Search

This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain.Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP = 1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders.Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively.A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52.This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

Background This was an updated network meta-analysis (NMA) of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents and laser photocoagulation in patients with diabetic macular edema (DME). Unlike previous NMA that used meta-regression to account for potential confounding by systematic variation in treatment effect modifiers across studies, this update incorporated individual patient-level data (IPD) regression to provide more robust adjustment. Methods An updated review was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials for inclusion in a Bayesian NMA. The network included intravitreal aflibercept (IVT-AFL) 2 mg bimonthly (2q8) after 5 initial doses, ranibizumab 0.5 mg as-needed (PRN), ranibizumab 0.5 mg treat-and-extend (T&E), and laser photocoagulation. Outcomes included in the analysis were change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), measured using an Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart, and patients with ≥10 and ≥ 15 ETDRS letter gains/losses at 12 months. Analyses were performed using networks restricted to IPD-only and IPD and aggregate data with (i) no covariable adjustment, (ii) covariable adjustment for baseline BVCA assuming common interaction effects (against reference treatment), and (iii) covariable adjustments specific to each treatment comparison (restricted to IPD-only network). Results Thirteen trials were included in the analysis. IVT-AFL 2q8 was superior to laser in all analyses. IVT-AFL 2q8 showed strong evidence of superiority (95% credible interval [CrI] did not cross null) versus ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.20, 95% CrI 1.90–8.52 ETDRS letters), ≥15 ETDRS letter gain (odds ratio [OR] 2.30, 95% CrI 1.12–4.20), and ≥10 ETDRS letter loss (OR 0.25, 95% CrI 0.05–0.74) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model with baseline BCVA adjustment). IVT-AFL 2q8 was not superior to ranibizumab 0.5 mg T&E for mean change in BCVA (mean difference 5.15, 95% CrI -0.26–10.61 ETDRS letters) (IPD and aggregate random-effects model). Conclusions This NMA, which incorporated IPD to improve analytic robustness, showed evidence of superiority of IVT-AFL 2q8 to laser and ranibizumab 0.5 mg PRN. These results were irrespective of adjustment for baseline BCVA. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12886-018-1006-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prostate cancer follow-up is traditionally provided by clinicians in a hospital setting. Growing numbers of prostate cancer survivors mean that this model of care may not be economically sustainable, and a number of alternative approaches have been suggested. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to compare the costs of three alternative strategies for prostate cancer follow-up in Ireland—the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines, the National Institute of Health Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and current practice. A cost minimisation analysis was performed using a Markov model with three arms (EAU guidelines, NICE guidelines and current practice) comparing follow-up for men with prostate cancer treated with curative intent. The model took a health care payer’s perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Current practice was the least cost efficient arm of the model, the NICE guidelines were most cost efficient (74 % of current practice costs) and the EAU guidelines intermediate (92 % of current practice costs). For the 2562 new cases of prostate cancer diagnosed in 2009, the Irish health care system could have saved €760,000 over a 10-year period if the NICE guidelines were adopted. This is the first study investigating costs of prostate cancer follow-up in the Irish setting. While economic models are designed as a simplification of complex real-world situations, these results suggest potential for significant savings within the Irish health care system associated with implementation of alternative models of prostate cancer follow-up care.