Search

We aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of Favipiravir treatment versus standard of care (SC) in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients from the Saudi healthcare payer perspective. We used the patient-level simulation method to simulate a cohort of 415 patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 disease who were admitted to two Saudi COVID-19 referral hospitals: 220 patients on Favipiravir and 195 patients on SC. We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Favipiravir versus SC in terms of the probability to be discharged alive from hospital and the mean time in days to discharge one patient alive. The model was performed twice: first, using unweighted, and second, using weighted clinical and economic data. Weighting using the inverse weight probability method was performed to achieve balance in baseline characteristics. In the unweighted model, base case (probabilistic) ICER estimates favored Favipiravir at savings of Saudi Riyal (SAR)1,611,511 (SAR1,998,948) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive. As to mean time to discharging one patient alive, ICERs favored Favipiravir at savings of SAR11,498 (SAR11,125). Similar results were observed in the weighted model with savings using Favipiravir of SAR1,514,893 (SAR2,453,551) per 1% increase in the probability of being discharged alive, and savings of SAR11,989 (SAR11,277) for each day a patient is discharged alive. From the payer perspective, the addition of Favipiravir in moderately to severely ill COVID-19 patients was cost-savings over SC. Favipiravir was associated with a higher probability of discharging patients alive and lower daily spending on hospitalization than SC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To perform a cost of control analysis of glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA) in Saudi Arabia (SA) and determine the economic impact of adopting GLP1RAs. A budget impact model that captures the cost of control model was constructed to simulate hypothetical patient on six treatment options: a current mix of 60% liraglutide and 40% dulaglutide, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide. We estimated the relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c targets (≤6.5% or < 7.0%). For each treatment option, annual treatment cost, proportion of patients achieving HbA1c targets, and cost to treat major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were aggregated to estimate the cost of control per patient per year (CCPPPY) over 5-year horizon (2021–2025). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed as a confirmatory analysis. The CCPPPY to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% using current mix, semaglutide, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 17,097/SAR 14,113, SAR 12,889/SAR 11,123, SAR 15,594/SAR 12,892, SAR 19,184/SAR 15,940, SAR 580,211/SAR 380,936, and SAR 246,570/SAR 143,759, respectively. The relative amounts of SAR spend to achieve HbA1c ≤ 6.5%/<7.0% relative to 1 SAR on semaglutide in case of adopting current mix, liraglutide, dulaglutide, exenatide, and lixisenatide were SAR 1.42/SAR 1.18, SAR 1.30/SAR 1.07, SAR 1.60/SAR 1.33, SAR 48.33/SAR 31.73, and SAR 20.54/SAR 11.97, respectively. These results were confirmed in the PSA. Semaglutide 1 mg once weekly was the most economically favorable GLP1RA; associated with the least CCPPPY, and amount of SAR spent to achieve HbA1c of ≤6.50%/<7.00% versus all other GLP1RAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to indirectly compare the cardiovascular (CV) safety of new antidiabetic medications in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). DATA SYNTHESIS: A search of the Embase and MEDLINE databases was conducted systematically to identify cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) of new antidiabetic medications (DPP-4 inhibitors, GLP-1 agonists and SGLT-2 inhibitors) in patients with T2DM. The primary outcomes were the composite endpoint of CV death, nonfatal MI, and nonfatal stroke (MACE), death from CV causes, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke and death from any cause. Hospitalization for HF and unstable angina were evaluated as secondary endpoints. A total of 9 trials, including 87,162 patients, met the eligibility criteria and were retained for the analysis. The NMA results showed no significant differences among the DPP-4 inhibitors (sitagliptin, alogliptin, and saxagliptin) in any of the CV endpoints. Similarly, no significant changes were seen in the NMA among the GLP-1 receptor agonists nor the SGLT-2 inhibitors. The pairwise meta-analysis showed that DPP-4 inhibitors have a CV safety profiled comparable to placebo. GLP-1 agonists on the other hand, showed significant reduction in MACE (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87-0.97), death from CV causes (RR=0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97), and death from any cause (RR=0.89; 95% CI 0.82-0.96). SGLT-2 inhibitors showed significant reduction in hospitalization for heart failure events (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.6-0.86) compared to placebo. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis has shown that new antidiabetic medications do not impose any additional CV risk. The indirect comparison among the medications of each class resulted in no significant changes regarding CV endpoints and death from any cause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Plerixafor is approved for CD34+ cell mobilization, but cost considerations limit its routine use. • Our center needed to improve collection efficiency to enhance apheresis resource utilization. • Plerixafor was administered to all myeloma patients undergoing mobilization. • This change resulted in improved collection efficiency without increasing overall costs. The stem cell mobilization agent plerixafor significantly improves CD34+ stem cell procurement in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant. We compared mobilization success rates and costs of two regimens of plerixafor administration: pre-emptive (P-PL, initiated the evening prior to the first day of stem cell collection) and standard (S-PL, initiated the evening prior to the second day of stem cell collection in the event of inadequate collection on the first day). Patients with multiple myeloma undergoing mobilization were categorized as either P-PL or S-PL. Stem cell collection success was evaluated using logistic regression models. Associated costs were aggregated in terms of average collections per patient in each mobilization option (patient level), and escalated to a panel of 5000 patients (population level). 299 patients were evaluable; 241 received P-PL and 58 received S-PL. Patients receiving P-PL had higher median CD34+ count pre-collection and higher median total CD34+ cell harvest on the first collection (6.75 × 106/kg for P-PL, 1.96 × 106/kg for S-PL; P< 0.01). In multivariable analyses, P-PL remained significantly associated with the ability to collect ≥2 × 106/kg CD34+ on the first day (OR = 4.05, 95% CI, 1.19–13.83, P = 0.03) and ≥5 × 106/kg CD34+ in total (OR = 3.09, 95% CI, 1.04–9.23, P = 0.04). P-PL saved $11,248 (46%) per patient compared with S-PL. P-PL significantly enhanced collection efficiency, with most patients completing collection in 1 day, resulting in substantial cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]