Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.

Purpose: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler COPD Triple Therapy in Spain: IMPACT Trial.

Purpose: Given between-country differences in healthcare systems, treatment costs, and disease management guidelines, country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses are important. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI among patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations from a Spanish healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: Baseline data and treatment effects from the IMPACT trial were populated into the validated GALAXY COPD progression model. Utilities were estimated using Spanish observational data. Direct healthcare costs (2019 €) were informed by Spanish public sources. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. The time horizon and treatment duration were 3 years (base case). One-way sensitivity, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment resulted in fewer exacerbations over 3 years (4.130 vs 3.648) versus FF/VI, with a mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) incremental cost of €444 (€149, €713) per patient and benefit of 0.064 (0.053, 0.076) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €6887 per QALY gained. FF/UMEC/VI was a dominant treatment strategy versus UMEC/VI, resulting in fewer exacerbations (4.130 vs 3.360), with a mean (95% CI) incremental cost of -€450 (-€844, -€149) and benefit of 0.054 (0.043, 0.064) QALYs. FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective versus FF/VI and UMEC/VI across all analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to be a cost-effective treatment option versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI in symptomatic COPD patients at risk of exacerbations in Spain, across all scenarios and sensitivity analyses.

Cost-Effectiveness of Single- versus Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy in a UK COPD Population: The INTREPID Trial.

Purpose: The 24-week INTREPID trial demonstrated the clinical benefits of once-daily single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT) with fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) versus non-ELLIPTA multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI versus non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of symptomatic COPD from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Patients and Methods: The analysis was conducted using the validated GALAXY COPD disease progression model. Baseline characteristics, treatment effect parameters (forced expiratory volume in 1 second and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score [derived from exploratory COPD Assessment Test score mapping]), and discontinuation data from INTREPID were used to populate the model. UK healthcare resource and drug costs (2020 British pounds) were applied, and costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Analyses were conducted over a lifetime horizon from a UK NHS perspective. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, total costs, life years (LYs), quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results by varying parameter values and assumptions. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.174 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.024, 0.344) LYs (approximately 2 months), and 0.253 (95% CI: 0.167, 0.346) QALYs (approximately 3 months), at a cost saving of £1764 (95% CI: -£2600, -£678) per patient, compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT. FF/UMEC/VI remained the dominant treatment option, meaning greater benefits at lower costs, across all scenario and sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Based on this analysis, in a UK setting, FF/UMEC/VI would improve health outcomes and reduce costs compared with non-ELLIPTA MITT for the treatment of patients with symptomatic COPD. SITT may help to reduce the clinical and economic burden of COPD and should be considered by physicians as a preferred treatment option.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial.

Objectives: In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting. Methods: In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs. Results: Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals. Conclusions: PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Is single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD cost-effective in the UK? The IMPACT trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMPACT trial demonstrated superior outcomes following 52 weeks of once-daily single-inhaler treatment with fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) (100/62.5/25 µg) compared with once-daily FF/VI (100/25 µg) or UMEC/VI (62.5/25 µg). This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of FF/UMEC/VI compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) from a UK National Health Service perspective. METHODS: Patient characteristics and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into a hybrid decision tree/Markov economic model. Costs (GB£ inflated to 2018 equivalents) and health outcomes were modelled over a lifetime horizon, with a discount rate of 3.5% per annum applied to both. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of key assumptions and input parameters. RESULTS: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.296 and 0.145 life years (LYs) (discounted) and 0.275 and 0.118 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), at an additional cost of £1129 and £760, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for FF/UMEC/VI were £4104/QALY and £3809/LY gained versus FF/VI and £6418/QALY and £5225/LY gained versus UMEC/VI. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY, the probability that FF/UMEC/VI was cost-effective was 96% versus FF/VI and 74% versus UMEC/VI. Results were similar in a subgroup of patients recommended triple therapy in the 2019 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence COPD guideline. CONCLUSIONS: FF/UMEC/VI single-inhaler triple therapy improved health outcomes and was a cost-effective option compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations in the UK at recognised cost-effectiveness threshold levels.

Economic Evaluation of Umeclidinium/Vilanterol versus Umeclidinium or Salmeterol in Symptomatic Non-Exacerbating Patients with COPD from a UK Perspective Using the GALAXY Model.

INTRODUCTION: Dual bronchodilators are recommended as maintenance treatment for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK; further evidence is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness versus monotherapy. Cost-effectiveness of umeclidinium/vilanterol versus umeclidinium and salmeterol from a UK healthcare perspective in patients without exacerbations in the previous year was assessed using post hoc EMAX trial data. METHODS: The validated GALAXY model was populated with baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the non-exacerbating subgroup of the symptomatic EMAX population (COPD assessment test score ≥10) and 2020 UK healthcare and drug costs. Outputs included estimated exacerbation rates, costs, life-years (LYs), and quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs); incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as incremental cost/QALY gained. The base case (probabilistic model) used a 10-year time horizon, assumed no treatment discontinuation, and discounted future costs and QALYs by 3.5% annually. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed robustness of model results. RESULTS: Umeclidinium/vilanterol treatment was dominant versus umeclidinium and salmeterol, providing an additional 0.090 LYs (95% range: 0.035, 0.158) and 0.055 QALYs (-0.059, 0.168) with total cost savings of £690 (£231, £1306) versus umeclidinium, and 0.174 LYs (0.076, 0.286) and 0.204 QALYs (0.079, 0.326) with savings of £1336 (£1006, £2032) versus salmeterol. In scenario and sensitivity analyses, umeclidinium/vilanterol was dominant versus umeclidinium except over a 5-year time horizon (more QALYs at higher total cost; ICER=£4/QALY gained) and at the lowest estimate of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire treatment effect (fewer QALYs at lower total cost; ICER=£12,284/QALY gained); umeclidinium/vilanterol was consistently dominant versus salmeterol. At willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, probability that umeclidinium/vilanterol was cost-effective in this non-exacerbating subgroup was 95% versus umeclidinium and 100% versus salmeterol. CONCLUSION: Based on model predictions from a UK perspective, symptomatic patients with COPD and no exacerbations in the prior year receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol are expected to have better outcomes at lower costs versus umeclidinium and salmeterol.

Cost and consequences of using 7.1 % chlorhexidine gel for newborn umbilical cord care in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Omphalitis is an important contributor to neonatal mortality in Kenya. Chlorhexidine digluconate 7.1 % w/w (CHX; equivalent to 4 % w/w chlorhexidine) was identified as a life-saving commodity for newborn cord care by the United Nations and is included on World Health Organization and Kenyan Essential Medicines Lists. This pilot study assessed the potential resource savings and breakeven price of implementing CHX for neonatal umbilical cord care versus dry cord care (DCC) in Kenya. METHODS: We employed a cost-consequence model in a Kenyan birth cohort. Firstly, the number of omphalitis cases and cases avoided by healthcare sector were estimated. Incidence rates and treatment effect inputs were calculated from a Cochrane meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) (base case) and 2 other RCTs. Economic outcomes associated with omphalitis cases avoided were determined, including direct, indirect and total cost of care associated with omphalitis, resource use (outpatient visits and bed days) and societal impact (caregiver workdays lost). Costs and other inputs were sourced from literature and supplemented by expert clinical opinion/informed inputs, making necessary assumptions. RESULTS: The model estimated that, over 1 year, ~ 23,000 omphalitis cases per 500,000 births could be avoided through CHX application versus DCC, circumventing ~ 13,000 outpatient visits, ~ 43,000 bed days and preserving ~ 114,000 workdays. CHX was associated with annual direct cost savings of ~ 590,000 US dollars (USD) versus DCC (not including drug-acquisition cost), increasing to ~ 2.5 million USD after including indirect costs (productivity, notional salary loss). The most-influential model parameter was relative risk of omphalitis with CHX versus DCC. Breakeven analysis identified a budget-neutral price for CHX use of 1.18 USD/course when accounting for direct cost savings only, and 5.43 USD/course when including indirect cost savings. The estimated breakeven price was robust to parameter input changes. DCC does not necessarily represent standard of care in Kenya; other, potentially harmful, approaches may be used, meaning cost savings may be understated. CONCLUSIONS: Estimated healthcare cost savings and potential health benefits provide compelling evidence to implement CHX for umbilical cord care in Kenya. We encourage comprehensive data collection to make future models and estimates of impacts of upscaling CHX use more robust.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a single-inhaler triple therapy for COPD in the UK.

UK management costs for COPD, estimated at £1.9 billion/year, are rising. In the FULFIL (Lung Function and Quality of Life Assessment in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease with Closed Triple Therapy) study, single-inhaler triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (100/62.5/25 µg) improved clinical outcomes versus budesonide/formoterol (400/12 µg) in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol for treating COPD from a UK National Health Service perspective. A model was developed combining a trial-based and Markov component and populated with baseline and treatment effect data from FULFIL, together with UK healthcare resource costs and disease-related utilities. Costs per life year and per quality-adjusted life year gained (costing year 2017) for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol were calculated for a lifetime horizon. Results were explored using deterministic sensitivity, scenario and probabilistic analyses. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol was associated with gains in life years (0.533) and quality-adjusted life years (0.506) versus budesonide/formoterol, but at slightly increased total costs (£26 416 versus £25 860). This translated to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £1042/life year and £1098/quality-adjusted life year for fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol versus budesonide/formoterol. In scenario analyses, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from dominant to £1547/quality-adjusted life year gained. Fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol provides a cost-effective treatment option versus budesonide/formoterol for patients with symptomatic COPD in the UK.

Asymptomatic carriage rates and case fatality of SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents and staff in Irish nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has disproportionately affected nursing homes (NH). In Ireland, the first NH case COVID-19 occurred on 16 March 2020. A national point-prevalence testing programme of all NH residents and staff took place (18 April 2020 to 5 May 2020). AIMS: to examine characteristics of NHs across three Irish Community Health Organisations, proportions with COVID-19 outbreaks, staff and resident infection rates symptom profile and resident case fatality. METHODS: in total, 45 NHs surveyed, requesting details on occupancy, size, COVID-19 outbreak, outbreak timing, total symptomatic/asymptomatic cases and outcomes for residents from 29 February 2020 to 22 May 2020. RESULTS: surveys were returned from 62.2% (28/45) of NHs (2,043 residents, 2,303 beds). Three-quarters (21/28) had COVID-19 outbreaks (1,741 residents, 1,972 beds). Median time from first COVID-19 case in Ireland to first case in these NHs was 27.0 days. Resident incidence was 43.9% (764/1,741)-40.8% (710/1,741) laboratory confirmed, with 27.2% (193/710) asymptomatic and 3.1% (54/1,741) clinically suspected. Resident case fatality was 27.6% (211/764) for combined laboratory-confirmed/clinically suspected COVID-19. Similar proportions of residents in NHs with 'early-stage' (<28 days) versus 'later-stage' outbreaks developed COVID-19. Lower proportions of residents in 'early' outbreak NHs had recovered compared with those with 'late' outbreaks (37.4 versus 61.7%; χ2 = 56.9, P < 0.001). Of 395 NH staff across 12 sites with confirmed COVID-19, 24.7% (99/398) were asymptomatic. There was a significant correlation between the proportion of staff with symptomatic COVID-19 and resident numbers with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 (Spearman's rho = 0.81, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: this study demonstrates the significant impact of COVID-19 on the NH sector. Systematic point-prevalence testing is necessary to reduce risk of transmission from asymptomatic carriers and manage outbreaks in this setting.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Using the FULFIL Trial: A Spanish Perspective.

Purpose: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) vs twice-daily budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FOR) in patients with symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at risk of exacerbations, from the Spanish National Healthcare System perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD model was used to simulate disease progression and predict healthcare costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) over a 3-year time horizon for a Spanish population. Patient characteristics from published literature were supplemented by data from FULFIL (NCT02345161), which compared FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations. Treatment effects, extrapolated to 3 years, were based on Week 24 results in the FULFIL intent-to-treat population, including change in forced expiratory volume in 1 second, St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire score, and exacerbation rates. Treatment, exacerbations, and COPD management costs (2019€) were informed by Spanish public sources and published literature. A 3% discount rate for costs and benefits was applied. One-way sensitivity and scenario analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA), were performed. Results: FF/UMEC/VI treatment led to fewer moderate and severe exacerbations (2.126 and 0.306, respectively) vs BUD/FOR (2.608 and 0.515, respectively), with a mean incremental cost of €69 and gain of 0.107 QALYs, which resulted in an ICER of €642 per QALY gained. In sensitivity analyses, the ICER was most sensitive to treatment effect variations in exacerbations and healthcare resource utilization/event costs. Overall, 95% of 1000 PSA simulations resulted in an ICER less than €11,000 per QALY gained for FF/UMEC/VI vs BUD/FOR, confirming robustness of the results. The probability of FF/UMEC/VI being cost-effective vs BUD/FOR was 100% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: At the accepted Spanish ICER threshold of €30,000, FF/UMEC/VI represents a cost-effective treatment option vs BUD/FOR in patients with symptomatic COPD at risk of exacerbations.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial.

Background: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513). Methods: Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Results: Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy. Conclusion: Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

An indirect comparison of HbA1c treatment effect with albiglutide and exenatide 2.0 mg QW using the Bucher method.

No head-to-head comparisons exist between once-weekly (QW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; accordingly, this indirect comparison was conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy of QW albiglutide vs QW exenatide. Following a systematic literature search, it was determined that HARMONY 7 and DURATION 6, Phase III trials for albiglutide and exenatide, respectively, were similar in study design and baseline characteristics and included a common comparator arm, making them suitable for an indirect comparison using the Bucher method. The primary endpoint of change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with albiglutide 50 mg QW and exenatide 2.0 mg QW was compared and tested for noninferiority. The indirect comparison showed a treatment difference of 0.0% (95% confidence interval: -0.189% to 0.189%) in mean change in HbA1c from baseline, and albiglutide 50 mg was noninferior to exenatide 2.0 mg QW at the noninferiority margin of 0.3%. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, these results can be used in pharmacoeconomic analysis and to inform health technology assessment and clinical decision making.

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US.

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum. Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources. Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments. Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs. Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.

The economic burden of progressive chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To estimate the rate of progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and calculate medical costs associated with progression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 25,576 members at Kaiser Permanente who had T2D and at least one serum creatinine measurement in 2005. Using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), we assigned patients to baseline stages of kidney function (stage 0-2, >60ml/min/1.73m(2), n=21,008; stage 3, 30-59, n=3,885; stage 4, 15-29, n=683). We examined all subsequent eGFRs through 2010 to assess progression of kidney disease. Medical costs at baseline and incremental costs during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 60.6years, 51% were men, and mean diabetes duration was 5.3years. At baseline, 17.9% of patients with T2D also had stage 3 or 4 CKD. Incremental adjusted costs that occurred over follow-up (from baseline) was on average $4569, $12,617, and $33,162 per patient per year higher among patients who progressed from baseline stage 0-2, stage 3, and stage 4 CKD, respectively, compared to those who did not progress. Across all stages of CKD, those who progressed to a higher stage of CKD from baseline had follow-up costs that ranged from 2 to 4 times higher than those who did not progress. CONCLUSIONS: Progression of CKD in T2D drives substantial medical care costs. Interventions designed to minimize decline in progressive kidney function, particularly among patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, may reduce the economic burden of CKD in T2D.

Driving assessment for maintaining mobility and safety in drivers with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Demographic changes are leading to an increase in the number of older drivers: as dementia is an age-related disease, there is also an increase in the numbers of drivers with dementia. Dementia can impact on both the mobility and safety of drivers, and the impact of formal assessment of driving is unknown in terms of either mobility or safety. Those involved in assessment of older drivers need to be aware of the evidence of positive and negative effects of driving assessment. Cognitive tests are felt by some authors to have poor face and construct validity for assessing driving performance; extrapolating from values in one large-scale prospective cohort study, the cognitive test that most strongly predicted future crashes would, if used as a screening tool, potentially prevent six crashes per 1000 people over 65 years of age screened, but at the price of stopping the driving of 121 people who would not have had a crash. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: 1. to assess whether driving assessment facilitates continued driving in people with dementia;2. to assess whether driving assessment reduces accidents in people with dementia. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: 1. to assess the quality of research on assessment of drivers with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia Group's Specialized Register was searched on 13 September 2012 using the terms: driving or driver* or "motor vehicle*" or "car accident*" or "traffic accident*" or automobile* or traffic. This register contains records from major healthcare databases, ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources and is updated regularly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials prospectively evaluating drivers with dementia for outcomes such as transport mobility, driving cessation or motor vehicle accidents following driving assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author retrieved studies and assessed for primary and secondary outcomes, study design and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. A description and discussion of the driving literature relating to assessment of drivers with dementia relating to the primary objectives is presented. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In an area with considerable public health impact for drivers with dementia and other road users, the available literature fails to demonstrate the benefit of driver assessment for either preserving transport mobility or reducing motor vehicle accidents. Driving legislation and recommendations from medical practitioners requires further research that addresses these outcomes in order to provide the best outcomes for both drivers with dementia and the general public.

Living through a computer voice: a personal account.

Alan Martin, the first author of this paper, has cerebral palsy and uses a voice output communication aid (VOCA) to speak, and this paper describes the personal experience of living 'through' a computer voice (or VOCA) in the form of an interview of Mr Martin conducted by Dr Newell. The interview focuses on the computerized voice output rather than other features of the VOCA. In presenting a first-hand account of the experience of actually using VOCA, the intention is that both everyday, practical issues of the technology and broader imaginative, philosophical, and sociological implications will be explored. Based upon the interview, the authors offer an informal set of design requirements and recommendations for the development of future VOCAs.

Driving assessment for maintaining mobility and safety in drivers with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Demographic changes are leading to an increase in the number of older drivers: as dementia is an age-related disease, there is also an increase in the numbers of drivers with dementia. Dementia can impact on both the mobility and safety of drivers, and the impact of formal assessment of driving is unknown in terms of either mobility or safety. Those involved in assessment of older drivers need to be aware of the evidence of positive and negative effects of driving assessment. Cognitive tests are felt by some authors to have poor face and construct validity for assessing driving performance; extrapolating from values in one large-scale prospective cohort study, the cognitive test that most strongly predicted future crashes would, if used as a screening tool, potentially prevent six crashes per 1000 people over 65 years of age screened, but at the price of stopping the driving of 121 people who would not have had a crash. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: 1. to assess whether driving assessment facilitates continued driving in people with dementia; 2. to assess whether driving assessment reduces accidents in people with dementia. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: 1. to assess the quality of research on assessment of drivers with dementia. SEARCH METHODS: ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia Group's Specialized Register was searched on 13 September 2012 using the terms: driving or driver* or "motor vehicle*" or "car accident*" or "traffic accident*" or automobile* or traffic. This register contains records from major healthcare databases, ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources and is updated regularly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomised controlled trials prospectively evaluating drivers with dementia for outcomes such as transport mobility, driving cessation or motor vehicle accidents following driving assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each review author retrieved studies and assessed for primary and secondary outcomes, study design and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. A description and discussion of the driving literature relating to assessment of drivers with dementia relating to the primary objectives is presented. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In an area with considerable public health impact for drivers with dementia and other road users, the available literature fails to demonstrate the benefit of driver assessment for either preserving transport mobility or reducing motor vehicle accidents. Driving legislation and recommendations from medical practitioners requires further research that addresses these outcomes in order to provide the best outcomes for both drivers with dementia and the general public.

Driving assessment for maintaining mobility and safety in drivers with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Demographic changes are leading to an increase in the number of older drivers: as dementia is an age-related disease, there is also an increase in the numbers of drivers with dementia. Dementia can impact on both the mobility and safety of drivers, and the impact of formal assessment of driving is unknown in terms of either mobility or safety. Those involved in assessment of older drivers need to be aware of the evidence of positive and negative effects of driving assessment. Although cognitive tests are felt by some authors to have poor face and construct validity for assessing driving performance, extrapolating from values in one large-scale prospective cohort study, the cognitive test that most strongly predicted future crashes would, if used as a screening tool, potentially prevent six crashes per 1000 people over 65 screened, but at the price of stopping the driving of 121 people who would not have had a crash. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess whether driving assessment facilitates continued driving in people with dementia 2. To assess whether driving assessment reduces accidents in people with dementia. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of research on assessment of drivers with dementia. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Dementia Group's Specialized Register was searched on 30 October 2007 using the terms: driving or driver* or "motor vehicle*" or "car accident*" or "traffic accident*" or automobile* or traffic. This register contains records from major healthcare databases, ongoing trial databases and grey literature sources and is updated regularly. SELECTION CRITERIA: We sought randomized controlled trials prospectively evaluating drivers with dementia for outcomes such as transport mobility, driving cessation or motor vehicle accidents following driving assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Each author retrieved studies and assessed for primary and secondary outcomes, study design and study quality. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria. A description and discussion of the driving literature relating to assessment of drivers with dementia relating to the primary objectives is presented. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In an area with considerable public health impact for drivers with dementia and other road users, the available literature fails to demonstrate the benefit of driver assessment for either preserving transport mobility or reducing motor vehicle accidents. Driving legislation and recommendations from medical practitioners requires further research that addresses these outcomes in order to provide the best outcomes for both drivers with dementia and the general public.

Cost-effectiveness of rosiglitazone combination therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Recent clinical trial results have demonstrated that, in patients with type 2 diabetes, second-line treatment of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin can lead to significant improvements in the control of fasting plasma glucose/ glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) after the failure of metformin monotherapy. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the use of rosiglitazone in combination with metformin in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, failing to maintain glycaemic control with metformin monotherapy compared with conventional care using metformin in combination with sulfonylurea. METHODS: The Diabetes Decision Analysis of Cost--type 2 (DiDACT) model, an established long-term economic model of type 2 diabetes, which projects the relationship between treatment and HbA1c over extended periods, was used to determine the health outcomes and economic impact for matched age and sex cohorts of 1000 patients with type 2 diabetes. The perspective was that of the UK National Health Service and all costs were in UK pounds sterling. RESULTS: Treatment with rosiglitazone in combination with metformin provides better glycaemic control over the remaining lifetime of patients than metformin and sulfonylurea combination therapy. Patients treated with rosiglitazone combination therapy were predicted to have a longer life expectancy, gaining 123 and 140 additional life years per 1000 patients in the obese and overweight cohorts, respectively. Improvements in morbidity and a delay in the start of insulin therapy resulted in a projected improvement in quality of life. These effects combine with projected improved survival to yield 131 and 209 additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per 1000 patients in the obese and overweight cohorts, respectively. Discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at pounds 16,700 per QALY gained for the obese cohort and pounds 11,600 per QALY gained for the overweight cohort. CONCLUSION: The model predicts that rosiglitazone in combination with metformin is a cost-effective treatment in the UK for both obese and overweight patients failing on metformin monotherapy, compared with conventional therapy using metformin in combination with sulfonylurea.