Economic evaluation of pooled solvent/detergent treated plasma versus single donor fresh-frozen plasma in patients receiving plasma transfusions in the United States.

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of Octaplas™ versus fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in patients receiving plasma transfusions in the United States (US). Acute and long-term complications of plasma transfusions were modelled in a decision tree followed by a Markov model, using a healthcare payer perspective. Over a lifetime time horizon, patients receiving Octaplas™ accumulate slightly more life years (0.00613 [95% uncertainty interval (95%UI): 0.00166-0.01561]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (0.023 [95%UI: 0.012-0.044]) at lower cost compared with those treated with FFP. Octaplas™ demonstrated to be the dominant treatment option over FFP (95%UI: Dominant-US$ 15,764/QALY).

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Empagliflozin Versus Oral Semaglutide, in Addition to Metformin, for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines recommend treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with progression on metformin. In the randomised, controlled, Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 2 trial, the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin was compared with the GLP-1 receptor agonist oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin. The aim of the current study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin 25 mg versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, in addition to metformin, for T2DM patients in the UK. METHODS: Analyses were conducted from the UK healthcare payer perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model, with a time horizon of 50 years. Patients received either empagliflozin or oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin, until Hba1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was exceeded, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or oral semaglutide plus metformin was assumed. Baseline cohort characteristics and 52-week treatment effects were derived from the PIONEER 2 trial. Treatment effects of empagliflozin and GLP-1 receptor agonists on hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF) were based on the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) real-world study. Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources. RESULTS: Direct costs for empagliflozin plus metformin were considerably lower than those for oral semaglutide plus metformin (by more than GBP 6000). Compared with oral semaglutide plus metformin, empagliflozin plus metformin was a cost-effective treatment for T2DM patients in all scenarios tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed cost-effectiveness in > 95% of the iterations using a threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin 25 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, when used in addition to metformin, for the treatment of T2DM patients in the UK.