Understanding patient cost-sharing thresholds for diabetes treatment attributes via a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: The process used to prefer certain products across drug classes for diabetes is generally focused on comparative effectiveness and cost. However, payers rarely tie patient preference for treatment attributes to formulary management resulting in a misalignment of value defined by providers, payers, and patients. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' willingness to pay (WTP) for the predetermined high-value and low-value type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatments within a health plan. METHODS: A cross-sectional discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey was used to determine patient preference for the benefit, risk, and cost attributes of T2DM treatments. A comprehensive literature review of patient preference studies in diabetes and a review of guidelines and medical literature identified study attributes. Patients and diabetes experts were interviewed and instructed to identify, prioritize, and comment on which attributes of diabetes treatments were most important to T2DM patients. The patients enrolled in a health plan were asked to respond to the survey. A multinomial logit model was developed to determine the relative importance and the patient's WTP of each attribute. The patients' relative values based on WTPs for T2DM treatments were calculated and compared with the treatments by a health plan. RESULTS: A total of 7 attributes were selected to develop a web-based DCE questionnaire survey. The responses from a total of 58 patients were analyzed. Almost half (48.3%) of the respondents took oral medications and injections for T2DM. The most prevalent side effects due to diabetes medications were gastrointestinal (43.1%), followed by weight gain (39.7%) and nausea (32.8%). Patients were willing to pay more for treatments with proven cardiovascular benefit and for the risk reduction of hospitalization from heart failure. On the other hand, they would pay less for treatments with higher gastrointestinal side effects. Patients were willing to pay the most for sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist agents and the least for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors and thiazolidinediones. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to better align patient, provider, and payer preferences in both benefit design and value-based formulary strategy for diabetes treatments. A preferred placement of treatments with cardiovascular benefits and lower adverse gastrointestinal side effects may lead to increased adherence to medications and improved clinical outcomes at a lower overall cost to both patients and their health plan. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by a grant from the PhRMA Foundation.

Pneumococcal Vaccination in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) have significantly reduced disease burden caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, a leading cause of childhood morbidity and mortality globally. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the incremental net benefit (INB) of the 13-valent PCV (PCV13) and 10-valent PCV (PCV10) in children. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search in several databases published before May 2022. Studies were included if they were cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of PCV13 or PCV10 compared with no vaccination or with each other in children. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies stratified by country income level, perspective, and consideration of herd effects, using a random-effect model. RESULTS: Seventy studies were included. When herd effects were considered, PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 from the payer perspective in both high-income countries (HICs) (INB, $103.94; 95% confidence interval, $75.28-$132.60) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (INB, $53.49; 95% confidence interval, $30.42-$76.55) with statistical significance. These findings were robust across a series of sensitivity analyses. PCV13 was cost-effective compared with no vaccination across perspectives and consideration of herd effects in both HICs and LMICs, whereas findings were less consistent for PCV10. CONCLUSION: PCVs were generally cost-effective compared with no vaccination in HICs and LMICs. Our study found that PCV13 was cost-effective compared with PCV10 when herd effects were considered from the payer perspective in both HICs and LMICs. The results are sensitive to the consideration of herd effects.