Key Points Question Which atypical antipsychotic is most beneficial and safe for the treatment of behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia? Findings In this network meta-analysis of 17 studies (5373 patients), no significant differences were found across measures of effectiveness and safety among aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone, although differences were found for some of these drugs and outcomes compared with placebo. No trials were found for other atypical antipsychotics. Meaning Insufficient evidence exists on which atypical antipsychotic is both safest and most beneficial across several measures for people with dementia, and this study suggests that a single most effective and safe treatment option may not exist.

LRYGB is the optimal bariatric technique, being the most cost-effective compared to LSG, LAGB, and no surgery options for most subgroups. However, LSG was the most cost-effective choice when initial BMI ranged between 35 and 39.9 kg/m.

No abstract

Background Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. Objective This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. Methods This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. Results In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. Conclusions Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers. Plain Language Summary Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy Digital Features To view digital features for this article go to

No abstract

Background and aims Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) imposes a substantial and ongoing burden on the US healthcare system and society. Molnupiravir is a new oral antiviral for treating COVID-19 in outpatient settings. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness profile of molnupiravir versus best supportive care in the treatment of adult patients with mild-tomoderate COVID-19 at risk of progression to severe disease, from a US payer's perspective. Methods The model was developed using a decision tree for the short-term acute phase of COVID-19 and a Markov state transition model for the long-term post-acute phase. This model compared molnupiravir with best supportive care as consistent with the MOVe-OUT trial. Costs were reported in 2021 US dollars. Transition probabilities were derived from the phase III MOVe-OUT trial and the TriNetX real-world electronic health records database. Costs were derived from the TriNetX database and utility values from a de novo, vignette-based utility study. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA/PSA) were conducted. Primary outcomes included proportion hospitalized, proportion who died overall and by highest healthcare setting at the end of the acute phase, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a lifetime (100 years) horizon, discounted at 3% annually and assessed at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $100,000 per QALY. ResultsIn this model, the use of molnupiravir led to an increase in QALYs (0.210) and decrease in direct total medical costs (−$895) per patient across a lifetime horizon, compared with best supportive care in COVID-19 outpatients. Molnupiravir was the dominant intervention when compared with best supportive care. Patients treated with molnupiravir were less likely to be hospitalized (6.38% vs. 9.20%) and more likely to remain alive (99.88% vs. 98.71%) during the acute phase. Through DSA, molnupiravir treatment effect of hospitalization reduction was identified to be the most influential parameter, and through PSA, molnupiravir remained dominant in 84% of the total simulations and, overall, 100% cost effective. Conclusion This analysis suggests that molnupiravir is cost effective compared with best supportive care for the treatment of adult outpatients with COVID-19. However, our study was limited by the unavailability of the most recent information on the rapidly evolving pandemic, including new viral variants, patient populations affected, and changes in standards of care. Further research should explore the impact of vaccination on the cost effectiveness of molnupiravir and other therapies, based on real-world data, to account for these changes, including the impact of vaccination and immunity.

Objective Given the high economic burden of disease among adult patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a worsening heart failure event in the US, this study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of vericiguat plus prior standard-of-care therapies (PSoCT) versus PSoCT alone from a US Medicare perspective. Methods A four-state Markov model (alive prior to heart failure hospitalization, alive during heart failure hospitalization, alive post-heart failure hospitalization, and death) was developed to predict clinical and economic outcomes, based on the results of the VICTORIA trial, in which patients with chronic HFrEF following a worsening heart failure were randomized to placebo or vericiguat, in addition to PSoCT, which consisted of β-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and the angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril/valsartan. Risks of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular mortality were based on multivariable regression models derived from VICTORIA data. Utilities were derived from VICTORIA EQ-5D data and the literature. Costs included drug acquisition, heart failure hospitalization, routine care, and terminal care. Primary outcomes included heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental costs per QALY gained over a 30-year lifetime horizon, discounted at 3.0% annually. Results For the VICTORIA overall intent-to-treat population, compared with PSoCT, vericiguat plus PSoCT resulted in 19 fewer heart failure hospitalizations and 13 fewer cardiovascular deaths per 1000 patients, as well as 0.28 QALY gained per patient at an incremental cost of $23,322, leading to $82,448 per QALY gained. Conclusions Based on the results of VICTORIA, patients treated with vericiguat had lower rates of heart failure hospitalization and cardiovascular death. The addition of vericiguat to PSoCT was estimated to increase QALYs and to be cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained.

To evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of letermovir versus no prophylaxis for the prevention of cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo‐HCT) recipients. A decision model for 100 patients was developed to estimate the probabilities of cytomegalovirus infection, cytomegalovirus disease, various other complications, and death in patients receiving letermovir versus no prophylaxis. The probabilities of clinical outcomes were based on the pivotal phase 3 trial of letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis versus placebo in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT. Costs of prophylaxis with letermovir and of each clinical outcome were derived from published sources or the trial clinical study reports. Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in terms of cost per quality‐adjusted life year (QALY) gained were used in the model. One‐way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore uncertainty around the base‐case analysis. In this model, the use of letermovir prophylaxis would lead to an increase of QALYs (619) and direct medical cost ($1  733  794) compared with no prophylaxis (578 QALYs; $710  300) in cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT. Letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost‐effective option versus no prophylaxis with base‐case analysis ICER $25 046/QALY gained. One‐way sensitivity analysis showed the most influential parameter was mortality rate. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a 92% probability of letermovir producing an ICER below the commonly accepted willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100 000/QALY gained. Based on this model, letermovir use for cytomegalovirus prophylaxis was a cost‐effective option in adult cytomegalovirus‐seropositive recipients of an allo‐HCT.