A cost-effectiveness analysis of linagliptin add-on to insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease in Iran.

Purpose: With the high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), determining optimal treatment strategies has become a major concern. Linagliptin is aDPP-4 inhibitor that does not require dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding linagliptin to insulin therapy in patients with T2DM and mild (stage 2) or moderate (stage 3) CKD from a health system perspective in Iran. Methods: We developed a cost-utility model using a decision tree and ran it separately for T2DM patients with mild or moderate CKD. Clinical outcomes and health-state utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs were obtained from national tariffs in Iran in 2021. We adopted an annual time horizon and calculated the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To capture parameter uncertainties, one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: In T2DM patients with mild CKD, the linagliptin add-on strategy was associated with an additional $23.69 cost and 0.0148 QALYs per patient, resulting in an ICER of 1600.37 USD/QALY. In moderate CKD, the strategy was associated with $22.59 more costs and 0.0191 more QALYs, and the ICER was estimated at 1182.72 USD/QALY. In both populations, the ICER was mainly driven by the impact of HbA1c on utility, cost of linagliptin, and the reduction in insulin usage by adding linagliptin to the treatment. Conclusion: With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $1550 USD/QALY in Iran, adding linagliptin to insulin is cost-effective in patients with T2DM and moderate CKD. However, for those with mild CKD, it seems that the associated costs outweigh the expected benefits. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01243-z.

Cost-Effectiveness of Ibrutinib as First-line Treatment for Older Patients With Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia in Iran.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ibrutinib versus chemoimmunotherapy for frontline treatment of elderly patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran. METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model with 3 health states (progression-free survival, post-progression survival, and death) and a lifetime horizon. State memberships were determined by parametric survival analysis of the ALLIANCE (A041202) randomized controlled trial's results, comparing first-line ibrutinib with bendamustine plus rituximab. Direct medical costs were calculated from an Iranian health system perspective. Utility values were extracted from the literature to calculate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with each strategy. To address parameter uncertainties, deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, ibrutinib and bendamustine plus rituximab were associated with $3739.72 and $3991.20 costs per patient as the first-line treatment strategy, respectively. They resulted in an average of 2.86 and 2.66 QALYs per patient. Thus, first-line ibrutinib was associated with 0.20 incremental QALY and $251.48 cost-saving per patient and was therefore the "dominant" strategy. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, drug prices were the key drivers of model outputs. However, none of the resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratios exceeded the currently accepted threshold by the Iranian Food and Drug Administration ($1550 per QALY). In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 63.3% of iterations were cost-saving and 77.4% were cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that ibrutinib as a first-line treatment appears to be the dominant strategy, compared with the standard of care, for unselected older adults with chronic lymphocytic leukemia in Iran.

Upfront DPYD Genotype-Guided Treatment for Fluoropyrimidine-Based Chemotherapy in Advanced and Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Fluoropyrimidines are the most widely used chemotherapy drugs for advanced and metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Individuals with certain DPYD gene variants are exposed to an increased risk of severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicities. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of preemptive DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC. METHODS: Overall survival of DPYD wild-type patients who received a standard dose and variant carriers treated with a reduced dose were analyzed by parametric survival models. A decision tree and a partitioned survival analysis model with a lifetime horizon were designed, taking the Iranian healthcare perspective. Input parameters were extracted from the literature or expert opinion. To address parameter uncertainty, scenario and sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Compared with no screening, the genotype-guided treatment strategy was cost-saving ($41.7). Nevertheless, due to a possible reduction in the survival of patients receiving reduced-dose regimens, it was associated with fewer quality-adjusted life-years (9.45 vs 9.28). In sensitivity analyses, the prevalence of DPYD variants had the most significant impact on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The genotyping strategy would remain cost-saving, as long as the genotyping cost is < $49 per test. In a scenario in which we assumed equal efficacy for the 2 strategies, genotyping was the dominant strategy, associated with less costs (∼$1) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.1292). CONCLUSIONS: DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic CRC is cost-saving from the perspective of the Iranian health system.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of insulin aspart and glargine in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus in Iran.

Purpose: The higher costs of insulin analogs including short-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) and long-acting insulin glargine (IGla) have restricted their widespread uptake despite having improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and patient convenience. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IAsp versus Regular Insulin (RI) and IGla versus NPH Insulin in type 1 and 2 diabetes from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system. Methods: Clinical data including HbA1c levels, hypoglycemia, weight gain, and health-related quality of life were derived from the included systematic review and meta-analysis studies. Different methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation were used for an annual time horizon. Utility decrements for diabetes-related complications were extracted from the literature. Direct medical costs were calculated in 2022 prices. A one-way sensitivity analysis was also performed. Results: In type 1 diabetes, IAsp was associated with more costs and effects in terms of reducing HbA1c compared with RI. An incremental cost of $83 was estimated to obtain an additional 1% reduction in HbA1c per patient per year. Similarly, an incremental cost of $16 was estimated for IGla compared with NPH. In type 2 diabetes, IAsp and RI were associated with equal efficacy and safety. For IGla versus NPH, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at $1975 per quality-adjusted life-year. The robustness of the result was confirmed through sensitivity analysis. Conclusion: Insulin analogs, IAsp and IGla, are cost-effective for type 1 diabetes versus human insulins, RI and NPH. For type 2 diabetes, IAsp is not cost-effective when compared with RI. For IGla versus NPH, however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seems to be within the accepted thresholds.