Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Aims: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Materials and methods: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8?mg vs lixisenatide 20?μg for five end-points.

Results: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for targets of HbA1c?Conclusions: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Exenatide BID and liraglutide QD treatment patterns among type 2 diabetes patients in Germany

Abstract

Objectives:

This study evaluated patient and prescriber characteristics, treatment patterns, average daily dose (ADD), and glycemic control of patients initiating glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in Germany.

Methods:

The LifeLink? EMR-EU database was searched to identify patients initiating exenatide twice daily (BID) or liraglutide once daily (QD) during the index period (January 1, 2009–April 4, 2010). Eligible patients had ≥180 days pre-index history, ≥90 days post-index follow-up, and a pre-index type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Univariate tests were conducted at α?=?0.05.

Results:

Six hundred and ninety-two patients were included (exenatide BID 292, liraglutide QD 400): mean (SD) age 59 (10) years, 59% male. Diabetologists prescribed liraglutide QD to a larger share of patients (65% vs 35% exenatide BID) than non-diabetologists (51% vs 49%). GLP-1 receptor agonist choice was not associated with age (p?=?0.282), gender (p?=?0.960), number of pre-index glucose-lowering medications (2.0 [0.9], p?=?0.159), pre-index HbA1c (8.2 [1.5%], p?=?0.231) or Charlson Comorbidity Index score (0.45 [0.78], p?=?0.547). Mean (SD) ADD was 16.7?mcg (9.2, label range 10–20?mcg) for exenatide BID and 1.4?mg (0.7, label range 0.6–1.8?mg) for liraglutide QD. Among patients with post-index HbA1c tests, mean unadjusted values did not differ between cohorts. Exenatide BID patients were more likely than liraglutide QD patients to continue pre-index glucose-lowering medications (67.1% vs 60.3%, p?=?0.027) or to start concomitant glucose-lowering medications at index (32.2% vs 25.0%, p?=?0.013); exenatide BID patients were less likely to augment treatment with another drug post-index (15.8% vs 22.5%, p?=?0.027).

Limitations:

Results may not be generalizable. Lab measures for clinical outcomes were available only for a sub-set of patients.

Conclusions:

Results suggested that some differences exist between patients initiating exenatide BID or liraglutide QD, with respect to prescribing physician specialty and pre- and post-index treatment patterns. Both GLP-1 receptor agonists showed comparable post-index HbA1c values in a sub-set of patients.     

Economic outcomes of exenatide vs liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients in the United States: results from a retrospective claims database analysis

Abstract

Objective:

The safety and efficacy of the GLP-1 receptor agonists exenatide BID (exenatide) and liraglutide for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been established in clinical trials. Effective treatments may lower overall treatment costs. This study examined cost offsets and medication adherence for exenatide vs liraglutide in a large, managed care population in the US.

Methods:

This was a retrospective cohort analysis comprising adult patients with T2DM who initiated exenatide or liraglutide between 1/1/2010 and 6/30/2010 and had 6 months pre-index and post-index continuous eligibility. Patients were propensity score-matched to controls for baseline differences. Medication adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-test and McNemar’s test were used to compare outcomes.

Results:

Matched exenatide and liraglutide cohorts (n?=?1347 pairs) had similar average total 6-month follow-up costs ($6688 vs $7346). However, exenatide patients had significantly lower mean pharmacy costs ($2925 vs $3272, p?<?0.001). Among liraglutide patients, patients receiving the 1.8?mg dose had significantly higher average total costs compared to those receiving the 1.2?mg dose ($8031 vs $6536, p?=?0.026), with higher mean pharmacy costs in the 1.8?mg cohort ($3935 vs $3146, p?<?0.001). There were no significant differences in inpatient or outpatient costs or medication adherence between groups (mean PDC: exenatide 56% vs liraglutide 57%, p?=?0.088).

Limitations:

The study assumed that all information needed for case classification and matching of cohorts was present and not differential across cohorts. The study did not control for covariates that were unavailable, such as HbA1c and duration of diabetes.

Conclusions:

Patients initiating exenatide vs liraglutide for T2DM had similar medication adherence and total healthcare costs; however, exenatide patients had significantly lower total pharmacy costs. Patients prescribed 1.8?mg liraglutide had significantly higher costs compared to those on 1.2?mg.     

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine,in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK,Italy, and Spain

Objectives: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

Methods: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP?=?1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders.

Results: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively.

Limitations: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.     

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of stepwise addition of bolus insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: evaluation of the FullSTEP trial

Background and aims:

Intensification of basal insulin-only therapy in type 2 diabetes is often achieved through addition of bolus insulin 3-times daily. The FullSTEP trial demonstrated that stepwise addition (SWA) of bolus insulin aspart was non-inferior to full basal-bolus (FBB) therapy and reduced the rate of hypoglycemia. Here the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of SWA is evaluated.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact models were developed to assess the cost and quality-of-life (QoL) implications of intensification using SWA compared with FBB in the US setting. At assessment, SWA patients added one bolus dose to their current regimen if the HbA1c target was not met. SWA patients reaching three bolus doses used FBB event rates. Outcomes were evaluated at trial end and projected annually up to 5 years. Models captured hypoglycemic events, the proportion meeting HbA1c target, and self-measured blood glucose. Event rates and QoL utilities were taken from trial data and published literature. Costs were evaluated from a healthcare-payer perspective, reported in 2013 USD, and discounted (like clinical outcomes) at 3.5% annually. This analysis applies to patients with HbA1c 7.0–9.0% and body mass index <40?kg/m².

Results:

SWA was associated with improved QoL and reduced costs compared with FBB. Improvement in QoL and cost reduction were driven by lower rates of hypoglycemia. Sensitivity analyses showed that outcomes were most influenced by the cost of bolus insulin and QoL impact of symptomatic hypoglycemia. Budget impact analysis estimated that, by moving from FBB to SWA, a health plan with 77,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, of whom 7.8% annually intensified to basal-bolus therapy, would save USD 1304 per intensifying patient over the trial period.

Conclusions:

SWA of bolus insulin should be considered a beneficial and cost-saving alternative to FBB therapy for the intensification of treatment in type 2 diabetes.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

Aims: Dulaglutide is a new once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist administered via a disposable auto-injection pen for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide vs insulin glargine for the management of T2DM from a Japanese healthcare perspective, in accordance with recently approved Japanese Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9) was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of treatment with dulaglutide and insulin glargine. Direct comparative data from the Araki 2015 trial (NCT01584232) was used to inform the analysis. Costs associated with treatment and complications were derived from Japanese sources wherever possible and inflated to 2015 Japanese Yen (JPY). Utilities were based upon a European systematic review of diabetes utilities and adjusted for use in a Japanese population. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were conducted on all inputs and key modeling assumptions.

Results: Dulaglutide 0.75?mg was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and total costs, compared to insulin glargine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 416,280 JPY/QALY gained. Treatment with dulaglutide increased the time alive and free from diabetes-related complications by 4 months. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust to plausible variations in input parameters and modeling assumptions.

Limitations: Key limitations of this study are similar to other cost-utility analyses of diabetes, including the extrapolation of short-term clinical trial data into lifelong durations. In addition, due to the lack of robust published Japanese data, some values were derived from non-Japanese sources.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that dulaglutide 0.75?mg may be a cost-effective treatment alternative to insulin glargine for patients with T2DM in Japan.     

Healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with severe aplastic anemia in the US

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA) using US claims data.

Methods: This retrospective, observational database study analyzed claims data from the Truven MarketScan databases. SAA patients aged ≥2?years identified between 2014 and 2017 who were continuously enrolled for 6?months before their first SAA treatment or blood transfusion, with a ≥6-month follow-up, were included. Baseline demographics and comorbidities were evaluated. Monthly all-cause and SAA-related HCRU and direct costs in the follow-up period were analyzed and differences were presented for all patients and across age groups.

Results: With an average follow-up period of 21.5?months, 939 patients were included in the study. Monthly all-cause and SAA-related HCRU [mean (SD)] were 1.65 days (2.61 days) and 0.18 days (0.70 days) for length of stay, 0.18 (0.23) and 0.01 (0.04) for hospital admissions, 0.25 (0.30) and 0.02 (0.07) for ER visits, 2.24 (1.40) and 0.46 (0.99) for office visits, and 2.90 (2.64) and 0.55 (1.31) for outpatient visits, respectively. On average, SAA patients received 0.15 (0.57) blood transfusions per month. Mean monthly all-cause direct costs were $28,280 USD ($36,127) [US dollars, mean (SD)]. Direct costs related to admissions were $11,433 USD (SD $25,040), followed by $624 USD ($1,703) for ER visits, $528 USD ($694) for office visits, $7,615 USD ($13,273) for outpatient visits, and $5,998 USD ($11,461) for pharmacy expenses. Monthly SAA-related direct costs averaged $7,884 USD (SD $16,254); of these costs, $1,608 USD ($7,774) were from admissions, $47 USD ($257) from ER visits, $127 USD ($374) from office visits, $1,462 USD ($4,994) from outpatient visits, and $4,451 USD ($10,552) from pharmacy expenses.

Conclusion: SAA is associated with high economic burden, with costs comparable to blood malignancies, implying that US health plans should consider appropriately managing SAA while constraining the total healthcare costs when making formulary decisions.     

Cost per additional responder for ixekizumab and other FDA-approved biologics in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis

Background: Evidence of the cost-efficacy of ixekizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO) in the US is limited.

Objective: To estimate the number needed to treat (NNT) and monthly cost of achieving one additional Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 75, 90, and 100 responder for ixekizumab and other Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved biologics in PsO.

Methods: A network meta-analysis estimated the probability of achieving PASI 75, 90, or 100 response during induction for each biologic. NNTs were calculated using response difference of each respective biologic vs placebo at the end of induction. Monthly costs per additional PASI responder were based on FDA-approved doses, wholesale acquisition costs, and induction NNTs.

Results: Induction NNTs for ixekizumab 80?mg once every 2 weeks (Q2W) relative to placebo were consistently lower across all levels of clearance compared with the other biologics. Monthly cost per additional responder was lowest for ustekinumab 45?mg at PASI 75 and for secukinumab 300?mg and ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W at PASI 90. Ixekizumab 80?mg Q2W had the lowest cost for PASI 100.

Conclusion: In this analysis, ixekizumab is the most cost-efficient biologic in the US when targeting complete resolution, as measured by PASI 100 in PsO.     

Cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy versus sulfonylurea monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease in Thailand

Objective: With a high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand, the appropriate treatment for the patients has become a major concern. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effective of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monothearpy vs sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in people with T2DM and CKD.

Methods: A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014?US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.

Results: From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.

Conclusions: Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.     

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1_c, 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12?kg/m²) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1_c and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.48?±?0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.59?±?0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.28?±?0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.32?±?0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$57,862?±?2159) and US$933 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$56,580?±?2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications.

Limitations:

Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses.

Conclusions:

Over a patient’s lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.     

Economic and quality of life burden of anemia on patients with CKD on dialysis: a systematic review

Abstract

Aims: The overall cost and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) associated with current treatments for chronic kidney disease (CKD)-related anemia are not well characterized. A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted on the costs and HRQoL associated with current treatments for CKD-related anemia among dialysis-dependent (DD) patients.

Materials and methods: The authors searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS EED, and NHS HTA for English-language publications. Original studies published between January 1, 2000 and March 17, 2017 meeting the following criteria were included: adult population; study focus was CKD-related anemia; included results on patients receiving iron supplementation, red blood cell transfusion, or erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs); reported results on HRQoL and/or costs. Studies which included patients with DD-CKD, did not directly compare different treatments, and had designs relevant to the objective were retained. HRQoL and cost outcomes, including healthcare resource utilization (HRU), were extracted and summarized in a narrative synthesis.

Results: A total of 1,625 publications were retrieved, 15 of which met all inclusion criteria. All identified studies included ESAs as a treatment of interest. Two randomized controlled trials reported that ESA treatment improves HRQoL relative to placebo. Across eight studies comparing HRQoL of patients achieving high vs low hemoglobin (Hb) targets, aiming for higher Hb targets with ESAs generally led to modest HRQoL improvements. Two studies reported that ESA-treated patients had lower costs and HRU compared to untreated patients. One study found that aiming for higher vs lower Hb targets led to reduced HRU, while two other reported that this led to a reduction in cost-effectiveness.

Limitations: Heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes; a meta-analysis could not be performed.

Conclusions: ESA-treated patients undergoing dialysis incurred lower costs, lower HRU, and had better HRQoL relative to ESA-untreated patients. However, treatment to higher Hb targets led to modest HRQoL improvements compared to lower Hb targets.     

Distribution and drivers of costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral hypoglycemic agents: a retrospective claims data analysis

Objective:

To describe the distribution of costs and to identify the drivers of high costs among adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving oral hypoglycemic agents.

Methods:

T2DM patients using oral hypoglycemic agents and having HbA1c test data were identified from the Truven MarketScan databases of Commercial and Medicare Supplemental insurance claims (2004–2010). All-cause and diabetes-related annual direct healthcare costs were measured and reported by cost components. The 25% most costly patients in the study sample were defined as high-cost patients. Drivers of high costs were identified in multivariate logistic regressions.

Results:

Total 1-year all-cause costs for the 4104 study patients were $55,599,311 (mean cost per patient?=?$13,548). Diabetes-related costs accounted for 33.8% of all-cause costs (mean cost per patient?=?$4583). Medical service costs accounted for the majority of all-cause and diabetes-related total costs (63.7% and 59.5%, respectively), with a minority of patients incurring >80% of these costs (23.5% and 14.7%, respectively). Within the medical claims, inpatient admission for diabetes-complications was the strongest cost driver for both all-cause (OR?=?13.5, 95% CI?=?8.1–23.6) and diabetes-related costs (OR?=?9.7, 95% CI?=?6.3–15.1), with macrovascular complications accounting for most inpatient admissions. Other cost drivers included heavier hypoglycemic agent use, diabetes complications, and chronic diseases.

Limitations:

The study reports a conservative estimate for the relative share of diabetes-related costs relative to total cost. The findings of this study apply mainly to T2DM patients under 65 years of age.

Conclusions:

Among the T2DM patients receiving oral hypoglycemic agents, 23.5% of patients incurred 80% of the all-cause healthcare costs, with these costs being driven by inpatient admissions, complications of diabetes, and chronic diseases. Interventions targeting inpatient admissions and/or complications of diabetes may contribute to the decrease of the diabetes economic burden.     

Comparative persistence and adherence with newer anti-hyperglycemic agents to treat patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Objectives: Non-adherence and non-persistence to anti-hyperglycemic agents are associated with worse clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study evaluated treatment persistence and adherence across newer anti-hyperglycemic agents (canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin, linagliptin, liraglutide, or exenatide).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study of Truven Health Analytics Marketscan databases included adult patients with type 2 diabetes whose first pharmacy claim for a newer anti-hyperglycemic agent was between February 1, 2014 and July 31, 2014. Treatment persistence and adherence were assessed for 12 months after the first claim (post-index). Persistence was defined as no gap ≥90 days between the end of one pharmacy claim and the start of the next pharmacy claim post-index. Adherence used two definitions: proportion of days covered (PDC) and medication possession ratio (MPR). Multivariable analyses of non-persistence (hazard ratios) and adherence (odds ratios) were adjusted for baseline demographics, drug cost, clinical characteristics, and other anti-hyperglycemic agents.

Results: A total of 11,961 patients met all study selection criteria. Persistence rates at 12 months were significantly greater (p?p?=?0.83; PDC?=?0.79) and canagliflozin 300?mg (MPR?=?0.92; PDC?=?0.81) were greater than for the other index anti-hyperglycemic agents (MPR?=?0.33–0.75; PDC?=?0.33–0.72). Consistent results for treatment persistence and adherence were observed in multivariable analyses that were adjusted baseline characteristics.

Conclusions: Canagliflozin was associated with better treatment persistence and treatment adherence compared with other anti-hyperglycemic agents in real-world settings.