Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus : A Cost-Utility Analysis

Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first. CONCLUSIONS: iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.Peer reviewe

A systematic review of the role of bisphosphonates in metastatic disease

Objectives: To identify evidence for the role of bisphosphonates in malignancy for the treatment of hypercalcaemia, prevention of skeletal morbidity and use in the adjuvant setting. To perform an economic review of current literature and model the cost effectiveness of bisphosphonates in the treatment of hypercalcaemia and prevention of skeletal morbidity Data sources: Electronic databases (1966-June 2001). Cochrane register. Pharmaceutical companies. Experts in the field. Handsearching of abstracts and leading oncology journals (1999-2001). Review methods: Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, according to predetermined criteria, and extracted relevant data. Overall event rates were pooled in a meta-analysis, odds ratios ( OR) were given with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where data could not be combined, studies were reported individually and proportions compared using chi- squared analysis. Cost and cost-effectiveness were assessed by a decision analytic model comparing different bisphosphonate regimens for the treatment of hypercalcaemia; Markov models were employed to evaluate the use of bisphosphonates to prevent skeletal-related events (SRE) in patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma. Results: For acute hypercalcaemia of malignancy, bisphosphonates normalised serum calcium in >70% of patients within 2-6 days. Pamidronate was more effective than control, etidronate, mithramycin and low-dose clodronate, but equal to high dose clodronate, in achieving normocalcaemia. Pamidronate prolongs ( doubles) the median time to relapse compared with clodronate or etidronate. For prevention of skeletal morbidity, bisphosphonates compared with placebo, significantly reduced the OR for fractures (OR [95% CI], vertebral, 0.69 [0.57-0.84], non-vertebral, 0.65 [0.54-0.79], combined, 0.65 [0.55-0.78]) radiotherapy 0.67 [0.57-0.79] and hypercalcaemia 0.54 [0.36-0.81] but not orthopaedic surgery 0.70 [0.46-1.05] or spinal cord compression 0.71 [0.47-1.08]. However, reduction in orthopaedic surgery was significant in studies that lasted over a year 0.59 [0.39-0.88]. Bisphosphonates significantly increased the time to first SRE but did not affect survival. Subanalyses were performed for disease groups, drugs and route of administration. Most evidence supports the use of intravenous aminobisphosphonates. For adjuvant use of bisphosphonates, Clodronate, given to patients with primary operable breast cancer and no metastatic disease, significantly reduced the number of patients developing bone metastases. This benefit was not maintained once regular administration had been discontinued. Two trials reported significant survival advantages in the treated groups. Bisphosphonates reduce the number of bone metastases in patients with both early and advanced breast cancer. Bisphosphonates are well tolerated with a low incidence of side-effects. Economic modelling showed that for acute hypercalcaemia, drugs with the longest cumulative duration of normocalcaemia were most cost-effective. Zoledronate 4 mg was the most costly, but most cost-effective treatment. For skeletal morbidity, Markov models estimated that the overall cost of bisphosphonate therapy to prevent an SRE was pound250 and pound1500 per event for patients with breast cancer and multiple myeloma, respectively. Bisphosphonate treatment is sometimes cost-saving in breast cancer patients where fractures are prevented. Conclusions: High dose aminobisphosphonates are most effective for the treatment of acute hypercalcaemia and delay time to relapse. Bisphosphonates significantly reduce SREs and delay the time to first SRE in patients with bony metastatic disease but do not affect survival. Benefit is demonstrated after administration for at least 6-12 months. The greatest body of evidence supports the use of intravenous aminobisphosphonates. Further evidence is required to support use in the adjuvant setting

AM-PAC Basic Mobility Inpatient Short Form (Low Function) Psychometrics/Clinimetrics

Objective: To determine whether the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care® Basic Mobility Inpatient Short Form (Low Function) (6-clicks LF) has increased responsiveness for patients with lower levels of physical function compared to the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Basic Mobility Inpatient Short Form (6-clicks). Design: Retrospective cohort study using original scores and simulated scores for assessment of internal responsiveness of the 6-clicks LF compared to the 6-clicks. Simulated 6-clicks and 6-clicks LF scores were created as a hypothetical future AM-PAC® score. Results: We found a statistically significant difference between the 6-clicks and simulated 6-clicks, t=24.8, p \u3c 0.00 [two-tailed]. The effect size was large (d=1.2, r=0.51).There was a statistically significant difference between the 6-clicks LF and simulated 6-clicks LF, t=19.7, p \u3c 0.00 [two-tailed]. The effect size was medium (d=0.91, r=0.41). Finally, for patients with a 6-clicks score in the bottom five-percentile (n=27), we found a statistically significant difference between the 6-clicks and 6-clicks LF, t=11.9, p \u3c 0.00 [two-tailed]. Conclusion: Among patients scoring less than 15, the 6-clicks LF has greater internal responsiveness than the 6-clicks and thus demonstrates that the new low-level questions in the 6-clicks LF better quantify low-level patients’ functional level. Research using non-simulated data should be completed in the future to confirm these findings

Cost effectiveness analysis of different approaches of screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia

Objectives To assess the cost effectiveness of strategies to screen for and treat familial hypercholesterolaemia. Design Cost effectiveness analysis. A care pathway for each patient was delineated and the associated probabilities, benefits, and costs were calculated. Participants Simulated population aged 16­54 years in England and Wales. Interventions Identification and treatment of patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia by universal screening, opportunistic screening in primary care, screening of people admitted to hospital with premature myocardial infarction, or tracing family members of affected patients. Main outcome measure Cost effectiveness calculated as cost per life year gained (extension of life expectancy resulting from intervention) including estimated costs of screening and treatment. Results Tracing of family members was the most cost effective strategy (£3097 (&5066, $4479) per life year gained) as 2.6 individuals need to be screened to identify one case at a cost of £133 per case detected. If the genetic mutation was known within the family then the cost per life year gained (£4914) was only slightly increased by genetic confirmation of the diagnosis. Universal population screening was least cost effective (£13 029 per life year gained) as 1365 individuals need to be screened at a cost of £9754 per case detected. For each strategy it was more cost effective to screen younger people and women. Targeted strategies were more expensive per person screened, but the cost per case detected was lower. Population screening of 16 year olds only was as cost effective as family tracing (£2777 with a clinical confirmation). Conclusions Screening family members of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia is the most cost effective option for detecting cases across the whole population

Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: The British family heart study

This article has been made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund and is available from the specified link - Copyright @ 1996 BMJ Publishing Group.Objective-To measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme.Design-Cost effectiveness analysis of randomised controlled trial. Clinical and resource use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates.Setting-13 general practices across Britain.Subjects-4185 men aged 40-59 and their 2827 partners.Intervention-Nurse led programme using a family centred approach, with follow up according to degree of risk.Main outcome measures-Cost of the programme itself; overall short term cost to NHS; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk at one year.Results-Estimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was pound 63 per person (95% confidence interval pound 60 to pound 65). The overall short term cost to the health service was pound 77 per man (pound 29 to pound 124) but only pound 13 per woman (-pound 48 to pound 74), owing to differences in utilisation of other health service resources. The cost per 1% reduction in risk was pound 5.08 per man (pound 5.92 including broader health service costs) and pound 5.78 per woman (pound 1.28 taking into account wider health service savings).Conclusions-The direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately pound 58 000. Annually, pound 8300 would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the ma target on the health promotion bands, plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified. The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women

Trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing surgical and endoscopic drainage in patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis

Objective: Published evidence indicates that surgical drainage of the pancreatic duct was more effective than endoscopic drainage for patients with chronic pancreatitis. This analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of surgical versus endoscopic drainage in obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Design: This trial-based cost-utility analysis (ISRCTN04572410) was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective and during a 79-month time horizon. During the trial the details of the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, and pancreatic insufficiency were collected. The resource use was varied in the sensitivity analysis based on a review of the literature. The health outcome was the Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY), generated using EQ-5D data collected during the trial. There were no pancreas-related deaths in the trial. All-cause mortality from the trial was incorporated into the QALY estimates in the sensitivity analysis. Setting: Hospital. Participants: Patients with obstructive chronic pancreatitis. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Costs, QALYs and cost-effectiveness. Results: The result of the base-case analysis was that surgical drainage dominated endoscopic drainage, being both more effective and less costly. The sensitivity analysis varied mortality and resource use and showed that the surgical option remained dominant in all scenarios. The probability of cost-effectiveness for surgical drainage was 100% for the base case and 82% in the assessed most conservative case scenario. Conclusions: In obstructive chronic pancreatitis, surgical drainage is highly cost-effective compared with endoscopic drainage from a UK NHS perspective