Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical mortality risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium. METHODS: A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR. RESULTS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management.

Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes in Finland.

INTRODUCTION: Although primarily utilized in type 1 diabetes, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful treatment alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes who are unable to achieve good glycemic control despite optimization of multiple daily injections (MDI). The aim of the analysis reported here was to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of CSII versus MDI in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control in Finland. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of the clinical and economic outcomes associated with CSII use in type 2 diabetes, based on clinical input data from the OpT2mise trial, which showed that CSII was associated with a 1.1% decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with poor glycemic control at baseline. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective and the time horizon was that of patient lifetimes. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with MDI (8.15 vs. 7.83 QALYs, respectively), as well as higher mean lifetime costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Euro (EUR) 47,834 per QALY gained for CSII versus MDI. The higher treatment costs in the CSII group were partly mitigated by a 15% reduction in diabetes-related complication costs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that CSII was most cost-effective in patients with the highest baseline HbA1c values. CONCLUSION: In Finland, CSII is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control despite optimization of MDI. In such patients, CSII is associated with improved clinical outcomes relative to MDI, with the higher acquisition costs partly offset by a lower lifetime incidence and cost of diabetes-related complications. FUNDING: Medtronic International Sàrl.

Cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in patients with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands.

AIM: The aim of this study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to establish the cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) with automated insulin suspension vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) alone in patients with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) in two different patient cohorts: one with suboptimal glycemic control at baseline (mean age 27 years, mean baseline HbA1c 8.0% [64 mmol/mol]) and the other at increased risk of hypoglycemic events (mean age 18.6 years, mean baseline HbA1c 7.5% [58 mmol/mol]). Clinical input data were sourced from published literature, and the analysis was performed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: In patients with suboptimal baseline glycemic control, SAP improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 1.77 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs CSII (15.54 QALYs vs 13.77 QALYs) with higher lifetime costs (EUR 189,855 vs EUR 150,366), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 22,325 per QALY gained. In this cohort, sensitivity analyses showed that the influence of SAP on fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and baseline HbA1c were key drivers of results. In patients at increased risk of hypoglycemia, the gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy with SAP vs CSII was 2.16 QALYs (16.70 QALYs vs 14.53 QALYs) with higher lifetime costs (EUR 204,013 vs EUR 171,032) leading to an ICER of EUR 15,243 per QALY gained. In this patient group, findings were most sensitive to changes in assumptions relating to the incidence of severe hypoglycemic events in the CSII arm. CONCLUSION: For type 1 diabetes patients in the Netherlands who do not achieve target HbA1c levels or who experience frequent severe hypoglycemic events on CSII, switching to SAP is likely to be cost-effective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of sensor-augmented pump therapy with low glucose-suspend in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and high risk of hypoglycemia in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) [continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) plus real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM)] with low glucose suspend (MiniMed™ Veo™) and CSII alone in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) at high risk of hypoglycemia in Spain. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate healthcare outcomes as life-years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and to project lifetime costs. Information about efficacy, resource utilization, and unit costs (€2016) was taken from published sources and validated by an expert panel. Analyses were performed from both the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective and the societal perspective. RESULTS: From the NHS perspective, SAP with low glucose suspend was associated to a €47,665 increase in direct healthcare costs and to increases of 0.19 LYGs and 1.88 QALYs, both discounted, which resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €25,394/QALY. From the societal perspective, SAP with low glucose suspend increased total costs (including direct and indirect healthcare costs) by €41,036, with a resultant ICER of €21,862/QALY. Considering the willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY in Spain, SAP with low glucose suspend represents a cost-effective option from both the NHS and societal perspectives. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: From both the Spanish NHS perspective and the societal perspective, SAP with low glucose suspend is a cost-effective option for the treatment of T1DM patients at high risk of hypoglycemia.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump Therapy with Automated Insulin Suspension Versus Standard Insulin Pump Therapy in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes in Sweden.

INTRODUCTION: In Sweden an estimated 10,000 people with type 1 diabetes use continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) is associated with higher acquisition costs but provides additional clinical benefits (e.g. reduced rate of hypoglycemic events) over and above that of CSII alone. The aim of the analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SAP with automated insulin suspension relative to CSII alone in two different groups of patients with type 1 diabetes in Sweden. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed using the QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model, with clinical and economic input data derived from published literature. Separate analyses were performed for patients at increased risk of hypoglycemia and for patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at baseline. Analyses were performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: SAP with automated insulin suspension was associated with an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy versus the CSII of 1.88 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in patients at high risk of hypoglycemia and of 1.07 QALYs in patients with uncontrolled HbA1c at baseline. Higher lifetime costs for SAP with automated insulin suspension resulted in projected incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the SAP with automated insulin suspension versus CSII of Swedish Krona (SEK) 139,795 [euros (EUR) 14,648] per QALY gained for patients at increased risk for hypoglycemia and SEK 251,896 (EUR 26,395) per QALY gained for patients with uncontrolled HbA1c. In both groups, SAP with automated insulin suspension also reduced the incidence of diabetes-related complications relative to CSII. CONCLUSIONS: In Sweden, SAP with automated insulin suspension likely represents a cost-effective treatment option relative to CSII for the management of patients with type 1 diabetes with a history of severe hypoglycemic events or patients who struggle to achieve good glycemic control despite the use of CSII. FUNDING: Medtronic International Trading Sàrl.