A cost-effectiveness analysis of intrauterine spacers used to prevent the formation of intrauterine adhesions following endometrial cavity surgery.

AIM: To assess, from a United States (US) payer's perspective, the cost-effectiveness of gels designed to separate the endometrial surfaces (intrauterine spacers) placed following intrauterine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision tree model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of intrauterine spacers used to facilitate endometrial repair and prevent the formation (primary prevention) and reformation (secondary prevention) of intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) and associated pregnancy- and birth-related adverse outcomes. Event rates and costs were extrapolated from data available in the existing literature. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to corroborate the base case results. RESULTS: In this model, using intrauterine spacers for adhesion prevention led to net cost savings for US payers of $2,905 per patient over a 3.5-year time horizon. These savings were driven by the direct benefit of preventing procedures associated with IUA formation ($2,162 net savings) and the indirect benefit of preventing pregnancy-related complications often associated with IUA formation ($3,002). These factors offset the incremental cost of intrauterine spacer use of $1,539 based on an assumed price of $1,800 and the related increase in normal deliveries of $931. Model outcomes were sensitive to the probability of preterm and normal deliveries. Budget impact analyses show overall cost savings of $19.96 per initial member within a US healthcare plan, translating to $20 million over a 5-year time horizon for a one-million-member plan. LIMITATIONS: There are no available data on the effects of intrauterine spacers or IUAs on patients' quality of life. Resultingly, the model could not evaluate patients' utility related to treatment with or without intrauterine spacers and instead focused on costs and events avoided. CONCLUSION: This analysis robustly demonstrated that intrauterine spacers would be cost-saving to healthcare payers, including both per-patient and per-plan member, through a reduction in IUAs and improvements to patients' pregnancy-related outcomes.

Every year, women in the United States (US) undergo surgery to treat intrauterine abnormalities to maintain or improve the uterus' ability to support fetal development and result in a term delivery. Despite the benefits of these procedures, damage caused to the endometrium (uterine lining) is associated with a risk of adherence of the endometrial cavity surfaces with scar tissue known as intrauterine adhesions (IUAs).Damage to the endometrium and the resulting IUAs may be associated with infertility, light or absent menstruation, pregnancy loss, and other pregnancy-related complications. Treating these conditions within the US healthcare system consumes resources and adds costs for healthcare payers (public and private insurance providers).To facilitate endometrial repair and to reduce or prevent IUAs, researchers have developed materials to place within the endometrial cavity following surgery to separate the endometrial surfaces during the early healing period. These intrauterine "spacers" are intended to improve patients' subsequent clinical outcomes and save money for healthcare payers. It is unknown whether these improved clinical outcomes offset the cost of the routine use of spacers following "at-risk" procedures that involve the endometrial cavity.We developed a model designed to determine the cost-effectiveness of an intrauterine spacer by quantifying improvements in clinical outcomes and the resultant cost savings for patients undergoing uterine surgeries with or without spacers. Our model predicted that routinely using such spacers following at-risk procedures would improve patient outcomes and reduce costs to US payers.

Clinical Benefits of Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus with iGlarLixi: A Patient-Level Simulation Study.

INTRODUCTION: The fixed-ratio combination of insulin glargine (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) has proven efficacious in clinical trials; however, there is limited evidence of its benefits in a variety of real-world patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who present in routine clinical practice. METHODS: A large integrated claims and EHR database was used to identify two real-world (RW) cohorts (ages ≥ 18) with T2DM who were eligible for treatment with iGlarLixi. At baseline, the first cohort (insulin cohort) received insulin with or without oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), and the second cohort (OAD-only cohort) received OADs only. A Monte Carlo patient-level simulation was applied to each cohort based on treatment strategies and efficacies from the LixiLan-L and LixiLan-O trials to estimate reductions in glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) and the percentage achieving age-based A1C goals (≤ 7% for ages < 65 and ≤ 8% for ages ≥ 65) at 30 weeks. RESULTS: The RW insulin (N = 3797) and OAD-only (N = 17,633) cohorts differed considerably in demographics, age, clinical characteristics, baseline A1C levels, and background OAD therapies compared to the populations in the Lixilan-L and Lixilan-O trials. Regardless of the cohort description, A1C goals were achieved among 52.6% vs. 31.6% (p < 0.001) of patients in the iGlarLixi vs. the iGlar arms in the insulin cohort simulation, while A1C goals were achieved among 59.9% vs. 49.3% and 32.8% (p < 0.001) of patients in the OAD-only cohort simulation in the iGlarLixi vs. the iGlar and lixisenatide arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the treatment regimen at baseline (insulin vs. OAD only), this patient-level simulation demonstrated that a greater proportion of patients achieved their A1C goals with iGlarlixi compared to iGlar or lixisenatide alone. These findings suggest that the benefits of iGlarLixi extend to clinically distinct RW populations.