Smart connected insulin dose monitoring technologies versus standard of care: a Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis.

Aim: There is growing interest in novel insulin management systems that improve glycemic control. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of smart connected insulin re-usable pens or caps for disposable insulin pens versus pens without connected capabilities in the management of adult patients with Type 1 diabetes (T1DM) from a Canadian societal perspective. Materials & methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was utilized to conduct the analyses. Applying data from a non-interventional study, the connected insulin device arm was assumed to result in greater reductions (-0.67%) in glycated hemoglobin from baseline and fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events (-32.87 events/patient annually). Macro- and micro-vascular risks were predicted using the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications study data. Direct and indirect costs and utilities were sourced from literature. Key model outcomes included life years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Both costs and effects were annually discounted at 1.5% over a 60-year time horizon. Uncertainty was explored in scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA). Results: The connected insulin pen device was associated with lower mean discounted total costs (CAD221,943 vs 266,199; -CAD44,256), improvement in mean life expectancy (25.78 vs 24.29; +1.49 years) and gains in QALYs (18.48 vs 16.74; +1.75 QALYs) over the patient's lifetime. Most scenario analyses confirmed the base case results. The PSA showed dominance in 99.5% of cases. Conclusion: For adults with T1DM in Canada, a connected insulin pen device is likely to be a cost-effective treatment option associated with greater clinical benefits and lower costs relative to a standard re-usable or disposable pen.

Cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies in Canada: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies approved by Canada Health, i.e., orlistat, naltrexone 32 mg/bupropion 360 mg (NB-32), liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg as compared to the current standard of care (SoC). METHODS: Analyses were conducted using a cohort with a mean starting age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 37.5 kg/m2, and 27.6% having type 2 diabetes. Using treatment-specific changes in surrogate endpoints from the STEP trials (BMI, glycemic, blood pressure, lipids), besides a network meta-analysis, the occurrence of weight-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected over lifetime. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY, semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment, at an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 31 243 and CAD 29 014 per QALY gained versus the next best alternative, i.e., orlistat, and SoC, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg and remained cost-effective both under a public and private payer perspective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses varying post-treatment catch-up rates, longer treatment durations and using real-world cohort characteristics. Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the preferred intervention, with a likelihood of 70% at a WTP threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY gained. However, when the modeled benefits of weight-loss on cancer, mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or osteoarthritis surgeries were removed simultaneously, orlistat emerged as the best value for money compared with SoC, with an ICUR of CAD 35 723 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment alternative compared with D&E or orlistat alone, and extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg. Results were sensitive to the inclusion of the combined benefits of mortality, cancer, CVD, and knee osteoarthritis.

Estimating the Associated Burden of Illness and Healthcare Utilization of Newly Diagnosed Patients Aged ≥65 with Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: With the emergence of therapies for mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), understanding the treatment patterns and burden of illness among older patients with MCL in Canada is essential to inform decision making. METHODS: A retrospective study using administrative data matched individuals aged ≥65 who were newly diagnosed with MCL between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2016 with general population controls. Cases were followed for up to 3 years in order to assess healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), healthcare costs, time to next treatment or death (TTNTD), and overall survival (OS); all were stratified according to first-line treatment. RESULTS: This study matched 159 MCL patients to 636 controls. Direct healthcare costs were highest among MCL patients in the first year following diagnosis (Y1: CAD 77,555 ± 40,789), decreased subsequently (Y2: CAD 40,093 ± 28,720; Y3: CAD 36,059 ± 36,303), and were consistently higher than the costs for controls. The 3-year OS after MCL diagnosis was 68.6%, with patients receiving bendamustine + rituximab (BR) experiencing a significantly higher OS compared to patients treated with other regimens (72.4% vs. 55.6%, p = 0.041). Approximately 40.9% of MCL patients initiated a second-line therapy or died within 3 years. CONCLUSION: Newly diagnosed MCL presents a substantial burden to the healthcare system, with almost half of all patients progressing to a second-line therapy or death within 3 years.

Cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy alone for the treatment of metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer in Canada.

AIMS: There are no direct comparisons of the relative cost-effectiveness of second-generation anti-androgens (enzalutamide and apalutamide) used in managing metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) in Canada. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of enzalutamide versus apalutamide versus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone (standard of care) in patients with mCSPC from the Canadian public payer perspective using a Markov model with a 15-year time horizon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Efficacy data for enzalutamide and ADT alone were informed by the ARCHES and ENZAMET clinical trials, while a Bayesian network meta-analysis enabled comparison with apalutamide and ADT alone. RESULTS: Over the 15-year period, enzalutamide achieved the highest number of life-years (LY, 7.6) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY, 5.62) compared with apalutamide (LY, 6.1; QALY, 4.59) and ADTs (LY, 4.9; QALY, 3.61). Enzalutamide incurred the most costs ($349,345) compared with apalutamide ($294,349) and ADT ($162,550). Sequential analysis showed that enzalutamide lies on the cost-effectiveness frontier with ADT alone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $92,868/QALY), with apalutamide extendedly dominated through enzalutamide and ADT alone. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the heterogeneity of the studies included in the network meta-analysis and the validations for the treatment sequencing assumptions in the modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Enzalutamide was the most effective treatment option for mCSPC in the Canadian market, with the greatest LYs and QALYs, and incurred the most costs.