No abstract

No abstract

maintained treatment effect from long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responder were primarily defined using a composite end-point that based on an HbA1c#7.0% threshold AND no weight gain AND no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia. The NNT was calculated to determine the average number of patients needed to be treated in order to gain one additional successful responder. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the robustness of results. Results: For the primary composite end-point, cost per responder results were 136,290 CNY for lixisenatide group, 231,487 CNY for Basal-Plus group, and 222,424 CNY for Basal-Bolus group. The NNT analysis showed that there was approximately one additional responder for every 7.65 and 8.74 patients treated with lixisenatide combined with basal insulin compared to Basal-Plus and Basal-Bolus, respectively. The sensitivity analysis proved the robustness of results. Conclusions: Lixisenatide combined with basal insulin is a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with Basal-Plus and Basal-Bolus for T2DM patients inadequately controlled by basal insulin in China.

in the assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual therapeutic strategies of anemia, the use of intravenous iron appears to be significantly cost saving in chemotherapy-induced anemia in breast cancers and gastrointestinal cancers. OBJECTIVES:The objective of this study was to determine, from the perspective of PMH, the financial impact of treating patients with CLL using R and intravenous FC (R-FC IV) versus R and orally administered FC (R-FC PO). METHODS: A cost analysis was performed from the perspective of PMH. All drug and administration costs were obtained from relevant sources in the province of Ontario and validated by PMH. Rituximab dosing was set at 375 mg/m 2 for cycle 1 (day 1) and 500 mg/m 2 of cycles 2-6 (day 1). Intravenous F and C were dosed at 25 mg/m 2 and 250 mg/m 2 , respectively, for 6 cycles (days 1-3). Oral dosing of these drugs was set at 40 mg/m 2 and 325 mg/m 2 , respectively. Drug utilization was estimated based on a body surface area of 1.8 m 2 .

in Israel has been updated annually since 1999 but results from economic evaluations (EE) were not used to support coverage decisions. We explored the potential availability of EE results to the committee responsible for updating the NLHS at the times of coverage decisions and whether availability and use of these data could have altered these decisions. METHODS: We used the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry (http://www.cearegistry.org) to search for relevant cost/QALY EE for all drugs and their relevant indications added to the NLHS from 1999 through 2008. For each pair of drug and cost/QALY publication we recorded the publication date, the intervention(s) and comparator(s) considered and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) to determine value for money. Based on available ICERs we qualitatively classified each coverage decision into one of three categories: 1)The coverage decision can be justified on EE grounds (EE suggest the drug is either dominant/cost-saving or provides good value for money); 2)The coverage decision cannot be justified on EE grounds; 3)The evidence from EE is mixed and we could not determine whether the coverage decision can be justified or not. RESULTS: Relevant cost/QALY analyses were found for 181(40%) of 451 drugs included in the updates of the NLHS of which only 71 (16%) of drugs had relevant EE prior to the coverage decision. Based on the evidence gathered from EE prior to and following the coverage decision, we suggest that decisions were correct in 56% of the cases, incorrect in 17% and ambiguous in 27%. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EE to support coverage decisions could have altered decisions in a sizable proportion of drugs added to the NLHS in Israel. Avoiding the use of results from EE to support public funding of drugs may lead to a non-optimal use of scarce healthcare resources.