Methods applied in cost-effectiveness models for treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus and their use in Health Technology Assessments: a systematic review of the literature from 2008 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare health-economic models that were developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and their use within Health Technology Assessments (HTAs). METHODS: In total, six commonly used databases were searched for articles published between October 2008 and January 2013, using a protocolized search strategy and inclusion criteria. The websites of HTA organizations in nine countries, and proceedings from five relevant conferences, were also reviewed. The identified new health-economic models were qualitatively assessed using six criteria that were developed based on technical components, and characteristics related to the disease or the treatments being assessed. Finally, the number of times the models were applied within HTA reports, published literature, and/or major conferences was determined. RESULTS: Thirteen new models were identified and reviewed in depth. Most of these were based on identical key data sources, and applied a similar model structure, either using Markov modeling or microsimulation techniques. The UKPDS equations and panel regressions were frequently used to estimate the occurrence of diabetes-related complications and the probability of developing risk factors in the long term. The qualitative assessment demonstrated that the CARDIFF, Sheffield T2DM and ECHO T2DM models seem technically equipped to appropriately assess the long-term health-economic consequences of chronic treatments for patients with T2DM. It was observed that the CORE model is the most widely described in literature and conferences, and the most often applied model within HTA submissions, followed by the CARDIFF and UKPDS models. CONCLUSION: This research provides an overview of T2DM models that were developed between 2008 and January 2013. The outcomes of the qualitative assessments, combined with frequent use in local reimbursement decisions, prove the applicability of the CORE, CARDIFF and UKPDS models to address decision problems related to the long-term clinical and economic consequences of new and existing T2DM treatments.

Trial-based cost-effectiveness of abatacept for rheumatoid arthritis patients in Italy.

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory disorder leading to disability and reduced quality of life. Effective treatment is a significant economic burden on the Italian healthcare system. Economic models in RA are commonly based on indirect treatment comparisons. METHODS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of abatacept relative to adalimumab for RA in Italy based on a head-to-head trial by means of a cost-consequence analysis. RESULTS: Health benefits based on the most stringent efficacy criteria were in favor of abatacept compared to adalimumab. Rates for more costly adverse events were higher for adalimumab compared to abatacept, which was reflected in the lower costs for abatacept (-€237,246 or -€237per patient). CONCLUSION: The health economic value of abatacept compared with adalimumab from the perspective of the Italian NHS depends on the choice of health outcome. Health gains with abatacept were generally based on more stringent criteria and lower total costs.

Economic evaluation of posaconazole vs fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections in patients with GVHD following haematopoietic SCT.

Posaconazole has been proven to be as effective as fluconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal infections (IFI) in allogeneic haematopoietic SCT patients with GVHD. We assessed, from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service, the cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole in preventing IFI. A decision-analytic model was developed to assess the average per patient treatment costs, IFIs avoided, life-years gained (LYG) and incremental cost per LYG for each prophylactic treatment used (in euros at 2007 prices). Patients are assumed to have received either posaconazole or fluconazole. The probabilities of IFI, IFI-related death and death from other causes were obtained from a single clinical trial. Long-term mortality and costs were estimated from secondary sources. Posaconazole was associated with fewer IFIs (5.3 vs 9%), increased LYG (8.01 vs 7.78) and higher IFI-related costs ([euro]11 585 vs [euro]6 959) per patient compared with fluconazole. The incremental cost-effectiveness of posaconazole vs fluconazole was estimated at [euro]20 246 per LYG. There was a 70% probability that posaconazole is cost-effective at a [euro]30 000 per LYG threshold. In conclusion, compared with fluconazole, posaconazole prophylaxis is a cost-effective strategy for the prevention of IFI in patients with GVHD.