A cost-utility analysis of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres versus best supportive care in the treatment of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to chemotherapy in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Limited treatment options are available in chemotherapy-refractory or -intolerant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost-utility of SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres relative to best supportive care (BSC) in the treatment of chemotherapy refractory mCRC from the perspective of the UK national healthcare payer. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed in Microsoft Excel to simulate transitions from progression-free survival to post-progression survival and death in patients with mCRC. Unit costs were captured in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP) based on the literature, formulary listings, and National Health Service (NHS) England reference costs. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% per annum. A series of one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. RESULTS: The base case analysis showed that SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would result in an increase in discounted quality-adjusted life years gained from 0.69 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) to 1.50 QALYs, with an associated increase in cost from GBP 15,268 to GBP 34,168 yielding an incremental cost-utility ratio of GBP 23,435 per QALY. PSA showed that there would be a 56% likelihood that SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would be cost-effective relative to BSC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-utility analysis showed that, relative to BSC, SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres would be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mCRC in the UK setting from the national healthcare payer perspective.

Intravenous iron treatments for iron deficiency anemia in inflammatory bowel disease: a budget impact analysis of iron isomaltoside 1000 (Monofer) in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency is the leading cause of anemia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Intravenous iron is the first-line treatment for clinically active IBD or previous oral iron intolerance. The aim of the present study was to develop a comparative model of iron deficiency and delivery for iron isomaltoside (IIM), ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), low molecular weight iron dextran (LMWID), and iron sucrose (IS) in the treatment of iron deficiency anemia associated with IBD. Areas covered: A model was developed to evaluate iron delivery characteristics, resource use and costs associated with IIM, FCM, LMWID and IS. Iron deficiency was modeled using dosing tables and retreatments were modeled based on a pooled retrospective analysis. The analyses were conducted over 5 years in patients with IBD with mean bodyweight of 75.4 kg and hemoglobin levels of 10.77 g/dL based on observational data. Expert opinion: The modeling analysis showed that using IIM required 1.2 infusions (per treatment) to correct the mean iron deficit, compared with 1.6, 1.2, and 7.1 with FCM, LMWID and IS, respectively. Costs were estimated to be 2,518 pounds sterling (GBP) per patient with IIM or LMWID, relative to GBP 3,309 with FCM or GBP 14,382 with IS.

A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Insulin degludec is an insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action that exhibits less intra-patient variability in its glucose-lowering activity, and reduces nocturnal, overall, and severe hypoglycemia relative to insulin glargine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec relative to insulin glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2DBOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2DBB) in Denmark. METHODS: A short-term (1 year) cost-utility model was developed to model insulin use, non-severe and severe hypoglycemia, and self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients using insulin degludec and insulin glargine from the perspective of a Danish healthcare payer. Where possible, data were derived from Danish patients with diabetes and meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for the two insulin regimens in each of the three diabetes populations. RESULTS: Insulin degludec dominated insulin glargine (i.e. reduced costs while improving quality-adjusted life expectancy) in patients with T1D and patients with type 2 diabetes using a basal-only insulin regimen. In the T2DBB cohort, insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 221,063 per QALY gained, which would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 (∼DKK 224,000) per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were most affected by changes in hypoglycemia rate ratio assumptions, but were broadly insensitive to changes in individual input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin degludec reduces incidence of hypoglycemia and improves quality-of-life in patients with diabetes. Over a 1-year time horizon, insulin degludec resulted in cost savings relative to insulin glargine in T1D and T2DBOT cohorts, while being cost-effective in T2DBB.

Evaluating the economic implications of non-adherence and antibody-mediated rejection in renal transplant recipients: the role of once-daily tacrolimus in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: While short-term kidney graft survival has gradually improved over time, improvements in long-term graft survival have been more modest. One key clinical factor limiting improved longer-term outcomes is antibody-mediated rejection (AbMR), the incidence of which appears to be higher in patients who are non-adherent to immunosuppressants. Recent data show that adherence can be improved by reducing pill burden. The aim of the present study was to model the incidence and economic consequences of graft loss and AbMR in patients taking once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus in the UK. METHODS: A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed to estimate the incidence of graft failure, AbMR and mortality in renal transplant recipients taking once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus. Underlying rates of graft failure and mortality were derived from UK-specific sources. Proportions of patients adherent to once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus were taken from a recent randomized clinical trial and relative risks of graft failure and AbMR were taken from a prospective, multi-center analysis of 315 patients. Cost data were taken from the British National Formulary and National Health Service reference costs and reported in 2014 pounds sterling. RESULTS: Modeling results showed that improved adherence would be associated with reduced incidence of AbMR and graft failure in renal transplant recipients. Based on improvements in adherence resulting from switching from twice-daily to once-daily tacrolimus, the modeling analysis projected cost savings of GBP 4862 per patient over 5 years with Advagraf relative to Prograf, on absolute costs of GBP 40,974 and GBP 45,836, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Using Advagraf in place of Prograf in renal transplant recipients was predicted to be associated with lower pharmacy, dialysis and AbMR treatment costs, with the reduction in AbMR and dialysis costs being driven by improved adherence to the Advagraf regimen and consequent reductions in graft failure and onset of AbMR.

Is the current standard of care leading to cost-effective outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes requiring insulin? A long-term health economic analysis for the UK.

AIMS: The aim of the analysis was to investigate whether insulin intensification, based on the use of intensive insulin regimens as recommended by the current standard of care in routine clinical practice, would be cost-effective for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: Clinical data were derived from a retrospective analysis of 3185 patients with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) general practice database. In total, 48% (614 patients) intensified insulin therapy, defined by adding bolus or premix insulin to a basal regimen, which was associated with a reduction in HbA1c and an increase in body mass index. Projections of clinical outcomes and costs (2011 GBP) over patients' lifetimes were made using a recently validated type 2 diabetes model. RESULTS: Immediate insulin intensification was associated with improvements in life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and time to onset of complications versus no intensification or delaying intensification by 2, 4, 6, or 8 years. Direct costs were higher with the insulin intensification strategy (due to the acquisition costs of insulin). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for insulin intensification were GBP 32,560, GBP 35,187, GBP 40,006, GBP 48,187 and GBP 55,431 per QALY gained versus delaying intensification 2, 4, 6 and 8 years, and no intensification, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although associated with improved clinical outcomes, insulin intensification as practiced in the UK has a relatively high cost per QALY and may not lead to cost-effective outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes as currently defined by UK cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden. METHODS: A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios. RESULTS: Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26 QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69 QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47 QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding versus standard medical management in obese patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) versus standard medical management (SMM) in obese patients with type 2 diabetes from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A validated computer model of diabetes was used to project outcomes reported from a randomized clinical trial of LAGB versus SMM in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Two-year follow-up data from the trial were projected over a 40-year time horizon and cost-effectiveness was assessed from the perspective of the National Health Service. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually and all costs were reported in 2010 pounds sterling. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: LAGB was associated with benefits in HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, body mass index and serum lipid concentrations, which led to significant increases in discounted life expectancy (an increase of 0.64 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (an increase of 0.92 quality-adjusted life years, QALYs) and reduced incidence of diabetes complications relative to SMM. Treatment costs in the LAGB arm increased by 4552 Great British Pounds (GBP), but this was partially offset by cost savings resulting from a reduction in the incidence of all modelled diabetes complications. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 3602 per QALY in the base case fell well below commonly quoted willingness-to-pay thresholds in the UK setting. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of data from a recent randomized controlled trial, LAGB is likely to be considered cost-effective from the healthcare payer perspective when compared with SMM of obesity in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding vs standard medical management in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a budget impact analysis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the financial consequences of using laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in place of standard medical management (SMM) in obese patients with type 2 diabetes from a UK healthcare payer perspective. DESIGN AND METHODS: A budget impact model was constructed to evaluate the budgetary implications of LAGB in obese patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. For patients undergoing LAGB, the model captured pre-, peri-, and post-operative costs including consultations with physicians, psychologists, nurses, and dieticians, the cost of surgery, and costs associated with post-surgical complications. The model also captured costs associated with medication for diabetes, asthma, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia, costs of diabetes complications, sleep apnea, and asthma, and costs of diagnostic tests. The SMM arm also captured costs associated with very low calorie diet products. Costs were modeled in a simulated UK cohort of 100 obese patients with newly-diagnosed diabetes. Future costs were discounted at 3.5% per annum and all costs were reported in 2010 pounds sterling. RESULTS: Over the 5-year time horizon, the cohort of 100 patients who underwent LAGB incurred costs £91,287 lower than an equivalent cohort receiving SMM (£818,668 and £909,955, respectively). Costs of surgery and post-surgical complications (£254,000 and £40,981, respectively) were more than offset by savings arising from reduced diabetes, asthma, and sleep apnea medication costs, reduced incidence of diabetes complications, and fewer healthcare professional contacts. Sensitivity analysis (SA) showed that the model was most sensitive to assumptions around diabetes medication use, although none of the SA findings showed LAGB to be more costly than SMM. LIMITATIONS: In order to capture the diverse resource use and medical care costs arising in obese patients with type 2 diabetes, the analysis made use of a range of heterogeneous data sources. While the vast majority of data were applicable to obese patients with recently-diagnosed diabetes in the UK setting, some surrogate data (e.g. from different geographies) were used in cases where data in the target population were unavailable. Additionally, given the largely uncharacterized long-term risk profile in patients with remission of type 2 diabetes, remission was captured using a transparent and highly conservative approach. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the present analysis, the high initial costs of performing LAGB are offset within 5 years after surgery when compared with SMM in a population of obese patients with type 2 diabetes. The high up-front costs associated with surgery should not therefore be a barrier to its reimbursement in this patient group.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25-40 kg/m(2). Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year. RESULTS: Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR=11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting. CONCLUSIONS: Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin detemir or NPH insulin in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands.

AIMS: To estimate short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin based on the incidence of mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on mild (self-treated) hypoglycaemia and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of mild hypoglycaemia were used for NPH insulin and insulin detemir. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy. Pharmacy costs were accounted using published prices and defined daily doses for both insulins. Costs were expressed in 2010 euros (€). RESULTS: Treatment with insulin detemir was associated with fewer mild hypoglycaemic events than NPH insulin (mean rates of 26.3 vs. 35.5 events per person-year), leading to an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of approximately 0.019 (0.030) quality-adjusted life years (standard deviation). Annual costs were € 573.55 (110.42) vs. € 332.76 (62.18) in Denmark for insulin detemir and NPH insulin, respectively. These values were € 545.79 (106.54) vs. € 306.12 (57.78) in Sweden, € 720.10 (140.74) vs. € 408.73 (78.61) in Finland and € 584.01 (109.47) vs. € 359.60 (64.84) in the Netherlands. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were approximately € 12,644 (Denmark), € 12,612 (Sweden), € 16,568 (Finland) and € 12,216 (the Netherlands) per quality-adjusted life year gained for insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir is likely to be cost-effective vs. NPH insulin in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Increased pharmacy costs with insulin detemir should not be a barrier to therapy based on these findings.

The cost effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin aspart compared with human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients: an analysis from the Japanese third-party payer perspective.

OBJECTIVES: The Nippon Ultra-Rapid Insulin and Diabetic Complication Evaluation Study (NICE Study) (NCT00575172) was a 5-year, open-label, randomised controlled trial which compared cardiovascular outcomes in Japanese type 2 diabetes patients intensively treated with regular human insulin or insulin aspart (NovoRapid; Novo Nordisk A/S, Bagsvaerd, Denmark), a rapid-acting insulin analogue. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of insulin aspart versus regular human insulin from the perspective of a Japanese third-party healthcare payer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A discrete event-simulation model was developed in Microsoft Excel to assess the within-trial cost effectiveness and make longer-term clinical projections in patients treated with regular human insulin or insulin aspart. In addition to severe hypoglycaemia, the model captured myocardial and cerebral infarction events and percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft procedures. Within-trial mortality, incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular event probabilities were derived from the annual rates observed during the trial period, while post-trial outcomes were calculated using the event rates from the trial, adjusted for increasing patient age. Event costs were accounted from the healthcare payer perspective and expressed in 2008 Japanese yen (JPY), while health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was captured using event and state utilities. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cardiovascular event rates and costs were evaluated over 5- and 10-year time horizons and sensitivity analyses were performed to assess variability in model outcomes. RESULTS: Over 5 years of treatment, insulin aspart dominated human insulin both in incremental life expectancy and in incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS). Insulin aspart was associated with a small improvement in discounted life expectancy of 0.005 years (4.688 vs. 4.684 years) and an increase of 0.023 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (3.800 vs. 3.776 QALYs) when compared with regular human insulin. Insulin aspart also incurred lower costs (JPY 481,586 vs. 594,717, difference -113,131) which resulted from the decreased incidence of cardiovascular events with insulin aspart (0.013 events per patient year vs. 0.030 on regular human insulin). Breakdown of costs indicated that pharmacy costs were higher with insulin aspart (JPY 346,608 vs. 278,468), but these costs were more than offset by the reduced costs associated with cardiovascular complications and hypoglycaemia over 5 years of treatment (JPY 134,978 vs. 316,249). Sensitivity analysis showed that insulin aspart was still cost-effective in the case where only 18% of the within-trial cardiovascular and mortality benefit over regular human insulin was captured in the model (assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of JPY 5,000,000). LIMITATIONS: The NICE study cohort was relatively small (n = 325), meaning that caution should be exercised when calculating and interpreting the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Also, despite the differences in cardiovascular risk profile between the Japanese and UK populations, UKPDS-derived risk equations were used to project MI outcomes and PCI and CABG procedures and UKPDS HRQoL scores were applied to all health states. While these risk formulas and HRQoL utilities may not be directly applicable to the Japanese population, no equivalent Japanese-specific data are currently available. CONCLUSIONS: In a Japanese type 2 diabetes population, prescribing rapid-acting insulin aspart significantly reduced cardiovascular complications over 5- and 10-year time horizons, resulting in increased quality of life and decreased costs when compared with human insulin.