The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

Objective: Dulaglutide 1.5?mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8?mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30?kg/m².

Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5?mg vs liraglutide 1.8?mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30?kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40?IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

Results: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5?mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8?mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5?mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

Limitations: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

Conclusion: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5?mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8?mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.     

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.     

A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Background and aims: Insulin degludec is an insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action that exhibits less intra-patient variability in its glucose-lowering activity, and reduces nocturnal, overall, and severe hypoglycemia relative to insulin glargine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec relative to insulin glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2DBOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2DBB) in Denmark.

Methods: A short-term (1 year) cost-utility model was developed to model insulin use, non-severe and severe hypoglycemia, and self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients using insulin degludec and insulin glargine from the perspective of a Danish healthcare payer. Where possible, data were derived from Danish patients with diabetes and meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for the two insulin regimens in each of the three diabetes populations.

Results: Insulin degludec dominated insulin glargine (i.e. reduced costs while improving quality-adjusted life expectancy) in patients with T1D and patients with type 2 diabetes using a basal-only insulin regimen. In the T2DBB cohort, insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 221,063 per QALY gained, which would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 (～DKK 224,000) per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were most affected by changes in hypoglycemia rate ratio assumptions, but were broadly insensitive to changes in individual input parameters.

Conclusions: Insulin degludec reduces incidence of hypoglycemia and improves quality-of-life in patients with diabetes. Over a 1-year time horizon, insulin degludec resulted in cost savings relative to insulin glargine in T1D and T2DBOT cohorts, while being cost-effective in T2DBB.     

Real-world rates,predictors, and associated costs of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine: results of a pooled analysis of six retrospective observational studies

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the real-world rates of hypoglycemia and related costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine with either a disposable pen or vial-and-syringe.

Methods:

Pooled data were evaluated from six previously published, retrospective, observational studies using US health plan insurance claims databases to investigate adults with T2DM who initiated insulin glargine. The current study evaluated baseline characteristics, hypoglycemic events, and costs during the 6 months prior to and 12 months following insulin glargine initiation. Comparisons were made between patients initiating treatment with a disposable pen (GLA-P) and vial-and-syringe (GLA-V). Multivariate analyses using baseline characteristics as covariates determined predictors of hypoglycemia after initiating insulin glargine.

Results:

This study included 23,098 patients (GLA-P: 14,911; GLA-V: 8187). Overall annual prevalence of hypoglycemia was low (6.3% overall, 2.2% related to hospital admission or emergency department visit). Prevalence was significantly lower with GLA-P (5.5% vs 7.7%; p?<?0.0001). Furthermore, average glycated hemoglobin HbA1c reduction was higher with GLA-P (?1.22% vs ?0.86%; p?=?0.0012). The average annual hypoglycemia-related cost associated with initiating insulin glargine was $293, with GLA-P being 46% lower than GLA-V ($225 vs $417; p?=?0.001). Patients who had already developed microvascular complications at the time of initiating insulin therapy were at higher risk for developing hypoglycemia.

Limitations:

This study is limited by the use of retrospective data and ICD-9-CM codes, which are subject to coding error. In addition, this pooled analysis used unmatched cohorts, with multivariate regression analyses employed to adjust for between-group differences. Finally, results describe a managed care sample and cannot be generalized to all patients with T2DM.

Conclusions:

Patients with T2DM initiating insulin glargine treatment showed low rates of hypoglycemia, especially when using a disposable pen device. Hypoglycemia-related costs were low, contributing a very small proportion to overall diabetes-related healthcare costs.     

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Research design and methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine.

Results:

At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2?mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35?kg/m²) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer’s perspective

Aims: An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer’s perspective.

Methods: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015?US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ～1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY.

Conclusions: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide,liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2?mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg and 1.8?mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

Results: In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2?mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8?mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20?μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8?mg (?£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8?mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20?μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5?mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2?mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20?μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76–99%.

Conclusion: Results suggest that exenatide 2?mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5?mg QW, liraglutide 1.2?mg QD, liraglutide 1.8?mg QD, and lixisenatide 20?μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

Abstract

Aims: The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

Materials and methods: Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results: IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.     

Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden

Abstract

Aims: This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide vs glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin or basal insulin in Sweden.

Materials and methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40?years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used. For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA).

Results: The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0?mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5?mg. In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0?mg dominated lixisenatide. The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide.

Limitations and conclusions: It is likely that this analysis is conservative in estimating the cardiovascular (CV) cost benefits associated with treatment with once-weekly semaglutide. In patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin, the analyses vs lixisenatide were based on results from an NMA, as no head-to-head clinical trial has been conducted for this comparison. These CEA results show that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective GLP-1 RA therapy for the treatment of T2D in patients inadequately controlled on metformin or basal insulin, addressing many current clinician, patient, and payer unmet needs in Sweden.     

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden

Abstract

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 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), 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.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus warfarin for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation in the Japanese healthcare setting

Abstract

Aims: This article aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban in comparison to warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), from a public healthcare payer’s perspective.

Materials and methods: Baseline event risks were obtained from the J-ROCKET AF trial and the treatment effect data were taken from a network meta-analysis. The other model inputs were extracted from the literature and official Japanese sources. The outcomes included the number of ischaemic strokes, myocardial infarctions, systemic embolisms and bleedings avoided, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The scenario analysis considered treatment effect data from the same network meta-analysis.

Results: In comparison with warfarin, rivaroxaban was estimated to avoid 0.284 ischaemic strokes per patient, to increase the number of QALYs by 0.535 per patient and to decrease the total costs by ¥118,892 (€1,011.11) per patient (1 JPY = 0.00850638 EUR; XE.com, 7 October 2019). Consequently, rivaroxaban treatment was found to be dominant compared to warfarin. In the scenario analysis, the ICER of rivaroxaban versus warfarin was ¥2,873,499 (€24,446.42) per QALY.

Limitations: The various sources of data used resulted in the heterogeneity of the cost-effectiveness analysis results. Although, rivaroxaban was cost-effective in the majority of cases.

Conclusion: Rivaroxaban is cost-effective against warfarin for stroke prevention in Japanese patients with NVAF, giving the payer WTP of 5,000,000 JPY.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients not well controlled by oral anti-diabetic (OAD) agents.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark,Finland, Norway,and Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin when initiating insulin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods:

Efficacy and safety data were derived from a 20-week multi-centre randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trial comparing insulin detemir and NPH insulin in insulin naïve people with T2DM, and short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness analyses were performed. As no significant differences in HbA_1c were observed between the two treatment arms, the model was based on significant differences in favour of insulin detemir in frequency of hypoglycaemia (Rate-Ratio?=?0.52; CI?=?0.44–0.61) and weight gain (Δ?=?0.9?kg). Model outcomes were measured in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) using published utility estimates. Acquisition costs for insulin and direct healthcare costs associated with non-severe hypoglycaemic events were obtained from National Health Service public sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Based on lower incidence of non-severe hypoglycaemic events and less weight gain, the QALY gain from initiating treatment with insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin was 0.01 per patient per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the individual countries were: Denmark, Danish Kroner 170,852 (€22,933); Finland, €28,349; Norway, Norwegian Kroner 169,789 (€21,768); and Sweden, Swedish Krona 226,622 (€25,097) per QALY gained. Possible limitations of the study are that data on hypoglycaemia and relative weight benefits from a clinical trial were combined with hypoglycaemia incidence data from observational studies. These populations may have slightly different patient characteristics.

Conclusions:

The lower risk of non-severe hypoglycaemia and less weight gain associated with using insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin when initiating insulin treatment in insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes provide economic benefits in the short-term. Based on cost/QALY threshold values, this represents good value for money in the Nordic countries. Using a short-term modelling approach may be conservative, as reduced frequency of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain may also have positive long-term health-related implications.     

Insulin degludec early clinical experience: does the promise from the clinical trials translate into clinical practice—a case-based evaluation

Abstract

Background:

Clinical experience of patients is an additional source of information that can inform prescribing decisions for new therapies in practice. In diabetes, for example, patients with recurrent hypoglycemia may be excluded from trials conducted for regulatory purposes. Using insulin degludec (IDeg), a new basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action as an example, an interim analysis is presented describing whether the decision to prescribe IDeg to patients experiencing treatment-limiting problems on their existing insulin regimes represented good clinical and economic value.

Methods:

Records from the first 51 consecutive patients with diabetes (35 type 1 [T1D] and 16 type 2 [T2D]) switching to insulin degludec from either insulin glargine (IGlar) or insulin detemir (IDet), mostly due to problems with hypoglycemia (39/51, 76.5%), were reviewed at up to 37 weeks. Patients indicated frequency of hypoglycemia and completed a disease-specific questionnaire reporting six measures of confidence and treatment satisfaction. For the largest group of exposed patents, the T1D module of the IMS Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment decision.

Findings:

HbA_1c decreased by 0.5?±?0.3% points and 0.7?±?0.3% points for T1D and T2D, respectively. Hypoglycemic events decreased by >90%. Combined mean scores were ≥3.7 (1?=?much worse, 3?=?no change, 5?=?much improved) for all six satisfaction and confidence items. In T1D, the treatment decision was highly cost-effective in the CDM lifetime analysis. Even when excluding benefits beyond hypoglycemia reduction, predicted cost per quality-adjusted life-year for IDeg vs IGlar/IDet was £10,754.

Interpretation:

These data illustrate the complementary nature of clinical trial and practice data when evaluating the value of therapeutic innovations in diabetes care. There were reductions in patient-reported hypoglycemia, reduced HbA_1c, and improved treatment satisfaction in relation to the decision to prescribe IDeg. Initial health economic evaluation suggested that the decision to prescribe IDeg in this phenotypic group of T1D patients represented good value for money.     

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine,or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Aims:

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all?±?oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita.

Results:

Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, ?0.68 in India, ?0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, ?0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses.

Conclusions:

Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all?±?OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

Febuxostat in the management of gout: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective:

To determine the cost-effectiveness of febuxostat vs allopurinol for the management of gout.

Methods:

A stochastic microsimulation cost-effectiveness model with a US private-payer perspective and 5-year time horizon was developed. Model flow based on guideline and real-world treatment paradigms incorporated gout flare, serum uric acid (sUA) testing, treatment titration, discontinuation, and adverse events, chronic kidney disease (CKD) incidence and progression, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) incidence. Outcomes were estimated for the general gout population and for gout patients with CKD stages 3/4. Modeled treatment interventions were daily oral febuxostat 40–80?mg and allopurinol 100–300?mg. Baseline patient characteristics were taken from epidemiologic studies, efficacy data from randomized controlled trials, adverse event rates from package inserts, and costs from the literature, government sources, and expert opinion. Eight clinically-relevant incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated: per patient reaching target sUA, per flare avoided, per CKD incidence, progression, stages 3/4 progression, and stage 5 progression avoided, per incident T2DM avoided, and per death avoided.

Results:

Five-year incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the general gout population were $5377 per patient reaching target sUA, $1773 per flare avoided, $221,795 per incident CKD avoided, $29,063 per CKD progression avoided, $36,018 per progression to CKD 3/4 avoided, $71,426 per progression to CKD 5 avoided, $214,277 per incident T2DM avoided, and $217,971 per death avoided. In patients with CKD 3/4, febuxostat dominated allopurinol for all cost-effectiveness outcome measures.

Conclusions:

Febuxostat may be a cost-effective alternative to allopurinol, especially for patients with CKD stages 3 or 4.     

The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs bolus insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy when glycemic control is sub-optimal with titrated basal insulin glargine and metformin.

Methods: The analysis was based on the recent 4B Study, which compared exenatide BID and lispro TID as add-on therapies in subjects with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled, despite titrated insulin glargine. The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate patient costs and health benefits beyond the 4B Study. The Swedish healthcare perspective was adopted for this analysis; costs are reported in €EUR to aid interpretation. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with exenatide BID compared to lispro TID.

Results: Exenatide BID was associated with an incremental cost of €1,270 and a QALY increase of +0.64 compared with lispro TID over 40 years. The cost per QALY gained with exenatide BID compared with lispro TID was €1,971, which is within conventional limits of cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness results were generally robust to alternative assumptions and values for key model parameters.

Limitations: Extrapolation of trial data over the longer term can be influenced by modeling and parameter uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness results were generally insensitive to alternative values of key model input parameters and across scenarios.

Conclusions: The addition of exenatide BID rather than insulin lispro to basal insulin is associated with similar or better clinical outcomes. Illustrated from the Swedish healthcare perspective, analysis with the Cardiff Diabetes Model demonstrated that exenatide BID represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to lispro TID as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients insufficiently controlled on basal insulin.