Cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide for severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan.

This study assessed the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japan, using bone mineral density (BMD) efficacy data. Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower cost than teriparatide/alendronate. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to assess the cost effectiveness of romosozumab versus teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate, for the treatment of severe postmenopausal osteoporosis in Japanese women previously treated with bisphosphonates. METHODS: A Markov model was used to assess the relative cost effectiveness of 1 year of romosozumab versus 2 years of teriparatide, both sequenced to alendronate for a total treatment duration of 5 years. Outcomes for a cohort of women with a mean age of 78 years, a T-score ≤-2.5 and a previous fragility fracture were simulated over a lifetime horizon. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Japanese healthcare system and used a discount rate of 2% per annum. To inform relative fracture incidence, the bone mineral density (BMD) advantage of romosozumab over teriparatide was translated into relative risks of fracture, using relationships provided by a meta-regression of osteoporosis therapy trials. Outcomes were assessed in terms of lifetime costs (2020 US dollars) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: Base case results showed that, compared with teriparatide/alendronate, romosozumab/alendronate reduced costs by $5134 per patient and yielded 0.045 additional QALYs. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that results are robust to uncertainty in model assumptions and inputs. CONCLUSION: Results show that romosozumab/alendronate produces greater health benefits at a lower total cost than teriparatide/alendronate.

A novel economic framework to assess the cost-effectiveness of bone-forming agents in the prevention of fractures in patients with osteoporosis.

A novel cost-effectiveness model framework was developed to incorporate the elevated fracture risk associated with a recent fracture and to allow sequential osteoporosis therapies to be evaluated. Treating patients with severe osteoporosis after a recent fracture with a bone-forming agent followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared with antiresorptive therapy alone. Incorporating these novel technical attributes in economic evaluations can support appropriate policy and reimbursement decision-making. PURPOSE: To develop a cost-effectiveness model accommodating increased fracture risk after a recent fracture and treatment sequencing. METHODS: A micro-simulation cost-utility model was developed to accommodate both treatment sequencing and increased risk with recent fracture. The risk of fracture was estimated and simulated using the FRAX® algorithms combined with Swedish registry data on imminent fracture relative risk. In the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis, a sequential treatment starting with a bone-forming agent for 12 months followed by an antiresorptive agent for 48 months initiated immediately after a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) in a 70-year-old woman with a T-score of 2.5 or less was compared to an antiresorptive treatment alone for 60 months. The model was populated with data relevant for a UK population reflecting a personal social service perspective. RESULTS: The cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in the base-case setting was estimated at £34,584. Sensitivity analyses revealed the sequential treatment to be cost-saving compared with administering a bone-forming treatment alone. Without simulating an elevated fracture risk immediately after a recent fracture, the cost per QALY changed from £34,584 to £62,184. CONCLUSION: Incorporating imminent fracture risk in economic evaluations has a significant impact on the cost-effectiveness when evaluating fracture prevention treatments in patients with osteoporosis who sustained a recent fracture. Bone-forming treatment followed by antiresorptive therapy can be cost-effective compared to antiresorptive therapy alone depending on treatment acquisition costs.

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

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2 mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20 µg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin. METHODS: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used. RESULTS: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2 mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8 mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20 µg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8 mg (-£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8 mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20 µg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20 µg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76-99%. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that exenatide 2 mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg QD, liraglutide 1.8 mg QD, and lixisenatide 20 µg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

Using health economic models to help guide healthcare decisions.

This editorial accompanies a research article being published by Clinical Medical Research and Opinion (CMRO) journal, entitled "Methods applied in cost-effectiveness models for treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their use in Health Technology Assessments: a systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2013". The importance and the contribution of this research to the scientific community are presented on the grounds of serving the decision-making process of evaluating and approving T2DM treatments for public funding.

Methods applied in cost-effectiveness models for treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their use in Health Technology Assessments: a systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare health-economic models that were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and their use within Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). METHODS: In total, six commonly used databases were searched for articles published between October 2008 and January 2013, using a protocolized search strategy and inclusion criteria. The websites of HTA organizations in nine countries, and proceedings from five relevant conferences, were also reviewed. The identified new health-economic models were qualitatively assessed using six criteria that were developed based on technical components, and characteristics related to the disease or the treatments being assessed. Finally, the number of times the models were applied within HTA reports, published literature, and/or major conferences was determined. RESULTS: Thirteen new models were identified and reviewed in depth. Most of these were based on identical key data sources, and applied a similar model structure, either using Markov modeling or microsimulation techniques. The UKPDS equations and panel regressions were frequently used to estimate the occurrence of diabetes-related complications and the probability of developing risk factors in the long term. The qualitative assessment demonstrated that the CARDIFF, Sheffield T2DM and ECHO T2DM models seem technically equipped to appropriately assess the long-term health-economic consequences of chronic treatments for patients with T2DM. It was observed that the CORE model is the most widely described in literature and conferences, and the most often applied model within HTA submissions, followed by the CARDIFF and UKPDS models. CONCLUSION: This research provides an overview of T2DM models that were developed between 2008 and January 2013. The outcomes of the qualitative assessments, combined with frequent use in local reimbursement decisions, prove the applicability of the CORE, CARDIFF and UKPDS models to address decision problems related to the long-term clinical and economic consequences of new and existing T2DM treatments.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus DPP-4 inhibitors as an add-on to Metformin in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus from a UK Healthcare System Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic, progressive condition where the primary treatment goal is to maintain control of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). In order for healthcare decision makers to ensure patients receive the highest standard of care within the available budget, the clinical benefits of each treatment option must be balanced against the economic consequences. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, the first-in-class sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, compared with a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i), when added to metformin for the treatment of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on metformin alone. METHODS: The previously published and validated Cardiff diabetes model was used as the basis for this economic evaluation, with treatment effect parameters sourced from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Costs, derived from a UK healthcare system perspective, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), were used to present the final outcome as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over a lifetime horizon. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were carried out to assess uncertainty in the model results. RESULTS: Compared with DPP-4i, dapagliflozin was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.032 QALYs (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.022, 0.140) and with an incremental cost of £216 (95% CI: £-258, £795). This resulted in an ICER point estimate of £6,761 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis determined incremental costs to be insensitive to variation in most parameters, with only the treatment effect on weight having a notable impact on the incremental QALYs; however, there were no scenarios which raised the ICER above £15,000 per QALY. The PSA estimated that dapagliflozin had an 85% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin in combination with metformin was shown to be a cost-effective treatment option from a UK healthcare system perspective for patients with T2DM who are inadequately controlled on metformin alone.

The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sulfonylurea as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, compared with a sulfonylurea, when added to metformin for treatment of UK people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin alone. METHODS: Clinical inputs sourced from a head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) informed the Cardiff diabetes decision model. Risk equations developed from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) were used in conjunction with the clinical inputs to predict disease progression and the incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications over a lifetime horizon. Cost and utility data were generated to present the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both treatment arms, and sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty on the final model results. RESULTS: The dapagliflozin treatment arm was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.467 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.420; 0.665], with an incremental cost of £1246 (95% CI: £613; £1637). This resulted in an ICER point estimate of £2671 per QALY gained. Incremental costs were shown to be insensitive to parameter variation, with only treatment-related weight change having a significant impact on the incremental QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined that dapagliflozin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin in combination with metformin was shown to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sulfonylurea from a UK healthcare perspective for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.