RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Previous findings from a clinical trial demonstrated noninferiority of Leukocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) compared to commercially available fibrin sealants in preventing postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage, necessitating intervention. This cost-effectiveness evaluation aims to assess the value-for-money of both techniques for dural closure in supratentorial and infratentorial surgeries. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was estimated from a health care payer's perspective alongside a randomized clinical trial comprising 328 patients. The analysis focused on clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes, as well as direct medical costs including inpatient costs, imaging and laboratory costs, and outpatient follow up costs up to twelve weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Clinical and health-related quality of life data showed no significant differences between L-PRF (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.75 ± 0.25, 36-item Short Form Survey 63.93% ± 20.42) and control (EuroQol five dimensions questionnaire 0.72 ± 0.22, 36-item Short Form Survey 60.93% ± 20.78) groups. Pharmaceutical expenses during initial hospitalization were significantly lower in the L-PRF group (190.4, interquartile range 149.9) than in the control group (394.4, interquartile range 364.3), while other cost categories did not show any significant differences, resulting in an average cost advantage of 204 per patient favoring L-PRF. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates L-PRF as a cost-effective alternative for commercially available fibrin sealants in dural closure. Implementing L-PRF can lead to substantial cost savings, particularly considering the frequency of these procedures.
RESUMO
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov. REGISTRATION NO: NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at 3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is 5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or 12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.