time increased at each time point over the 18 months in each severity group. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing severity of AD dementia in France is associated with increased use of resources as well as increased total societal and patient costs; informal care was the greatest cost contributor. Clinically meaningful cognitive decline is associated with significantly increased costs.

The "RCT augmentation": a novel simulation method to add patient heterogeneity into phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Phase III randomized controlled trials (RCT) typically exclude certain patient subgroups, thereby potentially jeopardizing estimation of a drug's effects when prescribed to wider populations and under routine care ("effectiveness"). Conversely, enrolling heterogeneous populations in RCTs can increase endpoint variability and compromise detection of a drug's effect. We developed the "RCT augmentation" method to quantitatively support RCT design in the identification of exclusion criteria to relax to address both of these considerations. In the present manuscript, we describe the method and a case study in schizophrenia. METHODS: We applied typical RCT exclusion criteria in a real-world dataset (cohort) of schizophrenia patients to define the "RCT population" subgroup, and assessed the impact of re-including each of the following patient subgroups: (1) illness duration 1-3 years; (2) suicide attempt; (3) alcohol abuse; (4) substance abuse; and (5) private practice management. Predictive models were built using data from different "augmented RCT populations" (i.e., subgroups where patients with one or two of such characteristics were re-included) to estimate the absolute effectiveness of the two most prevalent antipsychotics against real-world results from the entire cohort. Concurrently, the impact on RCT results of relaxing exclusion criteria was evaluated by calculating the comparative efficacy of those two antipsychotics in virtual RCTs drawing on different "augmented RCT populations". RESULTS: Data from the "RCT population", which was defined with typical exclusion criteria, allowed for a prediction of effectiveness with a bias < 2% and mean squared error (MSE) = 5.8-6.8%. Compared to this typical RCT, RCTs using augmented populations provided improved effectiveness predictions (bias < 2%, MSE = 5.3-6.7%), while returning more variable comparative effects. The impact of augmentation depended on the exclusion criterion relaxed. Furthermore, half of the benefit of relaxing each criterion was gained from re-including the first 10-20% of patients with the corresponding real-world characteristic. CONCLUSIONS: Simulating the inclusion of real-world subpopulations into an RCT before running it allows for quantification of the impact of each re-inclusion upon effect detection (statistical power) and generalizability of trial results, thereby explicating this trade-off and enabling a controlled increase in population heterogeneity in the RCT design.

Potential cost savings to be made by slowing cognitive decline in mild Alzheimer's disease dementia using a model derived from the UK GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Given the high costs associated with the care of those with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, we examined the likely impact of a reduction in the rate of cognitive decline upon cost outcomes associated with this disease. METHODS: Using the group of patients with mild AD dementia from the GERAS study, generalised linear modelling (GLM) was used to explore the relationship between change in cognition as measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and UK overall costs (health care and social care costs, and total societal costs) associated with AD dementia. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients with mild AD dementia were identified. Least squares mean (LSM) ± standard error (SE) reduction in MMSE score was 3.6 ± 0.4 points over 18 months. Using GLM it was possible to calculate that this worsening in cognition was associated with an 8.7% increase in total societal costs, equating to an increase of approximately £2200 per patient over an 18-month period. If the rate of decline in cognition was reduced by 30% or 50%, the associated savings in total societal costs over 18 months would be approximately £670 and £1100, respectively, of which only £110 and £180, respectively, could be attributed to a saving of health care costs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that there are potential savings to be made in the care of patients with AD dementia through reducing the rate of cognitive decline. A reduction in wider societal costs is likely to be the main contributor to these potential savings, and need to be further evaluated when intervention costs and cost offsets can be measured.

Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis.

Non-randomized studies aim to reveal whether or not interventions are effective in real-life clinical practice, and there is a growing interest in including such evidence in the decision-making process. We evaluate existing methodologies and present new approaches to using non-randomized evidence in a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) when the aim is to assess relative treatment effects. We first discuss how to assess compatibility between the two types of evidence. We then present and compare an array of alternative methods that allow the inclusion of non-randomized studies in a network meta-analysis of RCTs: the naïve data synthesis, the design-adjusted synthesis, the use of non-randomized evidence as prior information and the use of three-level hierarchical models. We apply some of the methods in two previously published clinical examples comparing percutaneous interventions for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis and antipsychotics in patients with schizophrenia. We discuss in depth the advantages and limitations of each method, and we conclude that the inclusion of real-world evidence from non-randomized studies has the potential to corroborate findings from RCTs, increase precision and enhance the decision-making process. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Do You Want to Hear the Bad News? The Value of Diagnostic Tests for Alzheimer's Disease.

OBJECTIVE: The diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) remains difficult. Lack of diagnostic certainty or possible distress related to a positive result from diagnostic testing could limit the application of new testing technologies. The objective of this paper is to quantify respondents' preferences for obtaining AD diagnostic tests and to estimate the perceived value of AD test information. METHODS: Discrete-choice experiment and contingent-valuation questions were administered to respondents in Germany and the United Kingdom. Choice data were analyzed by using random-parameters logit. A probit model characterized respondents who were not willing to take a test. RESULTS: Most respondents indicated a positive value for AD diagnostic test information. Respondents who indicated an interest in testing preferred brain imaging without the use of radioactive markers. German respondents had relatively lower money-equivalent values for test features compared with respondents in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents preferred less invasive diagnostic procedures and tests with higher accuracy and expressed a willingness to pay up to €700 to receive a less invasive test with the highest accuracy.

How to deal with missing longitudinal data in cost of illness analysis in Alzheimer's disease-suggestions from the GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Missing data are a common problem in prospective studies with a long follow-up, and the volume, pattern and reasons for missing data may be relevant when estimating the cost of illness. We aimed to evaluate the effects of different methods for dealing with missing longitudinal cost data and for costing caregiver time on total societal costs in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: GERAS is an 18-month observational study of costs associated with AD. Total societal costs included patient health and social care costs, and caregiver health and informal care costs. Missing data were classified as missing completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). Simulation datasets were generated from baseline data with 10-40 % missing total cost data for each missing data mechanism. Datasets were also simulated to reflect the missing cost data pattern at 18 months using MAR and MNAR assumptions. Naïve and multiple imputation (MI) methods were applied to each dataset and results compared with complete GERAS 18-month cost data. Opportunity and replacement cost approaches were used for caregiver time, which was costed with and without supervision included and with time for working caregivers only being costed. RESULTS: Total costs were available for 99.4 % of 1497 patients at baseline. For MCAR datasets, naïve methods performed as well as MI methods. For MAR, MI methods performed better than naïve methods. All imputation approaches were poor for MNAR data. For all approaches, percentage bias increased with missing data volume. For datasets reflecting 18-month patterns, a combination of imputation methods provided more accurate cost estimates (e.g. bias: -1 % vs -6 % for single MI method), although different approaches to costing caregiver time had a greater impact on estimated costs (29-43 % increase over base case estimate). CONCLUSIONS: Methods used to impute missing cost data in AD will impact on accuracy of cost estimates although varying approaches to costing informal caregiver time has the greatest impact on total costs. Tailoring imputation methods to the reason for missing data will further our understanding of the best analytical approach for studies involving cost outcomes.

Identifying factors of activities of daily living important for cost and caregiver outcomes in Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to obtain a better understanding of how different aspects of patient functioning affect key cost and caregiver outcomes in Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHODS: Baseline data from a prospective observational study of community-living AD patients (GERAS) were used. Functioning was assessed using the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study-Activities of Daily Living Scale. Generalized linear models were conducted to analyze the relationship between scores for total activities of daily living (ADL), basic ADL (BADL), instrumental ADL (IADL), ADL subdomains (confirmed through factor analysis) and individual ADL questions, and total societal costs, patient healthcare and social care costs, total and supervision caregiver time, and caregiver burden. RESULTS: Four distinct ADL subdomains were confirmed: basic activities, domestic/household activities, communication, and outside activities. Higher total societal costs were associated with impairments in all aspects of ADL, including all subdomains; patient costs were associated with total ADL and BADL, and basic activities subdomain scores. Both total and supervision caregiver hours were associated with total ADL and IADL scores, and domestic/household and outside activities subdomain scores (greater hours associated with greater functional impairments). There was no association between caregiver burden and BADL or basic activities subdomain scores. The relationship between total ADL, IADL, and the outside activities subdomain and outcomes differed between patients with mild and moderate-to-severe AD. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of ADL subdomains may lead to a better understanding of the association between patient function and costs and caregiver outcomes at different stages of AD, in particular the outside activities subdomain within mild AD.

Resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with Alzheimer's disease: 18-month UK results from the GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD), the commonest cause of dementia, represents a significant cost to UK society. This analysis describes resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with AD in the UK. METHODS: The GERAS prospective observational study assessed societal costs associated with AD for patients and caregivers over 18 months, stratified according to baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, or moderately severe/severe [MS/S]). All patients enrolled had an informal caregiver willing to participate in the study. Healthcare resource utilisation was measured using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument, and 18-month costs estimated by applying unit costs of services and products (2010 values). Total societal costs were calculated using an opportunity cost approach. RESULTS: Overall, 526 patients (200 mild, 180 moderate and 146 MS/S at baseline) were recruited from 24 UK centres. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores deteriorated most markedly in the MS/S patient group, with declines of 3.6 points in the mild group, 3.5 points in the moderate group and 4.7 points in the MS/S group; between-group differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients with MS/S AD dementia at baseline were more likely to be institutionalised (Kaplan-Meier probability 28% versus 9% in patients with mild AD dementia; p < 0.001 for difference across all severities) and had a greater probability of death (Kaplan-Meier probability 15% versus 5%; p = 0.013) at 18 months. Greater disease severity at baseline was also associated with concomitant increases in caregiver time and mean total societal costs. Total societal costs of £43,560 over 18 months were estimated for the MS/S group, versus £25,865 for the mild group and £30,905 for the moderate group (p < 0.001). Of these costs, over 50% were related to informal caregiver costs at each AD dementia severity level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a mean deterioration in MMSE score over 18 months in patients with AD. It also showed that AD is a costly disease, with costs increasing with disease severity, even when managed in the community: informal caregiver costs represented the main contributor to societal costs.

Determinants of societal costs in Alzheimer's disease: GERAS study baseline results.

BACKGROUND: To identify the main factors associated with societal costs of Alzheimer's disease (AD) in community-dwelling patients across three European countries. METHODS: Baseline cost data from a prospective, observational study were used. Assessments included patients' cognition, activities of daily living (ADLs) and behavioral symptoms, and caregiver burden. Cost calculations (2010) from the societal perspective were based on patient/caregiver resource use. Generalized linear models estimated factors associated with costs. RESULTS: Mean monthly costs per patient differed for France (€1881), Germany (€2349), and the UK (€2016), with informal care costs accounting for 50% to 61%. Independent factors associated with costs across all countries were ADL total score, patient living arrangements, caregiver working status, and caregiver burden (all P < .05). Additional factors were significant for the pooled cohort or individual countries. CONCLUSIONS: Several patient and caregiver factors, including factors associated with informal care, should be included when evaluating care options for patients with AD.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective. METHODS: The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Testing the "RCT augmentation" methodology: A trial simulation study to guide the broadening of trials eligibility criteria and inform on effectiveness.

Background: Exclusion criteria that are treatment effect modifiers (TEM) decrease RCTs results generalisability and the potentials of effectiveness estimation. In "augmented RCTs", a small proportion of otherwise-excluded patients are included to allow for effectiveness estimation. In Hodgkin Lymphoma (HL) RCTs, older age and comorbidity are common exclusion criteria, while also TEM. We simulated HL RCTs augmented with age or comorbidity, and explored in each scenario the impact of augmentation on effectiveness estimation accuracy. Methods: Simulated data with a population of HL individuals initiating drug A or B was generated. There were drug-age and drug-comorbidity interactions in the simulated data, with a greater magnitude of the former compared to the latter. Multiple augmented RCTs were simulated by randomly selecting patients with increasing proportions of older, or comorbid patients. Treatment effect size was expressed using the between-group Restricted Mean Survival Time (RMST) difference at 3 years. For each augmentation proportion, a model estimating the "real-world" treatment effect (effectiveness) was fitted and the estimation error measured (Root Mean Square Error, RMSE). Results: In simulated RCTs including none (0%), or the real-world proportion (30%) of older patients, the interquartile range of RMST difference was 0.4-0.5 years and 0.2-0.3 years, respectively, and RMSE were 0.198 years (highest possible error) and 0.056 years (lowest), respectively. Augmenting RCTs with 5% older patients decreased estimation error substantially (RMSE = 0.076 years). Augmentation with comorbid patients proved less useful for effectiveness estimation. Conclusion: In augmented RCTs aiming to inform the effectiveness of drugs, augmentation should concern in priority those exclusion criteria of suspected important TEM magnitude, so as to minimie the proportion of augmentation necessary for good effectiveness estimations.

Generalizability of clinical trial efficacy results to a real-world population: An example in migraine prevention.

BACKGROUND: Health care decision makers are often concerned about the external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as their results may not apply to certain patients in the real world who intend to receive treatment. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate a methodology for assessing the generalizability of clinical trial results to a real-world population, before sufficient and appropriate real-world effectiveness data are available, using individual patient-level data from an RCT and aggregated baseline data from a real-world French registry in migraine. METHODS: The analyses were conducted in 2 steps. First, individual patient-level baseline data from the multinational CONQUER RCT were weighted to match aggregated real-world InovPain registry patient characteristic data. Matched patient characteristics were sex, age, migraine type and duration, number of monthly migraine headache days, and number of monthly headache days at baseline. Second, the weighted CONQUER patient data were used to reanalyze the primary endpoint of CONQUER (least squares mean change from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days during the 3-month double-blind treatment phase) using predefined methodology. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. RESULTS: A total of 462 patients with migraine were randomized and treated with galcanezumab or placebo in CONQUER; aggregated InovPain data were available from 130 patients with migraine. We identified no important differences in baseline patient characteristics between the 2 prespecified populations, suggesting good external validity for CONQUER. Although this limited the extent of observed differences between the original and matched CONQUER populations, weighting of CONQUER data did help harmonize the 2 datasets and allow the results obtained in CONQUER to be generalized to patients more representative of the real-world French population with migraine. Results of weighted analyses suggested that galcanezumab would be superior to placebo for reducing monthly migraine headache days in a clinical trial in patients with episodic or chronic migraine who reflected the characteristics of patients eligible to receive the drug in France. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that our methods may be helpful for assessing the generalizability of clinical trial results to a real-world population before the availability of substantial real-world clinical data.