Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the UK

INTRODUCTION iGlarLixi is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise in addition to metformin (with or without sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) to improve glycemic control in adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi with premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with T2D suboptimally controlled with basal insulin (BI). METHODS The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2D from a UK health care perspective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical trial which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with that of twice-daily BIAsp 30. Costs associated with management and complications and utilities values were derived from published sources. Lifetime costs (in £GBP) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi (8.9 vs. 8.8) compared with premix BIAsp 30, at a higher cost (£23,204 vs. £21,961). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was £13,598. Treatment acquisition was the main driver of cost differences (iGlarLixi, £11,750; premix BIAsp 30, £10,395). Costs associated with management and complications were generally similar between comparators. CONCLUSION iGlarLixi provides improved QALY outcomes at an acceptable cost compared with premix BIAsp 30, with an ICER below the threshold generally considered acceptable by UK authorities. In people with T2D, iGlarLixi is a simple, cost-effective option for advancing therapy of BI, with fewer daily injections than premix BIAsp 30

Cost-Effectiveness of Propofol (Diprivan) Versus Inhalational Anesthetics to Maintain General Anesthesia in Noncardiac Surgery in the United States.

Abstract Objectives It is not known whether using propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) to reduce incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is cost-effective. We assessed the economic impact of propofol TIVA versus inhalational anesthesia in adult patients for ambulatory and inpatient procedures relevant to the US healthcare system. Methods Two models simulate individual patient pathways through inpatient and ambulatory surgery with propofol TIVA or inhalational anesthesia with economic inputs from studies on adult surgical US patients. Efficacy inputs were obtained from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses assessed the robustness of the model estimates. Results Lower PONV rate, shorter stay in the post-anesthesia care unit, and reduced need for rescue antiemetics offset the higher costs for anesthetics, analgesics, and muscle relaxants with propofol TIVA and reduced cost by 11.41 ± 10.73 USD per patient in the inpatient model and 11.25 ± 9.81 USD in the ambulatory patient model. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated strong robustness of the results. Conclusions Maintenance of general anesthesia with propofol was cost-saving compared to inhalational anesthesia in both inpatient and ambulatory surgical settings in the United States. These economic results support current guideline recommendations, which endorse propofol TIVA to reduce PONV risk and enhance postoperative recovery

Cost‐effectiveness of parenteral nutrition containing ω‐3 fatty acids in hospitalized adult patients from 5 European countries and the US

BACKGROUND: ω‐3 Fatty acid (FA)–containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with improvements in patient outcomes and with reductions in hospital length of stay (HLOS) vs standard PN regimens (containing non–ω‐3 FA lipid emulsions). We present a cost‐effectiveness analysis of ω‐3 FA–containing PN vs standard PN in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic model was based on estimates of ω‐3 efficacy reported in a recent meta‐analysis and data from country‐specific sources. It utilized a probabilistic discrete event simulation model to compare ω‐3 FA–containing PN with standard PN in a population of critically ill and general ward patients. The influence of model parameters was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Overall costs were reduced with ω‐3 FA–containing PN in all 6 countries compared with standard PN, ranging from €1741 (±€1284) in Italy to €5576 (±€4193) in the US. Expenses for infections and HLOS were lower in all countries for ω‐3 FA–containing PN vs standard PN, with the largest cost differences for both in the US (infection: €825 ± €4001; HLOS: €4879 ± €1208) and the smallest savings in the UK for infections and in Spain for HLOS (€63 ± €426 and €1636 ± €372, respectively). CONCLUSION: This cost‐effectiveness analysis in 6 countries demonstrates that the superior clinical efficacy of ω‐3 FA–containing PN translates into significant decreases in mean treatment cost, rendering it an attractive cost‐saving alternative to standard PN across different healthcare systems

Propofol vs. inhalational agents to maintain general anaesthesia in ambulatory and in-patient surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. Methods Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. Results The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. Conclusions Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials

Cost‐Effectiveness of Parenteral Nutrition Containing ω‐3 Fatty Acids in Hospitalized Adult Patients From 5 European Countries and the US

BACKGROUND: ω‐3 Fatty acid (FA)–containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with improvements in patient outcomes and with reductions in hospital length of stay (HLOS) vs standard PN regimens (containing non–ω‐3 FA lipid emulsions). We present a cost‐effectiveness analysis of ω‐3 FA–containing PN vs standard PN in 5 European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US. METHODS: This pharmacoeconomic model was based on estimates of ω‐3 efficacy reported in a recent meta‐analysis and data from country‐specific sources. It utilized a probabilistic discrete event simulation model to compare ω‐3 FA–containing PN with standard PN in a population of critically ill and general ward patients. The influence of model parameters was evaluated using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Overall costs were reduced with ω‐3 FA–containing PN in all 6 countries compared with standard PN, ranging from €1741 (±€1284) in Italy to €5576 (±€4193) in the US. Expenses for infections and HLOS were lower in all countries for ω‐3 FA–containing PN vs standard PN, with the largest cost differences for both in the US (infection: €825 ± €4001; HLOS: €4879 ± €1208) and the smallest savings in the UK for infections and in Spain for HLOS (€63 ± €426 and €1636 ± €372, respectively). CONCLUSION: This cost‐effectiveness analysis in 6 countries demonstrates that the superior clinical efficacy of ω‐3 FA–containing PN translates into significant decreases in mean treatment cost, rendering it an attractive cost‐saving alternative to standard PN across different healthcare systems