RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes over angiography alone. Despite this, the adoption of IVUS in clinical practice remains low. AIMS: To examine the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI compared to angiography alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS: A one-year decision tree and lifetime Markov model were constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of IVUS-guided PCI to angiography alone for two hypothetical adult populations consisting of 1,000 individuals: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and unstable angina/ non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. The UK healthcare system perspective was applied using 2019/20 costs. All-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, lifetime costs, life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, IVUS-guided PCI was cost-effective compared to angiography alone in both populations, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £3,649 and £5,706 per-patient in STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients, respectively. In the one-year time horizon, the model suggested that IVUS was associated with reductions in mortality, MI and repeat PCI by 51%, 33% and 52% in STEMI and by 50%, 29% and 57% in UA/NSTEMI patients, respectively. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the model with IVUS being 100% cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20,000 per QALY-gained. CONCLUSIONS: From a UK healthcare perspective, an IVUS-guided PCI strategy was highly cost-effective over angiography alone amongst ACS patients undergoing DES implantation due to the medium- and long-term reduction in repeat PCI, death, and MI.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Dulaglutide is a novel onceweekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus exenatide QW for the management of T2DM in France. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the expected lifetime direct medical costs and outcomes of T2DM from the perspective of the French National Health Service. In the absence of head-to-head data, relative efficacy was derived from a network meta-analysis. Patient cohort characteristics were derived from the AWARD-2 trial. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before escalating to insulin therapy. Costs included treatment costs and costs associated with long-term complications of T2DM. Utilities were estimated based on a recent systematic review. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were generated. RESULTS: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with lower costs (lifetime costs 41,562 vs 43,021) and increased health benefits (lifetime quality-adjusted life years: QALYs 9.804 vs 9.757) versus exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust across a range of plausible input parameters. The CEAC indicated a 99.5% probability that dulaglutide would be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of 30,000. CONCLUSION: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced expected costs and increased expected QALYs when compared against exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. Compared with exenatide QW, dulaglutide 1.5 mg can provide additional health benefits for patients with T2DM and may result in cost savings for payers. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m2. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs liraglutide 1.8 mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40 IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs 108,489 vs 109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5 mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results. LIMITATIONS: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations. CONCLUSION: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5 mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.