Time filter

Source Type

Muduma G.,Astellas Pharma EMEA Ltd | Odeyemi I.,Astellas Pharma EMEA Ltd | Pollock R.F.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications
Journal of Medical Economics | Year: 2015

Background and aims: While short-term kidney graft survival has gradually improved over time, improvements in long-term graft survival have been more modest. One key clinical factor limiting improved longer-term outcomes is antibody-mediated rejection (AbMR), the incidence of which appears to be higher in patients who are non-adherent to immunosuppressants. Recent data show that adherence can be improved by reducing pill burden. The aim of the present study was to model the incidence and economic consequences of graft loss and AbMR in patients taking once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus in the UK. Methods: A combined decision tree and Markov model was developed to estimate the incidence of graft failure, AbMR and mortality in renal transplant recipients taking once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus. Underlying rates of graft failure and mortality were derived from UK-specific sources. Proportions of patients adherent to once- vs twice-daily tacrolimus were taken from a recent randomized clinical trial and relative risks of graft failure and AbMR were taken from a prospective, multi-center analysis of 315 patients. Cost data were taken from the British National Formulary and National Health Service reference costs and reported in 2014 pounds sterling. Results: Modeling results showed that improved adherence would be associated with reduced incidence of AbMR and graft failure in renal transplant recipients. Based on improvements in adherence resulting from switching from twice-daily to once-daily tacrolimus, the modeling analysis projected cost savings of GBP 4862 per patient over 5 years with Advagraf relative to Prograf, on absolute costs of GBP 40,974 and GBP 45,836, respectively. Conclusions: Using Advagraf in place of Prograf in renal transplant recipients was predicted to be associated with lower pharmacy, dialysis and AbMR treatment costs, with the reduction in AbMR and dialysis costs being driven by improved adherence to the Advagraf regimen and consequent reductions in graft failure and onset of AbMR. © 2015 Taylor & Francis. Source

Pollock R.F.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications
Swiss medical weekly : official journal of the Swiss Society of Infectious Diseases, the Swiss Society of Internal Medicine, the Swiss Society of Pneumology | Year: 2010

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral anti-diabetic agents (OADs) in Switzerland. A validated computer model of diabetes was used to project outcomes reported from a published longitudinal study of SMBG in type 2 diabetes patients, treated with OADs and with no history of SMBG, over a 30-year time horizon and cost-effectiveness was assessed from the perspective of a third party healthcare payer. Costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% annually in line with recommended practice. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Once, twice or three times daily SMBG was associated with improvements in HbA1c which led to increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and reduced incidence of diabetes complications compared with no SMBG in type 2 diabetes patients on OADs. Direct medical costs increased by CHF 528, CHF 1'650 and CHF 2'899 in patients performing SMBG once, twice or three times daily compared to those not using SMBG, respectively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were well below commonly quoted willingness-to-pay thresholds at CHF 9'177, CHF 12'928 and CHF 17'342 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained respectively. Based on data from a large observational study, SMBG is likely to be cost-effective by generally accepted standards in SMBG-naïve patients on oral anti-diabetic agents in the Swiss setting. Source

Marty R.,HEVA | Roze S.,HEVA | Bresse X.,SP MSD SNC | Largeron N.,SP MSD SNC | Smith-Palmer J.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications
BMC Cancer | Year: 2013

Background: HPV is related to a number of cancer types, causing a considerable burden in both genders in Europe. Female vaccination programs can substantially reduce the incidence of HPV-related diseases in women and, to some extent, men through herd immunity. The objective was to estimate the incremental benefit of vaccinating boys and girls using the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in Europe versus girls-only vaccination. Incremental benefits in terms of reduction in the incidence of HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18-related diseases (including cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, penile, and head and neck carcinomas and genital warts) were assessed.Methods: The analysis was performed using a model constructed in Microsoft®Excel, based on a previously-published dynamic transmission model of HPV vaccination and published European epidemiological data on incidence of HPV-related diseases. The incremental benefits of vaccinating 12-year old girls and boys versus girls-only vaccination was assessed (70% vaccine coverage were assumed for both). Sensitivity analyses around vaccine coverage and duration of protection were performed.Results: Compared with screening alone, girls-only vaccination led to 84% reduction in HPV 16/18-related carcinomas in females and a 61% reduction in males. Vaccination of girls and boys led to a 90% reduction in HPV 16/18-related carcinomas in females and 86% reduction in males versus screening alone. Relative to a girls-only program, vaccination of girls and boys led to a reduction in female and male HPV-related carcinomas of 40% and 65%, respectively and a reduction in the incidence of HPV 6/11-related genital warts of 58% for females and 71% for males versus girls-only vaccination.Conclusions: In Europe, the vaccination of 12-year old boys and girls against HPV 6, 11, 16 and 18 would be associated with substantial additional clinical benefits in terms of reduced incidence of HPV-related genital warts and carcinomas versus girls-only vaccination. The incremental benefits of adding boys vaccination are highly dependent on coverage in girls. Therefore, further analyses should be performed taking into account the country-specific situation. In addition to clinical benefits, substantial economic benefits are also anticipated and warrant further investigation as do the social and ethical implications of including boys in vaccination programs. © 2013 Marty et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. Source

Davies M.J.,University of Leicester | Chubb B.D.,Novo Nordisk AS | Smith I.C.,Novo Nordisk AS | Valentine W.J.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications
Diabetic Medicine | Year: 2012

Aim To investigate the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide as add-on to metformin vs. glimepiride or sitagliptin in patients with Type2 diabetes uncontrolled with first-line metformin. Methods Data were sourced from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. glimepiride, both in combination with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, both as add-on to metformin. Only the subgroup of patients in whom liraglutide was added to metformin monotherapy was included in the cost-utility analysis. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate outcomes and costs with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8mg vs. glimepiride and vs. sitagliptin over patients' lifetimes. Treatment effects were taken directly from the trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum and costs were accounted from a third-party payer (UK National Health System) perspective. Results Treatment with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8mg resulted, respectively, in mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32±0.15 and 0.28±0.14 quality-adjusted life years vs. glimepiride, and 0.19±0.15 and 0.31±0.15 quality-adjusted life years vs. sitagliptin, and was associated with higher costs of £3003±£678 and £4688±£639 vs. glimepiride, and £1842±£751 and £3224±£683 vs. sitagliptin, over a patient's lifetime. Both liraglutide doses were cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £9449 and £16501 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. glimepiride, and £9851 and £10465 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. sitagliptin, respectively. Conclusions Liraglutide, added to metformin monotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type2 diabetes in a UK setting. © 2011 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine © 2011 Diabetes UK. Source

Ericsson A.,Novo Nordisk AS | Pollock R.F.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications | Hunt B.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications | Valentine W.J.,Ossian Health Economics and Communications
Journal of Medical Economics | Year: 2013

Objective: To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden. Methods: A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios. Results: Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively. Limitations: The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon. © 2013 Informa UK Ltd. Source

Discover hidden collaborations