Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters. RESULTS: Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies.

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Assessment of economic burden of fatigue in adults with multiple sclerosis: An analysis of US National Health and Wellness Survey data.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue, a common disabling symptom in multiple sclerosis (MS), is reported by the majority of patients. However, evidence on the economic burden of fatigue in MS by fatigue status is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the economic burden of fatigue, including healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), labor force participation, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), among adults with relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) by low fatigue (LF) vs high fatigue (HF) and compared with adults without MS. METHODS: This cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study included pooled data from the 2017 and 2019 US National Health and Wellness Survey. The RRMS sample included respondents aged ≥18 years who reported being diagnosed with MS by a healthcare provider (HCP) and reported having RRMS. Non-MS controls included respondents aged ≥18 years who did not report being diagnosed with MS by an HCP. Fatigue was measured using the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale-5 (MFIS-5). Outcomes included HCRU (HCP visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations in the past 12 months), labor force participation (yes vs no), WPAI (absenteeism, presenteeism, total work productivity impairment, and activity impairment), and annualized costs (direct medical, indirect, and total). Respondents with RRMS were propensity-score matched to non-MS controls (ratio 1:3). RRMS respondents were categorized as having LF (MFIS-5<15; RRMS+LF) and HF (MFIS-5≥15; RRMS+HF). Bivariate analysis compared matched non-MS controls, RRMS+LF, and RRMS+HF. Multivariable analyses were conducted among RRMS to evaluate associations between fatigue (continuous variable) and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 498 respondents with RRMS (RRMS+LF, n=375; RRMS+HF, n=123) and 1494 matched non-MS controls were included. RRMS+HF and RRMS+LF had more HCRU in the past 12 months than non-MS controls, whereas RRMS+HF had greater HCRU than RRMS+LF (all p<0.05). WPAI was also higher among RRMS+HF and RRMS+LF, compared with non-MS controls, as well as higher in RRMS+HF vs RRMS+LF (all p<0.001). RRMS+HF had significantly higher annualized direct medical costs than RRMS+LF and matched non-MS controls ($19,978 vs $10,656, p=0.007; vs $8,048, p<0.001). Among employed respondents, RRMS+HF and RRMS+LF had higher annualized indirect costs than non-MS controls, with RRMS+HF also having higher annualized indirect costs than RRMS+LF ($23,647 vs $13,738 vs $8,001; all p<0.01); total annualized costs were higher in RRMS+HF and RRMS+LF, compared with non-MS controls, as well as RRMS+HF vs RRMS+LF (all p<0.01). In multivariable models, fatigue was significantly and positively associated with the number of HCP visits in the past 12 months (p=0.002); not participating in the labor force (p<0.001); and absenteeism, presenteeism, total work productivity impairment, and activity impairment (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: RRMS poses a substantial economic burden on patients and society, and this burden is disproportionately associated with HF.