Introduction This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir compared to other existing therapies (SoC) in Turkey to treat COVID-19 patients hospitalized with < 94% saturation and low-flow oxygen therapy (LFOT) requirement. Methods We compared remdesivir as the treatment for COVID-19 with the treatments in the Turkish treatment guidelines. Analyses were performed using data from 78 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with SpO 2 < 94% who received LFOT in a tertiary healthcare facility. COVID-19 episode costs were calculated for 78 patients considering the cost of modeled remdesivir treatment in the same group from the payer’s perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) was calculated for remdesivir versus the SoC for the population identified. For Turkey, a reimbursement threshold value between USD 8599 (1 × per capita gross domestic product—GDP) and USD 25.797 (3 × GDP) per QALY was used. Results In the remdesivir arm, the length of hospital stay (LOS) was 3 days shorter than the SOC. The low ventilator requirement in the remdesivir arm was one factor that decreased the QALY disutility value. In patients who were transferred to intensive care unit (ICU) from the ward, the mean LOS was 17.3 days (SD 13.6), and the mean cost of stay was USD 155.3/day (SD 168.0), while in patients who were admitted to ICU at baseline, the mean LOS was 13.1 days (SD 13.7), and the mean cost of stay was USD 207.9/day (SD 133.6). The mean cost of episode per patient was USD 3461.1 (SD 2259.8) in the remdesivir arm and USD 3538.9 (SD 3296.0) in the SOC arm. Incremental QALYs were estimated at 0.174. Remdesivir treatment was determined to be cost saving vs. SoC. Conclusions Remdesivir, which results in shorter LOS and lower rates of intubation requirements in ICU patients than existing therapies, is associated with higher QALYs and lower costs, dominating SoC in patients with SpO 2 < 94% who require oxygen support. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-021-01874-9.

No abstract

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a significant burden on population well being and healthcare expenditure in Turkey, with disease prevalence continuing to increase. Insulin treatment is necessary for patients failing to achieve glycaemic control with lifestyle modification or oral antidiabetic drugs. While neutral protamin Hagedorn (NPH) insulin has been traditionally prescribed for insulin introduction, insulin glargine has been shown to reduce glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with a more favourable hypoglycaemic profile. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin in patients with T2DM in Turkey, from a Social Security Institution perspective. Methods: A previously published discrete event simulation model of T2DM progression was utilised to characterise the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine in a Turkish population given the benefits observed in clinical practice. Improvements in glycaemic control have been incorporated using data from The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database in the United Kingdom, combined with meta-regression results describing the relationship between hypoglycaemia and glycaemic control. Outcomes were evaluated over a 40-year horizon, and costs and benefits discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Results are reported in Turksih lira (TL), 2012. Results: Over a lifetime, the Incremental Cost-effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of insulin glargine compared to NPH was 40,101 TL per Quality-adjusted Life Year (QALY). Almost 52 hypoglycaemic events per patient were avoided with the use of insulin glargine compared to NPH, at an incremental lifetime cost of 7,140 TL per patient. The cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine is reduced when modelling only those benefits considered in the trial setting, while the cost-effectiveness profile can be expected to further improve in patients with higher HbA1c levels at baseline. Conclusion: It is difficult to interpret the results of modelling as there is no official cost-effectiveness threshold in Turkey. However, the results may be evaluated using thresholds derived according to methodology proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Insulin glargine is expected to be costeffective compared to NPH insulin, with an ICER below three times the estimated gross domestic product (GDP) per capita; 56,850 TL.

Aims This study aimed to determine HIV incidence and prevalence in Turkey and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of improving testing and diagnosis in the next 20 years. Background HIV incidence in Turkey has been rapidly increasing in the last decade with a particularly high rate of infection for younger populations, which underscores the urgent need for a robust prevention program and improved testing capacity for HIV. Methods We developed a dynamic compartmental model of HIV transmission and progression among the Turkish population aged 15–64 and assessed the effect of improving testing and diagnosis. The model generated the number of new HIV cases by transmission risk and CD4 level, HIV diagnoses, HIV prevalence, continuum of care, the number of HIV-related deaths, and the expected number of infections prevented from 2020 to 2040. We also explored the cost impact of HIV and the cost-effectiveness of improving testing and diagnosis. Results Under the base case scenario, the model estimated an HIV incidence of 13,462 cases in 2020, with 63% undiagnosed. The number of infections was estimated to increase by 27% by 2040, with HIV incidence in 2040 reaching 376,889 and HIV prevalence 2,414,965 cases. Improving testing and diagnosis to 50%, 70%, and 90%, would prevent 782,789, 2,059,399, and 2,336,564 infections-32%, 85%, and 97% reduction in 20 years, respectively. Improved testing and diagnosis would reduce spending between $1.8 and $8.8 billion. Conclusions In the case of no improvement in the current continuum of care, HIV incidence and prevalence will significantly increase over the next 20 years, placing a significant burden on the Turkish healthcare system. However, improving testing and diagnosis could substantially reduce the number of infections, ameliorating the public health and disease burden aspects.

OBJECTIVES:To compare cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin (RSV) versus ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) in achieving LDL-C goals (NCEP- ATP III 2001 and 2004 guidelines), in daily outpatient practice in Mexico. METHODS: Retrospective study. From January 2004 to December 2010, outpatient medical records in 15 Mexican hospitals/clinics were reviewed to identify patients with dyslipidemia and their corresponding serum lipid measurements documented before receiving drug therapy with either RSV (5mg, 10mg, or 20mg once daily) or E/S (5/5mg, 10/10mg, 10/ 20mg or 10/40mg once daily); and lipid levels recorded at least after 8 weeks of treatment. The efficacy was assessed by a) the proportion of patients who achieved the LDL-C goal, and b) the percent reduction in LDL-C after 8 weeks of treatment. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from an institutional perspective, using the exchange rate of August 2011 of 12.2424 pesos/USD. RESULTS: Using ATP III 2001 criteria, percentage of patients who reached LDL-C goals was RSV: 81.3% and E/S 77.1% (p ϭ 0.2972). Using ATP III 2004 criteria were: RSV, 61.3% vs. E/S, 58.5% (pϭ0.2548). The average treatment cost was statistically significant higher for E/S patients (239.49 USD) versus 192.74 USD for RSV patients (pϭ0.0033).