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.

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.

Impact of Ketamine on Analgosedative Consumption in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence available on continuous infusion ketamine versus nonketamine regimens for analgosedation in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from database establishment to November 2021 using the following search terms: critical care, ICU, ketamine, sedation, and anesthesia. All studies included the primary outcome of interest: daily opioid and/or sedative consumption. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant human studies were considered. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental studies, and observational cohort studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and appraised studies using the Cochrane RoB and ROBINS-I tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 13 RCTs, 5 retrospective, and 1 prospective cohort study were included (2255 participants). The primary analysis of six RCTs demonstrated reduced opioid consumption with ketamine regimens (n = 494 participants, -13.19 µg kg-1 h-1 morphine equivalents, 95% CI -22.10 to -4.28, P = 0.004). No significant difference was observed in sedative consumption, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU or hospital length of stay (LOS), intracranial pressure, and mortality. Small sample size of studies may have limited ability to detect true differences between groups. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This meta-analysis examining ketamine use in critically ill patients is the first restricting analysis to RCTs and includes up-to-date publication of trials. Findings may guide clinicians in consideration and dosing of ketamine for multimodal analgosedation. CONCLUSION: Results suggest ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative has the potential to reduce opioid exposure in postoperative and MV patients in the ICU. More RCTs are required before recommending routine use of ketamine in select populations.