An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters. RESULTS: The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+. CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.

Budget impact analysis of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in adult patients with aortic stenosis in Romania.

AIMS: An analysis of the budget impact of using a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis (BPAB) or a mechanical valve (MV) in aortic stenosis (AS) patients in Romania. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-tree with a partitioned survival model was used to predict the financial outcomes of using either a BPAB (the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease Valve) or MV in aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedure over a 5-year period. The budget impact of various resource consumption including disabling strokes, reoperations, minor thromboembolic events, major bleeding, endocarditis, anticoagulation treatment and monitoring, and echocardiogram assessments were compared for both types of valves. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were conducted on the input costs and probabilities. RESULTS: The use of BPAB compared to MV approaches budget neutrality due to incremental savings year-on-year. The initial surgical procedure and reoperation costs for BPAB are offset by savings in acenocoumarol use, disabling strokes, major bleeding, minor thromboembolic events, and anticoagulation complications. The cost of the initial procedure per patient is 460 euros higher for a BPAB due to the higher valve acquisition cost, although this is partially offset by a shorter hospital stay. The OWSA shows that the total procedure costs, including the hospital stay, are the primary cost drivers in the model. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by cost data aggregation in the DRG system, exclusion of costs for consumables and capital equipment use, possible underestimation of outpatient complication costs, age-related variations of event rates, and valve durability. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting BPAB as a treatment option for AS patients in Romania can lead to cost savings and long-term economic benefits. By mitigating procedure costs and increasing anticoagulation treatment costs, BPAB offers a budget-neutral option that can help healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients alike manage the growing burden of AS in Romania.

Ten-year cost-consequence analysis of weight loss on obesity-related outcomes in privately insured adults with obesity in Saudi Arabia.

AIM: This study aimed to estimate the 10-year cost-consequence of weight loss on obesity-related outcomes in a sample of privately insured adults with obesity in Saudi Arabia (KSA). METHODS: We analyzed data of adults with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) available in Nphies, the private health insurance platform of the Council of Health Insurance, KSA. A micro-costing analysis was used to obtain domestic cost estimates for obesity-related outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the benefit of weight loss by preventing incident cases of 10 obesity-related outcomes. RESULTS: In the study cohort (n = 314,079), the 30-34.9 BMI category contributed two-thirds of the cohort, and no gender differences were found in the age distribution of BMI categories. The elderly population had a higher prevalence of obesity-related outcomes, such as hypertension, osteoarthritis, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The baseline cost (2023) for treating these outcomes was USD 1.245 billion, which could double in 10 years. A 15% weight loss could save USD 1.295 billion over 10 years, with most savings due to T2DM (USD 430 million), given its higher prevalence (27.5%). The model was most sensitive to cost variability in T2DM, dyslipidemia, and hypertension. LIMITATIONS: The results should be interpreted within the bounds of the study cohort, and Nphies is in its early stages of implementation. The cost estimates may differ if repeated among adults with obesity only, potentially leading to increased cost savings with weight loss. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate weight loss of 5-15% over 10 years is associated with substantial cost savings in Saudi Arabia. For a 15% weight loss, 18.8% of incidence cases of obesity-related outcomes may be prevented, and slowed increases in T2DM, dyslipidemia, and hypertension may lead to considerable cost savings. The findings would help policymakers to implement weight loss programs in KSA.

Budget impact analysis of a bioprosthetic valve with a novel tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients older than 65 years with aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia.

AIMS: A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing bioprosthetic valves with RESILIA tissue and mechanical valves in aortic stenosis (AS) patients > 65 years in the public and private sectors of Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-tree with a partitioned survival model was adapted to estimate the financial consequences of either a RESILIA tissue valve or a mechanical valve in aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedures up to 5 years. The budget impact of resource consumption for both valve types was compared and included disabling strokes, reoperations, minor thromboembolic events, major bleeding, endocarditis, anticoagulation treatment and monitoring, and echocardiogram assessments. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs. RESULTS: RESILIA tissue valves versus mechanical valves are overall budget saving commencing in Year 1 and savings gradually increase year-on-year. The higher costs of the initial procedure, reoperation, and additional monitoring (echocardiogram tests and visits) associated with RESILIA tissue valves are offset by savings in warfarin use, disabling strokes, major bleeding, and anticoagulation complications. The cost per initial procedure per patient is SAR795 higher for a RESILIA tissue valve reflecting the higher valve acquisition cost, which is partially offset by a shorter hospital stay. The OWSA suggests that total procedure costs of each valve, including the hospital stay, are the main cost drivers in the model. LIMITATIONS: The variability of cost inputs and the presence of multiple payers with multiple costing data is a key challenge in Saudi Arabia. Budget impact results may, therefore, change if repeated per AVR center and may also be impacted by the long-term durability of RESILIA tissue valves. CONCLUSIONS: An AVR in patients > 65 years with a RESILIA tissue valve is budget-saving from the first year in Saudi Arabia. Patients, payers, providers and policymakers may benefit economically from increased implantation of RESILIA tissue valves.

A budget impact analysis of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide in type 2 diabetes from a private health insurance perspective in Egypt.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus causes a sizable burden globally from both health and economic points of view. This study aimed to assess the budget impact of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide versus other glucose-lowering drugs from the private health insurance perspective in Egypt over a 3-year time horizon. METHODS: Two budget impact models were compared with the standard of care (metformin, pioglitazone, gliclazide, insulin glargine, repaglinide, and empagliflozin) administered in addition to liraglutide or sitagliptin versus the standard of care with placebo. A gradual market introduction of liraglutide or sitagliptin was assumed, and the existing market shares for the other glucose-lowering drugs were provided and validated by the Expert Panel. The event rates were extracted from the LEADER and TECOS trials. Direct and mortality costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The estimated target population of 120,574 type 2 diabetic adult patients was associated with cardio vascular risk. The budget impact per patient per month for liraglutide is EGP29 ($6.7), EGP39 ($9), and EGP49 ($11.3) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. The budget impact per patient per month for sitagliptin is EGP11 ($2.5), EGP14 ($3.2), and EGP18 ($4.1) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. Furthermore, adoption of liraglutide resulted in 203 fewer deaths and 550 avoided hospitalizations, while sitagliptin resulted in 43 increased deaths and 14 avoided hospitalizations. The treatment costs of liraglutide use are mostly offset by substantial savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related events, avoided mortality and avoided hospitalizations over 3 years. CONCLUSION: Adding liraglutide resulted in a modest budget impact, suggesting that the upfront drug costs were offset by budget savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related complications and deaths avoided compared to the standard of care. Sitagliptin resulted in a small budget impact but was associated with increased deaths and fewer hospitalizations avoided.

Budget impact analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low, intermediate, and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia.

AIMS: A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis among patients of low, intermediate, and high surgical risk from the perspective of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed with six states to calculate the budget impact from time of either TAVR or SAVR intervention up to 5 years. We compared the budget effects of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), major/disabling stroke (MDS), and surgical site infections (SSI). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs. RESULTS: Analysis of the base case parameters suggests TAVR vs. SAVR is budget saving among intermediate- and high-risk patients at 5 years. TAVR vs. SAVR for low surgical risk reaches budget neutrality at 5 years. TAVR is associated with higher costs for PPI and budget savings for MDS, AF, and SSI. TAVR also results in savings for non-device costs due to fewer human resource uses and shorter procedure durations. Similarly, TAVR is associated with cost savings due to shorter hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU stays. The OWSA consistently revealed that SAVR non-device theater costs were the leading cost driver across all surgical risk levels. LIMITATIONS: This is the first budget impact analysis of its kind in Saudi Arabia and future research is needed on costing TAVR and SAVR procedures, the economic impact of SSI, and corroborating estimates for the public and private sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Payers, providers, and policymakers increasingly turn to results of BIA to inform technologies affordability decisions. TAVR with SAPIEN 3 appears to generate savings vs. SAVR from a budget impact perspective across various surgical risk levels in Saudi Arabia.

A budget impact analysis of lenalidomide in multiple myeloma Egyptian patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to estimate the budget impact of lenalidomide and dexamethasone (RD) versus bortezomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (VCD) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) and relapsed refractory (RR) MM patients, from the perspective of the Egyptian Ministry of health (MoH). METHODS: Two budget impact dynamic models were conducted to assess the budget impact of RD entry over a 3-year period. The clinical data for the modeled cohorts were based on published articles. Total annual medical costs associated with non-progression and progression disease states included the sum of estimated costs for adverse effects management, concomitant treatments, hospitalization and the follow up were measured. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The target population in a given year was estimated to include 245 patients with RRMM and 291 patients with NDMM receiving RD versus VCD. In RRMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP -1,103,969, -3,362,793 and -5,949,228 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively. In NDMM, the annual budget savings of lenalidomide entry were estimated at EGP869,415, -1,779,776 and -2,139,311 at year 1, year 2 and year 3, respectively, to the payer after lenalidomide entry. The model results in RRMM were most sensitive to variations in patients eligible to transplantation in RRMM. In NDMM, the model results were most sensitive to the market share of VCD in the first year. CONCLUSION: The results of our BI models suggest that not only does RD treatment have an effect on the budget, but also has major cost savings in other areas which are very important while considering the total costs of MM treatment. This study results provided evidence-based information to the MoH that will help in decision making of whether to implement RD as a treatment intervention or not.

Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt.

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients' benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.

A comparative review of the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in South Africa (SA) with other middle- and high-income countries. METHODS: A comparative review of key features of the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in SA was undertaken using the Comparative Table of Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines developed by the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and published country-level pharmacoeconomics guidelines. A random sample of guidelines in high- and middle-income countries were analyzed if data on all key features were available. Key features of the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in SA were compared with those in other countries, and divergent features were identified and elaborated. RESULTS: Five upper middle-income countries (Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Malaysia, and Mexico), one lower middle-income country (Egypt), and six high-income countries (Germany, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Taiwan, and the Netherlands) were analyzed. The pharmacoeconomic guidelines in SA differ in important areas when compared with other countries. In SA, the study perspective and costs are limited to private health-insurance companies, complex modelling is discouraged and models require pre-approval, equity issues are not explicitly stated, a budget impact analysis is not required, and pharmacoeconomic submissions are voluntary. CONCLUSIONS: Future updates to the pharmacoeconomic guidelines in SA may include a societal perspective with limitations, incentivize complex and transparent models, and integrate equity issues. The pharmacoeconomic guidelines could be improved by addressing conflicting objectives with policies on National Health Insurance, incentivize private health insurance companies to disclose reimbursement data, and require the inclusion of a budget impact analysis in all pharmacoeconomic submissions. Further research is also needed on the impact of mandatory pharmacoeconomic submissions in middle-income countries.

Comment on the implications of external price referencing of pharmaceuticals in Middle East countries.

External Price Referencing (EPR) is frequently used by countries to control pharmaceutical prices but studies to substantiate its use in the Middle East (ME) is lacking. The paper by Kalo et al set-out to fill this lacuna through three objectives: i) to document the use of EPR in 7 ME countries, ii) to assess whether pharmaceutical EPR resulted in a narrow price corridor for patented pharmaceuticals, and iii) to analyse factors influencing pharmaceutical prices. This comment discusses why the paper fell short of achieving these objectives and over-stated the results. Despite a thought-provoking contribution, objective 1 presented few new insights on EPR mechanisms, objective 2 deployed an inappropriate research design, and the policy implications of objective 3 are voided given the choice of explanatory variables.

Health insurance systems in five Sub-Saharan African countries: medicine benefits and data for decision making.

Medicine benefits through health insurance programs have the potential to improve access to and promote more effective use of affordable, high quality medicines. Information is lacking about medicine benefits provided by health insurance programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. We describe the structure of medicine benefits and data routinely available for decision-making in 33 health insurance programs in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda. Most programs surveyed were private, for profit schemes covering voluntary enrollees, mostly in urban areas. Almost all provide both inpatient and outpatient medicine benefits, with members sharing the cost of medicines in all programs. Some programs use strategies that are common in high-income countries to manage the medicine benefits, such as formularies, generics policies, reimbursement limits, or price negotiation. Basic data to monitor performance in delivering medicine benefits are available in most programs, but key data elements and the resources needed to generate useful management information from the available data are typically missing. Many questions remain unanswered about the design, implementation, and effects of specific medicines policies in the emerging and expanding health insurance programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. These include questions about the most effective medicines policy choices, given different corporate and organizational structures and resources; impacts of specific benefit designs on quality and affordability of care and health outcomes; and ways to facilitate use of routine data for monitoring. Technical capacity building, strong government commitment, and international donor support will be needed to realize the benefits of medicines coverage in emerging and expanding health insurance programs in Sub-Saharan Africa.