Therapy conversion to biphasic insulin aspart 30 improves long-term outcomes and reduces the costs of type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia

Objective: An observational study in Saudi Arabia indicated that conversion to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) from human insulin (HI) was associated with improvement of glycaemic control.

Methods: A validated computer simulation model of diabetes was used to project long-term outcomes (such as quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs) based on patient characteristics and treatment effects observed in the Saudi Arabian PRESENT subgroup (n=598). Baseline prevalence of comorbidities was obtained from published sources. Primary research was performed in Riyadh and Jeddah to derive diabetes-related complication costs and patient management practices.

Results: Conversion to BIAsp 30 from HI was projected to increase life expectancy by 0.62 years (11.77 ± 0.20 vs. 11.15 ± 0.19 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.96 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (7.03 ± 0.12 vs. 6.07 ± 0.11 QALYs). Direct medical cost savings of Saudi Arabian Riyals (SAR) 53,879 per patient were projected for conversion to BIAsp 30 therapy (SAR 84,761 ± 3102 vs. SAR 138,640 ± 4102 per patient). Cost savings were driven by lower costs of hypoglycaemia (SAR 286 vs. SAR 57,437 per patient), and lower costs of renal complications (SAR 18,848 vs. SAR 31,228) over patient lifetimes.

Conclusion: Conversion to BIAsp 30 from HI was projected to improve life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy while reducing lifetime direct medical costs.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the USA

Background and aims: IDegLira, a fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide, utilizes the complementary mechanisms of action of these two agents to improve glycemic control with low risk of hypoglycemia and avoidance of weight gain. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.

Methods: Projections of lifetime costs and clinical outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effect data for patients receiving IDegLira and liraglutide added to basal insulin were modeled based on the outcomes of a published indirect comparison, as no head-to-head clinical trial data is currently available. Costs were accounted in 2015?US dollars ($) from a healthcare payer perspective.

Results: IDegLira was associated with small improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with liraglutide added to basal insulin (8.94 vs 8.91 discounted quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). The key driver of improved clinical outcomes was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin associated with IDegLira. IDegLira was associated with mean costs savings of $17,687 over patient lifetimes vs liraglutide added to basal insulin, resulting from lower treatment costs and cost savings as a result of complications avoided.

Conclusions: The present long-term modeling analysis found that IDegLira was dominant vs liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US, improving clinical outcomes and reducing direct costs.     

A long-term analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 and mix 50/50 versus long-acting basal insulin analogs in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and mix 50/50 (LM50/50) compared with a long-acting analog insulin (LAAI) regimen from the perspective of a US healthcare payer.

Methods:

A published computer simulation model of diabetes was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LM75/25 and LM50/50 vs a LAAI (insulin glargine) from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. Treatment effects in terms of HbA1c benefits were taken from a recent meta-analysis. Direct medical costs including pharmacy, complication, and patient management costs were obtained from published sources. All costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

LM75/25 and LM50/50 were associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.08 and 0.09 years, improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 0.08 QALYs and increases in cost of US$ 1724 and US$ 1720, respectively, when compared with LAAI.

Limitations:

The base case analysis did not capture mild or serious hypoglycemia on the grounds that the hypoglycemia rate odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance in the meta-analysis. In addition, the baseline cohort characteristics were based on an insulin-naïve population, as opposed to the cohorts in the meta-analysis, which were heterogeneous with regard to insulin treatment history.

Conclusions:

Based on a recently published meta-analysis, biphasic analog insulins are likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs vs LAAIs in the long-term treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the US.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Long-term health economic benefits of sensor-augmented pump therapy vs continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion alone in type 1 diabetes: a UK perspective

Aims/hypothesis:

Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) is an important treatment option for type 1 diabetes patients unable to achieve adequate glycemic control with multiple daily injections (MDI). Combining CSII with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) with a low glucose-suspend (LGS) feature may further improve glycemic control and reduce the frequency of hypoglycemia. A cost-effectiveness analysis of SAP?+?LGS vs CSII plus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) was performed to determine the health economic benefits of SAP?+?LGS in type 1 diabetes patients using CSII in the UK.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the CORE diabetes model. Treatment effects were sourced from the literature, where SAP?+?LGS was associated with a projected HbA_1c reduction of ?1.49% vs ?0.62% for CSII, and a reduced frequency of severe hypoglycemia. The time horizon was that of patient lifetimes; future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% and 1.5% per annum, respectively.

Results:

Projected outcomes showed that SAP?+?LGS was associated with higher mean quality-adjusted life expectancy (17.9 vs 14.9 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs], SAP?+?LGS vs CSII), and higher life expectancy (23.8 vs 21.9 years), but higher mean lifetime direct costs (GBP 125,559 vs GBP 88,991), leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 12,233 per QALY gained for SAP?+?LGS vs CSII. Findings of the base-case analysis remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions/interpretation:

For UK-based type 1 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control, the use of SAP?+?LGS is likely to be cost-effective compared with CSII plus SMBG.     

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.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

Abstract

Aim:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25–40?kg/m². Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

Results:

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR?=?11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

Conclusions:

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Healthcare utilization changes in relation to treatment intensification with insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data from a large US managed-care organization

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require exogenous insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control due to the progressive nature of the disease. Insulin aspart is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed for prandial use. This study aimed to illustrate the implications on healthcare costs of adding insulin aspart to basal therapy in a real-world setting.

Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes who intensified previous basal therapy with insulin aspart were identified from a large commercial US healthcare data source between April 2007 and September 2008. Patients were required to have received basal insulin treatment with or without concomitant oral antidiabetic (OAD) therapy for at least 90 days pre- and post-initiation of insulin aspart. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, to analyze the difference of self-comparison between pre- and post insulin aspart add-on.

Results: In total, 1,739 patients with an average age of 56 years were identified, of whom 55% were male. After initiation of insulin aspart, a significant improvement in glycemic control was observed (change in HbA_1c: –0.5%, p=0.0013). Similarly, a reduction of 0.4% in HbA_1c was observed for the subpopulation of 151 patients, who had both pre-and post-index HbA_1c data (p=0.0085). Also, significantly fewer patients used OADs after insulin aspart initiation (56 vs. 64%, p< 0.0001). Overall and diabetes-related healthcare costs also significantly decreased by $2,283 and $2,028, respectively (p≤0.0001). Diabetes-related inpatient visits appear to be the main contributor to total cost (46%); however, after initiation of insulin aspart the number of inpatient visits decreased by 0.50 visits/patient/year (p< 0.05). This decrease was reflected in a large reduction in cost related to inpatient visits ($3,019/patient).

Limitations: A regression to the mean effect may be associated with this pre-post comparison. The ability to make conclusions regarding cause and effect may be limited due to the retrospective design of this study.

Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes achieved better glycemic control and needed less OAD treatment after adding insulin aspart to previous basal therapy. Furthermore, patients experienced on average reduced healthcare utilization after initiation of insulin aspart, which resulted in significant cost savings.     

Association between glycemic control and short-term healthcare costs among commercially insured diabetes patients in the United States

Abstract

Objectives:

Glycemic control, measured by HbA_1c, is well known to be a risk marker for long-term costly diabetes-related complications. The relationship between HbA_1c and short-term costs is unclear. This study investigates how HbA_1c is correlated to short-term diabetes-related medical expenses.

Methods:

Patients with diabetes with an HbA_1c reading ≥6% between April and September 2007 were identified from a large US managed-care organization. Healthcare utilization data was obtained during the subsequent 12-month period. Multivariate analyses were performed to estimate the correlation between HbA_1c and diabetes-related healthcare costs.

Results:

In all, 34,469 and 1,837 patients with type 2 and type 1 diabetes, respectively, were identified with an HbA_1c reading ≥6% (mean HbA_1c: 7.4% and 7.9%). The majority of patients with type 1 diabetes were treated with insulin, while most patients with type 2 diabetes were treated with metformin. The multivariate analysis showed that several characteristics, including HbA_1c, significantly correlate with diabetes-related medical costs for both patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. A 1-percentage-point increase in HbA_1c will, on average, lead to a 6.0% and 4.4% increase in diabetes-related medical costs for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. This corresponds to an annual cost increase of $445 and $250 for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively.

Limitations:

Retrospective data analyses inherently associated with selection bias which can only partly be adjusted by statistical techniques. Furthermore, the study population is not necessarily representative of the general population and there can be isolated coding or data errors in the dataset.

Conclusions:

These results suggest that tighter glycemic control is associated with short-term cost benefits for patients with diabetes. This supplements conventional wisdom that HbA_1c affects risk of long-term complications and long-term costs.     

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro,insulin glargine,and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum.

Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources.

Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments.

Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs.

Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of risk stratification for preventing type 2 diabetes using a multi-marker diabetes risk score

Abstract

Background:

Personalized medicine requires diagnostic tests that stratify patients into distinct groups that may differentially benefit from targeted treatment approaches. This study compared the costs and benefits of two approaches for identifying those at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes for entry into a diabetes prevention program. The first approach identified high risk patients using impaired fasting glucose (IFG). The second approach used the PreDx Diabetes Risk Score (DRS) to further stratify IFG patients into high-risk and moderate-risk groups.

Methods:

A Markov model was developed to simulate the incidence and disease progression of diabetes and consequent costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY), comparing alternative approaches for identifying high-risk patients. We modeled direct medical costs, including the costs of the stratification testing, over a 10-year time horizon from a US payer perspective.

Results:

Stratification of IFG patients by the DRS method leads to improved identification and prevention among those at highest risk. At 5 years, the number needed to treat (NNT) in the IFG-only approach was 39 patients to prevent one case of diabetes compared to an NNT of 15 in the IFG?+?DRS approach. When compared to IFG alone, the IFG?+?DRS approach results in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $17,100/QALY gained at 5 years and would become cost saving in 10 years. In contrast and as compared to no stratification, the IFG-only approach would produce an ICER of $235,500/QALY gained at 5 years and $94,600/QALY gained at 10 years. The study findings are limited by the generalizability of the DRS validation study and uncertainty regarding the long-term effectiveness of diabetes prevention.

Conclusions:

The analysis indicates that the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention can be improved by better identification of patients at highest risk for diabetes using the DRS.     

Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins in real-world clinical practice in Italy

Abstract

Aims: The costs associated with insulin therapy and diabetes-related complications represent a significant and growing economic burden for healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec (degludec) vs continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, using a long-term economic model.

Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from a real-world population of patients from clinical practice in Italy. Clinical parameters included in the base-case model were change from baseline in HbA_1c, rates of hypoglycemia, and basal and bolus insulin dose, at 6?months following switch to degludec. Costs of treatments were taken from official Italian pharmaceutical list prices and costs of hypoglycemia were based on the literature. The data were used to populate a long-term (lifetime) IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) – cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The robustness of these results was tested with extensive sensitivity analyses by varying the time horizons and abolishing each of the treatment differences and previous basal insulins.

Results: The total incremental cost for degludec vs previous basal insulin was €–6,310 and €–2,682 for patients with T1D and T2D, respectively; the switch to degludec resulted in a QALY gain of 0.781 and 0.628. The long-term ICER for degludec vs continuing the previous basal insulin regimen showed that degludec was dominant for both T1D and T2D, meaning that patient health was improved in terms of QALYs with lower healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that degludec remained dominant in most scenarios including after elimination of any benefit in non-severe hypoglycemia and insulin dose, in both T1D and T2D.

Conclusions: Under routine care, switching to degludec is dominant, compared with continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with T1D or T2D.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

Aims: Up to 30% of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients are unable to achieve HbA1c targets despite optimization of insulin multiple daily injections (MDI). For these patients the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful but under-utilized alternative. The aim of the present analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of initiating CSII in type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve good glycemic control on MDI in the Netherlands. Methods: Long-term projections were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from the OpT2mise trial. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon. The discount rates applied to future costs and clinical outcomes were 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Results: CSII was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with MDI (9.38 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] vs 8.95 QALYs, respectively). The breakdown of costs indicated that ～50% of costs were attributable to diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs of CSII vs MDI were partially offset by the reduction in complications. The ICER was estimated at EUR 62,895 per QALY gained and EUR 60,474 per QALY gained when indirect costs were included. Conclusions: In the Netherlands, CSII represents a cost-effective option in patients with type 2 diabetes who continue to have poorly-controlled HbA1c despite optimization of MDI. Since the ICER falls below the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 80,000 per QALY gained, CSII is likely to represent good-value for money in the treatment of poorly-controlled T2D patients compared with MDI.     

Cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs zoledronic acid for prevention of skeletal-related events in patients with solid tumors and bone metastases in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

With increasing healthcare resource constraints, it has become important to understand the incremental cost-effectiveness of new medicines. Subcutaneous denosumab is superior to intravenous zoledronic acid (ZA) for the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases. This study sought to determine the lifetime cost-effectiveness of denosumab vs ZA in this setting, from a US managed-care perspective.

Methods:

A lifetime Markov model was developed, with relative rate reductions in SREs for denosumab vs ZA derived from three pivotal Phase 3 trials involving patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC), breast cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and bone metastases. The real-world SRE rates in ZA-treated patients were derived from a large commercial database. SRE and treatment administration quality-adjusted life year (QALY) decrements were estimated with time-trade-off studies. SRE costs were estimated from a nationally representative commercial claims database. Drug, drug administration, and renal monitoring costs were included. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

Results:

Across tumor types, denosumab was associated with a reduced number of SREs, increased QALYs, and increased lifetime total costs vs ZA. The costs per QALY gained for denosumab vs ZA in CRPC, breast cancer, and NSCLC were $49,405, $78,915, and $67,931, respectively, commonly considered good value in the US. Costs per SRE avoided were $8567, $13,557, and $10,513, respectively. Results were sensitive to drug costs and SRE rates.

Limitations:

Differences in pain severity and analgesic use favoring denosumab over ZA were not captured. Mortality was extrapolated from fitted generalized gamma function beyond the trial duration.

Conclusion:

Denosumab is a cost-effective treatment option for the prevention of SREs in patients with advanced solid tumors and bone metastases compared to ZA. The overall value of denosumab is based on superior efficacy, favorable safety, and more efficient administration.     

A cost-utility analysis of prolonged-release tacrolimus relative to immediate-release tacrolimus and ciclosporin in liver transplant recipients in the UK

Background: Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) represent the cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation. A recent network meta-analysis (NMA) evaluated the relative efficacy of CNIs ciclosporin, prolonged-release (PR) tacrolimus, and immediate-release (IR) tacrolimus in adult liver transplant recipients based on randomized and large observational trials published since 2000. Based on the NMA findings, the present study evaluated the cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to ciclosporin or IR tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients in the UK.

Methods: A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-utility of immunosuppressive regimens in liver transplant recipients, capturing costs associated with immunosuppression, retransplantation, acute rejection (AR), and cytomegalovirus infection. Mortality, graft loss, and AR odds ratios were derived from the NMA. Costs were taken from the British National Formulary and the NHS National Tariff and expressed in 2016 pounds sterling. Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.5% annually.

Results: Over 25 years, PR tacrolimus resulted in increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin. Relative to ciclosporin, QALE increased by 1.17 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with PR tacrolimus while costs increased by GBP £4645, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £3962 per QALY gained. Relative to IR tacrolimus, QALE increased by 0.78 QALYs and costs by £1474, resulting in an ICER of £1889 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed the analysis to be most sensitive to dosing assumptions.

Conclusions: Based on a UK-specific analysis of the projected cost-utility of PR tacrolimus relative to IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, PR tacrolimus was cost-effective, improving life expectancy and QALE relative to both IR tacrolimus and ciclosporin, yielding ICERs below £20 000 per QALY gained. The main limitations of the study were data source heterogeneity and omitting the economic and clinical effects of treating aspects of recurrent liver disease.