Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Combination with Standard Care versus Standard Care Only in the Treatment of Heart Failure Patients in Finland.

Purpose: Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin has recently been shown to improve the outcomes of heart failure (HF) patients regardless of patient's left ventricular ejection fraction by reducing the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for worsening HF. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of adding empagliflozin to the standard care (SC) in comparison to SC only in the treatment of HF in Finland. Patients and Methods: The assessment was performed in the cost-utility framework using two Markov cohort state-transition models, one for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and one for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The models have been primarily developed based on the EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials which informed the modelled patient characteristics, efficacy of treatments in terms of associated risks for heart failure hospitalizations, cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV death, treatment related adverse events (AE), and state- and event-specific health-related quality of life weights (EQ-5D). Direct health care costs were estimated from Finnish published references. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from health care payer perspective based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; cost per quality adjusted life-year [QALY] gained) and probability of cost-effectiveness (at willingness-to-pay [WTP] of 35,000 euros/QALY). The ICER was reported as the weighted (HFrEF, 43.5%; HFpEF, 56.5%) average result of the two models. Results: Empagliflozin + SC treatment increased the average quality-adjusted life-expectancy, and treatment costs of HF patients by 0.15 QALYs and 1,594 euros, respectively, when compared to SC. An additional QALY with empagliflozin was thus gained at a cost of 10,621 euros. The probability of empagliflozin + SC being cost-effective compared to placebo + SC was 77.6% and 83.5% with WTP of 35,000 and 100,000 euros/QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment for patients with HF in the Finnish health care setting.

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for diabetic conditions: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses related to the pharmacological treatments of diabetes and diabetes-related complications. INTRODUCTION: The inclusion of adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses is recognized in health technology assessments guidelines, but in practice, this is inconsistent. This inconsistency may affect the reliability of the evaluation and, therefore, indicate that the information provided for decision-making in health care is misleading. Reviewing if and how adverse drug events are incorporated in cost-effectiveness analyses is necessary to address this gap. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies including participants who are receiving pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema will be considered for inclusion. We will include sources that focus on cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework, and are published in English between 2011 and the present. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions will be excluded. METHODS: The information sources to be searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the NHS Economic Evaluations Database, and the Health Technology Assessment Database. Studies in English will be considered for inclusion in the review. Potential sources will be assessed by 2 independent reviewers and imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. A specific data extraction form will be used to extract and analyze the data. Results will be presented in tabular and graphic formats with a narrative summary, and will be discussed in the context of current literature and guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and triamcinolone for the treatment of diabetic macular oedema in Finland: A Markov-model.

PURPOSE: Diabetic macular oedema (DMO), a complication of diabetes, causes vision loss and blindness. Corticosteroids are usually used as a second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to analyse the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone implants compared to cheaper and more frequently applied triamcinolone injections. METHODS: Markov-modelling, which incorporated both eyes, was used for economic evaluation. The model consisted of five health states based on visual acuity, illustrating the progression of DMO. A cycle length of five months was chosen for dexamethasone and four months for triamcinolone. Time horizons of two and five years were applied. Transition probabilities and health state utilities were sourced from previous studies. The perspective used in this analysis was the hospital perspective. The health care costs were acquired from Kuopio University Hospital in Finland. RESULTS: In this cost-effectiveness analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ICER with 3% discount rate was €56 591/QALY for a two-year follow-up and -€1 110 942/QALY for a five-year follow-up. In order to consider dexamethasone as cost-effective over a 2-year time horizon, the WTP needs to be around €55 000/QALY. Over the five-year follow-up, triamcinolone is clearly a dominant treatment. Sensitivity analyses support the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone over a 2-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Since the sensitivity analyses support the results, dexamethasone would be a cost-effective treatment during the first two years with WTP threshold around €55 000/QALY, and triamcinolone would be a convenient treatment after that. This recommendation is in line with the guidelines of EURETINA.