Evaluating the Cost-Utility of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of the Methods and Quality of Studies Using Decision Models or Empirical Data.

INTRODUCTION: This review presents a critical appraisal of differences in the methodologies and quality of model-based and empirical data-based cost-utility studies on continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) populations. It identifies key limitations and challenges in health economic evaluations on CGM and opportunities for their improvement. METHODS: The review and its documentation adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews. Searches for articles published between January 2000 and January 2023 were conducted using the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Econlit databases. Published studies using models and empirical data to evaluate the cost utility of all CGM devices used by T1D patients were included in the search. Two authors independently extracted data on interventions, populations, model settings (e.g., perspectives and time horizons), model types and structures, clinical outcomes used to populate the model, validation, and uncertainty analyses. They subsequently met to confirm consensus. Quality was assessed using the Philips checklist for model-based studies and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist for empirical studies. Model validation was assessed using the Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models (AdViSHE) checklist. The extracted data were used to generate summary tables and figures. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023391284). RESULTS: In total, 34 studies satisfied the selection criteria, two of which only used empirical data. The remaining 32 studies applied 10 different models, with a substantial majority adopting the CORE Diabetes Model. Model-based studies often lacked transparency, as their assumptions regarding the extrapolation of treatment effects beyond available evidence from clinical studies and the selection and processing of the input data were not explicitly stated. Initial scores for disagreements concerning checklists were relatively high, especially for the Philips checklist. Following their resolution, overall quality scores were moderate at 56%, whereas model validation scores were mixed. Strikingly, costing approaches differed widely across studies, resulting in little consistency in the elements included in intervention costs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The overall quality of studies evaluating CGM was moderate. Potential areas of improvement include developing systematic approaches for data selection, improving uncertainty analyses, clearer reporting, and explaining choices for particular modeling approaches. Few studies provided the assurance that all relevant and feasible options had been compared, which is required by decision makers, especially for rapidly evolving technologies such as CGM and insulin administration. High scores for disagreements indicated that several checklists contained questions that were difficult to interpret consistently for quality assessment. Therefore, simpler but comprehensive quality checklists may be needed for model-based health economic evaluation studies.

Differences in evidentiary requirements for oncology drug effectiveness assessments among six European health technology assessment bodies - can alignment be improved?

OBJECTIVES: Evidentiary requirements for relative effectiveness assessment vary among European health technology assessment (HTA) bodies, affecting the time to HTA decision-making and potentially delaying time to patient access. Improved alignment may reduce this time; therefore, we aim to analyze the differences in evidentiary requirements for oncology drug assessments among European HTA bodies and provide recommendations toward an increased alignment. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with stakeholders in drug assessments of Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, England and Wales, and Sweden about evidentiary requirements for several subdomains to identify differences and obtain recommendations for addressing differences. The interview results were analyzed on degrees of evidence acceptability per HTA body and alignment on evidentiary requirements among HTA bodies. RESULTS: Subdomains demonstrating noteworthy differences concerned the acceptability of extrapolation to other populations, class effects, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, the absence of quality-of-life data, single-arm trials, cross-over trial designs, short trial duration, and the clinical relevance of effect size. CONCLUSION: Alignment can be enhanced to reduce time to decision-making and to improve equity in patient access. Proposed recommendations to achieve this included joint early dialogues, intensified collaboration and exchange between countries, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of access agreements.

The Use of eHealth for Pharmacotherapy Management With Patients With Respiratory Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, or Diabetes: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: eHealth is increasingly considered an important tool for supporting pharmacotherapy management. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the (1) use of eHealth in pharmacotherapy management with patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or cardiovascular disease (CVD); (2) effectiveness of these interventions on pharmacotherapy management and clinical outcomes; and (3) key factors contributing to the success of eHealth interventions for pharmacotherapy management. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review) statement. Databases searched included Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Cochrane Library. Screening was conducted by 2 independent researchers. Eligible articles were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the effect of an eHealth intervention for pharmacotherapy management compared with usual care on pharmacotherapy management or clinical outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, or diabetes. The interventions were categorized by the type of device, pharmacotherapy management, mode of delivery, features, and domains described in the conceptual model for eHealth by Shaw at al (Health in our Hands, Interacting for Health, Data Enabling Health). The effectiveness on pharmacotherapy management outcomes and patient- and clinician-reported clinical outcomes was analyzed per type of intervention categorized by number of domains and features to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 63 studies, 16 (25%), 31 (49%), 13 (21%), and 3 (5%) included patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, diabetes, or CVD and diabetes, respectively. Most (38/63, 60%) interventions targeted improving medication adherence, often combined for treatment plan optimization. Of the 16 asthma or COPD interventions, 6 aimed to improve inhaled medication use. The majority (48/63, 76%) of the studies provided an option for patient feedback. Most (20/63, 32%) eHealth interventions combined all 3 domains by Shaw et al, while 25% (16/63) combined Interacting for Health with Data Enabling Health. Two-thirds (42/63, 67%) of the studies showed a positive overall effect. Respectively, 48% (23/48), 57% (28/49), and 39% (12/31) reported a positive effect on pharmacotherapy management and clinician- and patient-reported clinical outcomes. Pharmacotherapy management and patient-reported clinical outcomes, but not clinician-reported clinical outcomes, were more often positive in interventions with ≥3 features. There was a trend toward more studies reporting a positive effect on all 3 outcomes with more domains by Shaw et al. Of the studies with interventions providing patient feedback, more showed a positive clinical outcome, compared with studies with interventions without feedback. This effect was not seen for pharmacotherapy management outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variety of eHealth interventions combining various domains and features to target pharmacotherapy management in asthma or COPD, CVD, and diabetes. Results suggest feedback is key for a positive effect on clinician-reported clinical outcomes. eHealth interventions become more impactful when combining domains.

Cost-effectiveness model of trastuzumab deruxtecan as second-line treatment in HER2-positive unresectable and/or metastatic breast cancer in Finland.

OBJECTIVES: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) was recently recommended by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use as a treatment for adult patients with unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer, who had received a prior anti-HER2-based regimen. In our study, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of T-DXd compared with ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for this indication in Finland. METHODS: A three-state partitioned survival analysis model was developed with a payer's perspective. Time to event data from the DESTINY-Breast03 (DB-03) trial were extrapolated over a lifetime horizon either directly-for progression-free survival and time to treatment discontinuation-or using an alternative approach utilizing long-term T-DM1 survival data and DB-03 data-for overall survival. Discount rates of 3% were applied for costs and effects. Inputs were sourced from the Medicinal Products Database from Kela, Helsinki University Hospital service price list, Finnish Medicines Agency assessments, clinical experts, and DB-03. Sensitivity analyses were performed to characterize and demonstrate parameter uncertainties in the model. RESULTS: Total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and life years (LYs) gained for T-DXd compared with T-DM1 were 1.93 and 2.56, respectively. Incremental costs for T-DXd compared with T-DM1 were €106,800, resulting in an ICER of €55,360 per QALY gained and an ICER of €41,775 per LY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the hazard ratio of T-DXd vs T-DM1 for OS was the most influential parameter. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed similar results to the base case. CONCLUSIONS: T-DXd is cost-effective based on surrogate WTP thresholds of €72,000 and €139,000 per QALY.

Correction: Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in the real-world and trial settings.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222658.].

Budget Impact Analysis of Metformin Sustained Release for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions and medication nonadherence are well-known causes of sub-optimal disease control and worsened disease outcomes in patients who are treated for type 2 diabetes. Metformin sustained release (SR) might reduce these adverse events and improve medication adherence via a simplified treatment regimen for metformin immediate release (IR)-intolerant patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to estimate the budget impact of metformin SR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, compared to the current standard of care (SoC) with metformin IR. METHODS: A budget impact model was built to represent the course of the disease and treatment pathway of type 2 diabetes patients eligible for metformin SR from a healthcare payer's perspective. Patients were considered eligible if they used less than 2000 mg metformin IR per day, but suffered from adverse events that might lead to therapy discontinuation, and if they were newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The costs of type 2 diabetes treatment and related complications over a time horizon of 3 years were calculated. Univariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to show which parameters have the biggest influence on the budget impact. RESULTS: The budget impact analysis showed cost-savings of - €1,962,335 over a period of 3 years through implementation of metformin SR as an alternative to SoC with metformin IR. Savings were mostly driven by the delay of other, more expensive type 2 diabetes treatments, such as insulin. In sensitivity analyses, medication adherence and persistence appeared to have the biggest influence on the budget impact. CONCLUSION: Metformin SR could potentially be a cost-saving alternative to metformin IR for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands, especially in patients experiencing adverse events with metformin IR. However, more research is needed to better predict the effect of using once-daily metformin, compared to multiple dosages, on medication adherence and persistence and to evaluate whether metformin SR really decreases the amount of adverse events.

Cost-effectiveness analysis and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVES: In the 'Comparison of an Oral Factor Xa Inhibitor With Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Cancer With Venous Thromboembolism' (SELECT-D) trial, rivaroxaban showed relatively low venous thromboembolism (VTE) recurrence but higher bleeding compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer. We aim to calculate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk of recurrent VTE. SETTING: We built a Markov model to calculate the cost-effectiveness from a societal perspective over a 5-year time horizon for the Dutch healthcare setting. PARTICIPANTS: A hypothetical cohort of 1000 cancer patients with VTE entered the model with baseline characteristics based on the SELECT-D trial. INTERVENTION: Six months of treatment with rivaroxaban (15 mg two times per day for first 3 weeks followed by 20 mg once daily) was compared with 6 months of treatment with dalteparin (200 IU/kg daily during month 1 followed by 150 IU/kg daily). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The robustness of the model was evaluated in probabilistic and univariate sensitivity analyses. A budget impact analysis was performed to calculate the total annual financial consequences for a societal perspective in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the base case and all scenarios, rivaroxaban were cost-saving while also slightly improving the patient's health, resulting in economically dominant ICERs. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 77.8% and 98.7% of the simulations showed rivaroxaban to be cost-saving and more effective for a 5-year and 6-month time horizon, respectively. Rivaroxaban can save up to €11 326 763 (CI €5 164 254 to €17 363 231) in approximately 8000 cancer patients with VTE per year compared with dalteparin based on a 1-year time horizon. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rivaroxaban is economically dominant over dalteparin in patients with cancer at risk for recurrent VTE in the Netherlands. The use of rivaroxaban instead of dalteparin can save over €10 million per year, primarily driven by the difference in drug costs.

Cost-effectiveness of apixaban compared to other anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation in the real-world and trial settings.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and real-world data (RWD) in patients with atrial fibrillation have shown that-compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)-non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are at least as effective in the prevention of ischaemic stroke, while decreasing the risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the NOAC apixaban versus other NOACs (dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban) and VKA, for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation by including the available data both from RCT and real-world analyses of all NOACs into one integrative previously published model. METHODS: The model was updated to the current Dutch healthcare situation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated using either efficacy/effectiveness and safety data derived from a network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizing NOAC RCTs or RWD. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify eligible publication to best inform the RWD-based analysis. Additional sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the outcomes. RESULTS: In the NMA-based analysis, apixaban appeared to be cost-effective compared to VKA (€3,506 per quality adjusted life-year) and dominant (cost-saving and more effective) over dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg, edoxaban and rivaroxaban. In the RWD-based analysis, apixaban was dominant over all other anticoagulants. In the scenario analysis apixaban appeared to be not cost-effective compared to dabigatran 150 mg, when using equal event-unrelated treatment discontinuation rates for each drug. In all other scenarios apixaban is cost-effective or cost-saving compared to VKA and other NOACs. CONCLUSION: Based on RCTs as well as RWD, we conclude that apixaban is generally cost-effective or even cost-saving (less costly and more effective) compared to VKA and other NOACs in the overall population of patients with atrial fibrillation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sacubitril/Valsartan in Germany: An Application of the Efficiency Frontier.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-effectiveness of new treatments in Germany, the efficiency frontier (EF) method has been developed. We compared the cost-effectiveness analysis using international standards and the German methodology, using the heart failure drug sacubitril/valsartan as an example. METHODS: A previously developed Markov model was adapted to include 4 treatment options: no treatment, enalapril, candesartan, and sacubitril/valsartan. The internationally used incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Additionally, EFs, net monetary benefits (NMBs), and price-acceptability curves were created according to German guidelines. All analyses were performed from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance. RESULTS: The base-case ICER for sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril is €19 300/quality-adjusted life-year. On the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve, sacubitril/valsartan is most likely to be cost-effective, out of all included comparators, from a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €18 250/quality-adjusted life-year onward. No EF could be constructed for the base case. Taking the uncertainty of the input parameters into account for the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, a NMB of around -€14 000 was calculated, depending on the outcome considered, with the NMB being zero at a daily price for sacubitril/valsartan ranging from €1.52 to €1.67. CONCLUSION: We calculated an ICER for Germany, comparable to previously published cost-effectiveness analyses for Europe, which widely concluded sacubitril/valsartan to be cost-effective. Using the German EF approach, a considerable discount needs to be applied before sacubitril/valsartan can be considered cost-effective.