25 research outputs found
Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden
No full textAims: This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide vs glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin or basal insulin in Sweden. Materials and methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used. For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg. In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide. The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide. Limitations and conclusions: It is likely that this analysis is conservative in estimating the cardiovascular (CV) cost benefits associated with treatment with once-weekly semaglutide. In patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin, the analyses vs lixisenatide were based on results from an NMA, as no head-to-head clinical trial has been conducted for this comparison. These CEA results show that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective GLP-1 RA therapy for the treatment of T2D in patients inadequately controlled on metformin or basal insulin, addressing many current clinician, patient, and payer unmet needs in Sweden.</p
Recombinant FVIII replacement products for haemophilia A : An updated valuation by indirect comparison measuring area under the curve
No full textCost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on therapies to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes.
No full textBackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions.ResultsFrom the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20μg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model.ConclusionsThe costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 μg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving
Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting
No full textOBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden. METHODS: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41669-021-00317-z
The Potential Health Economic Value of Adding Magnetomotive Ultrasound to Current Diagnostic Methods for Detecting Lymph Node Metastases in Rectal Cancer
No full textBackground: Local resection of early rectal cancer (RC) is a desirable treatment option compared with surgery, offering reduced morbidity, mortality, health care costs and avoidance of stoma. However, local resection is restricted to cases without suspicion of lymph node metastases (LNM). Current methods to diagnose LNM and risk estimations based on histopathology cannot reliably identify patients eligible for local resection. The NanoEcho diagnostic system is based on a novel method for lymph node staging in RC. The aim of this study was to perform a health economic analysis at an early stage of clinical development to estimate the potential value of adding NanoEcho diagnostics to current diagnostic methods in RC. Methods: A Markov model for RC diagnosis was developed where the costs and health outcomes, including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), for adding the NanoEcho diagnostics to current diagnostic methods were compared with current diagnostic methods alone. The diagnostic performance of the NanoEcho diagnostic system is still unknown and the base-case analysis was performed at an assumed 85% sensitivity and 85% specificity. Two testing strategies corresponding to two alternative ways of implementing the diagnostic test in clinic were evaluated: (1) examine all patients diagnosed with RC and (2) examine only patients diagnosed with clinical stages T1 and T2. Results: Adding the NanoEcho diagnostic system resulted in a gain of 0.032 life years and 0.124 QALYs per patient in the target population compared with current diagnostic methods alone. At a cost-neutral level, the estimated justifiable price of NanoEcho diagnostics was SEK 6995 in the first testing strategy and SEK 50,658 in the second testing strategy. The justifiable price of the NanoEcho diagnostics at a willingness to pay of 500,000 SEK/QALY was SEK 10,654 in the first testing strategy and SEK 65,132 in the second testing strategy. Conclusion: The results indicate that adding NanoEcho diagnostics to standard of care can potentially reduce healthcare costs and increase quality of life in RC patients, assuming a sensitivity and specificity of 85%
Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting [Elektronisk resurs]
No full textObjective: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden. Methods: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Results: In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015)
Prognostic Testing for Prostate Cancer—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Prostatype P-Score Biomarker Approach to Standard Clinical Practice
No full textBackground: The Prostatype score (P-score) is a prognostic biomarker that integrates a three-gene (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) signature derived from prostate biopsy samples, with key clinical parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade, and tumor stage at diagnosis. The test has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for prostate cancer outcomes compared with traditional risk categorization systems such as D’Amico. Notably, it reclassifies a higher proportion of patients into the low-risk category, making them eligible for active surveillance. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the P-score in comparison with D’Amico and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) risk categorization systems. Methods: A two-step decision analytic model was developed. The model consisted of a decision tree-informed Markov structure estimating the lifetime outcomes of 60-year-old men with diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate cancer was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk using either the P-score or D’Amico. Initial therapy was based on observed treatment patterns from the Swedish NPCR. Costs (SEK, year 2022) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare perspective and discounted at 3% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome. Results: The P-score led to cost savings and generated an additional 0.19 QALYs compared with D’Amico. The added costs of the genetic test and higher costs of active surveillance and radiotherapy were counterbalanced by savings from reduced costs of surgery, treatment-related side-effects, and metastatic disease. The gain in QALYs was primarily due to the avoidance of metastatic disease and a reduction in treatment-related side-effects. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the P-score is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to D’Amico for prognostic evaluation of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden and compared with NPCR when health-related quality of life was included
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas – a cost-effectiveness analysis of management strategies for the branch-duct subtype
No full textBackground: Branch-duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (BD-IPMN) presents a clinical conundrum. Rigorous long-term surveillance or surgical resection is recommended. The economic consequences of the management have not been fully investigated. Methods: A Markov decision model compared 4 strategies for low-risk BD-IPMN: I = upfront total pancreatectomy, II = upfront partial pancreatectomy, III = initial surveillance, IV = watchful waiting. Surveillance was based on the Swedish Guidelines for Pancreatic Cancer. Probabilities and costs were obtained from the participating unit and from the scientific literature. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and sensitivity analyses were performed by varying relevant parameters. Survival was reported in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Strategy III was the most cost-effective strategy with an ICER of €31 682 compared to strategy IV. Strategy I was the most expensive but yielded the best QALY (9.32). Total number of years,annual risk of pancreatic cancer and annual risk of a low-risk BD-IPMN turning into a high-risk lesion had the greatest impact in the model. Conclusions: Initial surveillance seems to be the most cost-effective strategy in the management of low-risk asymptomatic BD-IPMN. However, the possibility of personalized approaches remains to be investigated
Prognostic Testing for Prostate Cancer—A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing a Prostatype P-Score Biomarker Approach to Standard Clinical Practice [Elektronisk resurs]
No full textBackground: The Prostatype score (P-score) is a prognostic biomarker that integrates a three-gene (IGFBP3, F3, and VGLL3) signature derived from prostate biopsy samples, with key clinical parameters, including prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, Gleason grade, and tumor stage at diagnosis. The test has demonstrated superior predictive accuracy for prostate cancer outcomes compared with traditional risk categorization systems such as D’Amico. Notably, it reclassifies a higher proportion of patients into the low-risk category, making them eligible for active surveillance. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the P-score in comparison with D’Amico and the Swedish National Prostate Cancer Register (NPCR) risk categorization systems. Methods: A two-step decision analytic model was developed. The model consisted of a decision tree-informed Markov structure estimating the lifetime outcomes of 60-year-old men with diagnosed prostate cancer. Prostate cancer was classified as low-risk, intermediate-risk, or high-risk using either the P-score or D’Amico. Initial therapy was based on observed treatment patterns from the Swedish NPCR. Costs (SEK, year 2022) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare perspective and discounted at 3% per year; incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the primary outcome. Results: The P-score led to cost savings and generated an additional 0.19 QALYs compared with D’Amico. The added costs of the genetic test and higher costs of active surveillance and radiotherapy were counterbalanced by savings from reduced costs of surgery, treatment-related side-effects, and metastatic disease. The gain in QALYs was primarily due to the avoidance of metastatic disease and a reduction in treatment-related side-effects. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the P-score is likely to be a cost-effective alternative to D’Amico for prognostic evaluation of newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden and compared with NPCR when health-related quality of life was included
Validation of the IHE type 2 diabetes cohort model in the Japanese clinical setting
No full textAims: Economic simulation models, such as the IHE Type 2 Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM-T2), are used widely to inform resource allocation for Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) treatments. Recently, IHE-DCM-T2 was augmented with Japanese-specific risk equations to align with the Japanese healthcare context. This study extends prior model validation of IHE-DCM-T2 to cover the Japanese risk equations for applications in Japan’s clinical setting and healthcare system. Materials and Methods: Face validity was assessed through expert review of model assumptions and structure. Model programming was verified by code review and 728 stress tests. Predictive accuracy was tested by comparing model predictions to real-world outcomes from 28 Japanese studies, assessing concordance visually, with regression lines, and with mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), root mean square percentage error (RMSPE), mean squared logarithmic error (MSLE), and mean squared log-accuracy ratio (MSLAR). Subgroup analyses examined dependent and independent endpoints, along with mortality, microvascular, and macrovascular outcomes. Sensitivity analyses assessed robustness to variations in scale and sample size. Results: IHE-DCM-T2 demonstrated face validity and correct implementation. External validation against 120 endpoints showed good alignment between predicted and observed events, with regression line slope=0.96 and R2=0.98. Overall, prediction errors were: MAPE=0.83, RMSPE=1.21, MSLE=0.61, and MSLAR=0.53. Predictions were more accurate for dependent than independent endpoints. Among endpoint categories, macrovascular events had the lowest average errors, whereas mortality endpoints had the highest MAPE and RMSPE, and microvascular endpoints had highest MSLE and MSLAR. Predictive accuracy was consistent across alternative test specifications. Limitations: Limitations included gaps in validation data, and the requirement for long-term follow-up that inherently reflects past treatment patterns. Only studies with at least 1,000 patients were included, which may introduce selection bias. Conclusions: This comprehensive validation of the IHE-DCM-T2, augmented with Japanese-specific risk equations, demonstrated its suitability for health technology assessments and resource allocation decisions for T2D in the Japanese clinical setting and healthcare system
