The Cost-effectiveness of Dulaglutide 1.5mg versus Exenatide QW for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in France.

INTRODUCTION: Dulaglutide is a novel onceweekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus exenatide QW for the management of T2DM in France. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the expected lifetime direct medical costs and outcomes of T2DM from the perspective of the French National Health Service. In the absence of head-to-head data, relative efficacy was derived from a network meta-analysis. Patient cohort characteristics were derived from the AWARD-2 trial. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before escalating to insulin therapy. Costs included treatment costs and costs associated with long-term complications of T2DM. Utilities were estimated based on a recent systematic review. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were generated. RESULTS: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with lower costs (lifetime costs €41,562 vs €43,021) and increased health benefits (lifetime quality-adjusted life years: QALYs 9.804 vs 9.757) versus exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust across a range of plausible input parameters. The CEAC indicated a 99.5% probability that dulaglutide would be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €30,000. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced expected costs and increased expected QALYs when compared against exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. Compared with exenatide QW, dulaglutide 1.5 mg can provide additional health benefits for patients with T2DM and may result in cost savings for payers. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of first-line induction and maintenance treatment sequences in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer in France.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for induction-maintenance (I-M) sequences for the treatment of patients with nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (nsqNSCLC) are limited because of a lack of direct evidence. This analysis aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of I-M pemetrexed with those of other I-M regimens used for the treatment of patients with advanced nsqNSCLC in the French health-care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A previously developed global partitioned survival model was adapted to the France-only setting by restricting treatment sequences to include 12 I-M regimens most relevant to France, and incorporating French costs and resource-use data. Following a systematic literature review, network meta-analyses were performed to obtain hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) relative to gemcitabine + cisplatin (induction sequences) or best supportive care (BSC) (maintenance sequences). Modeled health-care benefits were expressed as life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) (estimated using French EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire tariffs). The study was conducted from the payer perspective (National Health Insurance). Cost- and benefit-model inputs were discounted at an annual rate of 4%. RESULTS: Base-case results showed pemetrexed + cisplatin induction followed by (→) pemetrexed maintenance had the longest mean OS and PFS and highest LYs and QALYs. Costs ranged from €12,762 for paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC to €35,617 for pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed (2015 values). Gemcitabine + cisplatin → BSC, pemetrexed + cisplatin → BSC, and pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed were associated with fully incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €16,593, €80,656, and €102,179, respectively, per QALY gained versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC. All other treatment sequences were either dominated (ie, another sequence had lower costs and better/equivalent outcomes) or extendedly dominated (ie, the comparator had a higher ICER than a more effective comparator) in the model. Sensitivity analyses showed the model to be relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the main assumptions, with none increasing or decreasing the ICER by more than ~€20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: In the absence of direct comparative trial evidence, this cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that of a large number of I-M sequences used for the treatment of patients with nsqNSCLC in France, pemetrexed + cisplatin → pemetrexed achieved the best clinical outcomes (0.28 incremental QALYs gained) versus paclitaxel + carboplatin → BSC.

Severe intestinal malabsorption associated with olmesartan: a French nationwide observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe sprue-like enteropathy associated with olmesartan has been reported, but there has been no demonstration of an increased risk by epidemiological studies. AIM: To assess, in a nationwide patient cohort, the risk of hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption associated with olmesartan compared with other angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and ACE inhibitors (ACEIs). DESIGN: From the French National Health Insurance claim database, all adult patients initiating ARB or ACEI between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2012 with no prior hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption, no serology testing for coeliac disease and no prescription for a gluten-free diet product were included. Incidence of hospitalisation with a discharge diagnosis of intestinal malabsorption was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: 4 546 680 patients (9 010 303 person-years) were included, and 218 events observed. Compared with ACEI, the adjusted rate ratio of hospitalisation with a discharge diagnosis of intestinal malabsorption was 2.49 (95% CI 1.73 to 3.57, p<0.0001) in olmesartan users. This adjusted rate ratio was 0.76 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.49, p=0.43) for treatment duration shorter than 1 year, 3.66 (95% CI 1.84 to 7.29, p<0.001) between 1 and 2 years and 10.65 (95% CI 5.05 to 22.46, p<0.0001) beyond 2 years of exposure. Median length of hospital stay for intestinal malabsorption was longer in the olmesartan group than in the other groups (p=0.02). Compared with ACEI, the adjusted rate ratio of hospitalisation for coeliac disease was 4.39 (95% CI 2.77 to 6.96, p<0.0001) in olmesartan users and increased with treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan is associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation for intestinal malabsorption and coeliac disease.

The Best Use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index With Electronic Health Care Database to Predict Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The most used score to measure comorbidity is the Charlson index. Its application to a health care administrative database including International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition (ICD-10) codes, medical procedures, and medication required studying its properties on survival. Our objectives were to adapt the Charlson comorbidity index to the French National Health Insurance database to predict 1-year mortality of discharged patients and to compare discrimination and calibration of different versions of the Charlson index. METHODS: Our cohort included all adults discharged from a hospital stay in France in 2010 registered in the French National Health Insurance general scheme. The pathologies of the Charlson index were identified through ICD-10 codes of discharge diagnoses and long-term disease, specific medical procedures, and reimbursement of specific medications in the past 12 months before inclusion. RESULTS: We included 6,602,641 subjects at the date of their first discharge from medical, surgical, or obstetrical department in 2010. One-year survival was 94.88%, decreasing from 98.41% for Charlson index of 0-71.64% for Charlson index of ≥5. With a discrimination of 0.91 and an appropriate calibration curve, we retained the crude Cox model including the age-adjusted Charlson index as a 4-level score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to adapt the Charlson index to a large health care database including >6 million of inpatients. When mortality is the outcome, we recommended using the age-adjusted Charlson index as 4-level score to take into account comorbidities.