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.     

A comparison of preferences for two GLP-1 products – liraglutide and exenatide – for the treatment of type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Objective:

To use time trade-off (TTO) to compare patient preferences for profiles of two glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) products for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (liraglutide and exenatide) that vary on four key attributes – efficacy (as measured by hemoglobin A_1C), incidence of nausea, incidence of hypoglycemia, and dosing frequency (QD vs. BID) – and measure the contribution of those attributes to preferences.

Methods:

A total of 382 people with T2DM were recruited to participate in an internet-based survey consisting of a series of health-related questions, a conjoint exercise and a set of time trade-off items. In the conjoint exercise, respondents were presented with eight pairs of hypothetical GLP-1 profiles, and completed a time-tradeoff exercise for each pair.

Results:

The product profile representing liraglutide was preferred by 96% of respondents and resulted in significantly higher health utilities (0.038) than the product profile representing exenatide (0.978 vs. 0.94, p?<?0.05). Estimated preference scores from the conjoint analysis revealed that efficacy measured by hemoglobin A_1C is the most important attribute, followed by nausea, hypoglycemia, and dosing schedule.

Limitations:

On-line participants may not represent ‘typical’ type 2 diabetes patients, and brief product profiles represented results from clinical trials, not clinical practice

Conclusion:

Based on the four attributes presented, patients prefer liraglutide over exenatide. Preference is based on superior efficacy and less nausea more than less hypoglycemia and once-daily dosing.     

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.     

Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes using concomitant exenatide BID and long-acting insulin therapy

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to examine the frequency of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes who had concomitantly used exenatide BID (exenatide) and long-acting insulin and continued this combination vs those who continued long-acting insulin alone.

Methods:

Retrospective analyses, using a large managed care database, were used to estimate the frequency of hypoglycemia (episodes/patient/6 months) for patients who concomitantly used exenatide and long-acting insulin during a 6-month follow-up period.

Results:

From among 2082 patients on concomitant exenatide and long-acting insulin, those who continued this combination (n?=?472) had a lower frequency of hypoglycemia compared to those who remained on long-acting insulin alone (n?=?312) (0.03?±?1.9 vs 0.10?±?1.01 [episodes/patient/6 months]; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations:

Only hypoglycemia that required medical intervention (coded for hypoglycemia) was captured. The study could not evaluate any association between insulin dose titration and hypoglycemia or examine other outcomes such as HbA1c, weight, and body mass index, due to lack of data availability.

Conclusions:

Patients who concomitantly used exenatide BID and long-acting insulin experienced a lower rate of hypoglycemia.     

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.     

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

Abstract

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14?mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5?mg, once-weekly exenatide 2?mg, twice-daily exenatide 10?µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20?µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).

Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.

Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg and oral semaglutide 14?mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1?mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14?mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.

Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14?mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.     

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.     

Clinical characteristics,pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants

Abstract

Objective:

To examine treatment patterns and costs among patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs).

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with fibromyalgia (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) newly prescribed (index date) TCAs (n?=?898) were identified and propensity score-matched (PSM) with patients newly prescribed pregabalin (n?=?898). Pain-related pharmacotherapy, comorbidities, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12 months, pre-index, and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups reported multiple comorbidities and received pain medications in the pre-index and follow-up periods. Among patients prescribed pregabalin, use of non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (43.3% vs 39.8%), other anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 23.3%), and tetracyclic/miscellaneous antidepressants (28.5% vs 25.8%) significantly decreased, and cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) inhibitors (7.7% vs 10.4%), TCAs (4.8% vs 7.9%), and topical agents (10.8% vs 15.1%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.05). Among patients prescribed TCAs, there were significant decreases in muscle relaxants (42.0% vs 38.4%) and sedative hypnotics (27.4% vs 23.9%), and increases in COX-2 inhibitors (5.8% vs 7.9%) and anticonvulsants (25.1% vs 33.7%; p?<?0.05). There were increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy costs in both cohorts and total healthcare costs in the pregabalin cohort from pre-index to follow-up. Median total costs were higher (p?<?0.05) in the pregabalin group vs TCAs in the pre-index ($9935 vs $8771) and follow-up ($10,689 vs $8379) periods.

Limitations:

Despite attempts to address bias through PSM, the higher pre-index costs in the pregabalin cohort suggest a channeling of patients with more severe fibromyalgia to pregabalin.

Conclusions:

Patients with fibromyalgia prescribed pregabalin or TCAs had multiple comorbidities and a sizeable pain medication burden, which increased in the follow-up period for both cohorts. Only 5% of pregabalin initiators had been treated with concomitant TCAs at baseline, suggesting that TCAs were inappropriate for these patients owing to their contraindications.     

Real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast or biologics for the treatment of psoriasis

Objective: This study compared real-world treatment patterns and healthcare costs among biologic-naive psoriasis patients initiating apremilast or biologics.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Optum Clinformatics? claims database. Patients with psoriasis were selected if they had initiated apremilast or biologics between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015; had 12?months of pre-index and post-index continuous enrollment in the database; and were biologic-naive. The index date was defined as the date of the first claim for apremilast or biologic, and occurred between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015. Treatment persistence was defined as continuous treatment without a?>?60-day gap in therapy (discontinuation) or a switch to a different psoriasis treatment during the 12-month post-index period. Adherence was defined as a medication possession ratio (MPR) of ≥ 80% while persistent on the index treatment. Persistence-based MPR was defined as the number of days with the medication on hand measured during the patients’ period of treatment persistence divided by the duration of the period of treatment persistence. Because patients were not randomized, apremilast patients were propensity score matched up to 1:2 to biologic patients to adjust for possible selection bias. Treatment persistence/adherence and all-cause healthcare costs were evaluated. Cost differences were determined using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: In all, 343 biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast were matched to 680 biologic-naive patients initiating biologics. After matching, patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Twelve-month treatment persistence was similar for biologic-naive patients initiating apremilast vs biologics (32.1% vs 33.2%; p?=?0.7079). While persistent on therapy up to 12?months, per-patient per-month (PPPM) total healthcare costs were significantly lower among biologic-naive cohorts initiating apremilast vs biologics ($2,214 vs $5,184; p?p?p?p?Limitations: Data were limited to individuals with United Healthcare commercial and Medicare Advantage insurance plans, and may not be generalizable to psoriasis patients with other insurance or without health insurance coverage.

Conclusion: Biologic-naive patients with similar patient characteristics receiving apremilast vs biologics had significantly lower PPPM costs, even when they switched to biologics during the 12-month post-index period. These results may be useful to payers and providers seeking to optimize psoriasis care while reducing healthcare costs.     

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.     

Clinical comorbidities,treatment patterns,and healthcare costs among patients with fibromyalgia newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine in usual care

Abstract

Objective:

To assess comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use among patients with fibromyalgia (FM) newly prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine (index event) in usual care settings.

Methods:

Using the LifeLink? Health Plan Claims Database, patients with FM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 729.1X) were identified. Patients initiated on duloxetine were propensity score-matched with patients initiated on pregabalin (n?=?826; mean age [standard deviation] of 48.3 [9.3] years for both groups). Prevalence of comorbidities, pain-related pharmacotherapy, and healthcare resource use/costs were examined during the 12-month pre-index and follow-up periods.

Results:

Both patient groups had multiple comorbidities and a substantial pain-related and adjuvant medication burden. In the pregabalin group, use of other anticonvulsants decreased significantly (31.6% vs 24.9%), whereas use of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs; 16.5% vs 22.5%) and topical agents (10.1% vs 13.2%) increased in the follow-up period (p?<?0.01). In the duloxetine group, there were significant decreases in the use of other SNRIs (13.0% vs 5.7%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (41.3% vs 21.7%), and tricyclic antidepressants (18.8% vs 13.2%), and an increase in the use of anticonvulsants (28.6% vs 40.1%; p?<?0.0001). There were significant increases (p?<?0.0001) in pharmacy and total healthcare costs in both cohorts, and a significant increase in outpatient costs (p?=?0.0084) in the duloxetine cohort from pre-index to follow-up. There were no significant differences in median total healthcare costs between the pregabalin and duloxetine groups in both the pre-index ($10,159 vs $9,556) and follow-up ($11,390 vs $11,746) periods.

Limitations:

Limitations of this study are typical of those associated with retrospective database analyses.

Conclusions:

Patients with FM prescribed pregabalin or duloxetine were characterized by a significant comorbidity and pain/adjuvant medication burden. Although healthcare costs increased in both groups, there were no statistically significant differences in direct healthcare costs between the two groups.     

Predictors of glycemic control and diabetes-related costs among type 2 diabetes patients initiating therapy with liraglutide in the United States

Objective:

Liraglutide has been shown to significantly improve glycemic control and reduce body weight while minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to identify characteristics that predict clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide therapy in clinical practice in the US.

Methods:

Using the Truven Health MarketScan Laboratory Database, glycemic control (A1C <7%) and diabetes-related costs were evaluated in T2D patients initiating liraglutide between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2012. Patients were required to have ≥1 post-index claim for liraglutide and A1C values at baseline and 6 months follow-up. All valid values of baseline A1C were included. Patients previously treated with GLP-1 receptor agonist(s) or insulin, or with evidence of type 1 diabetes, pregnancy, or gestational diabetes during the study period were excluded. Multivariable regression models were used to identify predictors of glycemic control and diabetes-related costs.

Results:

Of 417 patients newly treated with liraglutide, 54.0% achieved glycemic control (A1C <7%) during follow-up. Factors associated with increased odds of glycemic control during follow-up were: being female, POS/EPO health plan type, baseline A1C, early liraglutide initiation (0–1 prior oral anti diabetics [OADs] vs ≥2), adherence to liraglutide (defined as the proportion of days covered [PDC]), and diabetic retinopathy. Being female, earlier liraglutide initiation (0–1 prior OADs), and higher patient share of liraglutide costs were associated with significantly lower diabetes-related costs during follow-up. Factors associated with significantly higher post-index diabetes-related costs were: higher baseline A1C, baseline use of sulfonylureas, and diabetic retinopathy.

Conclusions:

Within this commercially-insured population of T2D patients treated with liraglutide, gender, baseline A1C, early liraglutide initiation (0–1 prior OADs), diabetic retinopathy, better adherence, and patient share of liraglutide costs were associated with increased odds of achieving glycemic control and the odds of having higher or lower diabetes-related costs.     

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine disposable pen versus exenatide BID

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who failed oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy and initiated either insulin glargine with disposable pen (GLA-P) or exenatide BID (EXE).

Research design and methods:

This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008. Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.

Results:

Two thousand three hundred and thirty nine patients were included in the study (GLA-P: 381; EXE: 1958); 626 patients were in the 1:1 matched cohort (54% male; mean age: 54 years; mean A1C: 9.2%). At follow-up, patients in the GLA-P group were significantly more persistent in treatment than EXE patients (48% vs 15% in persistence rate and 252 vs 144 days in persistence days; both p?<?0.001). GLA-P patients also had significantly lower A1C at follow-up (8.02% vs 8.32%; p?=?0.042) and greater A1C reduction from baseline (?1.23% vs ?0.92%; p?=?0.038). There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.

Limitations:

Since this was a retrospective analysis, causality of treatment benefits cannot be established. The study was specific to two treatments and may not generalize to other models of insulin administration. Some of the results, although statistically significant, may not be found clinically important.

Conclusions:

In a real-world setting among T2DM patients who failed to achieve or sustain glycemic goal with OADs, initiation of GLA-P instead of EXE may be a more effective option because it was associated with greater treatment persistence, greater A1C reduction without a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemia, and similar healthcare costs.     

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.     

The real-world economic impact of home-based video electroencephalography: the payer perspective

Abstract

Aims: Electroencephalography (EEG) is an established method to evaluate and manage epilepsy; video EEG (VEEG) has significantly improved its diagnostic value. This study compared healthcare costs and diagnostic-related outcomes associated with outpatient vs inpatient VEEG among patients with epilepsy in the US.

Materials and methods: This study used Truven MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims databases. Patients with a VEEG between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016 were identified. Index event was the first VEEG claim, which was used to determine inpatient and outpatient cohorts. Continuous health plan enrollment 6?months pre- and 12?months post-index VEEG was required. Primary outcomes were costs during the index event and 12?months post index. A generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a log link was used to estimate adjusted index and post-index costs.

Results: Controlling for baseline differences, epilepsy-related cost of index VEEG was significantly lower for the outpatient ($4,098) vs the inpatient cohort ($13,821; p?<?0.0001). The cost differences observed at index were maintained in the post-index period. The 12-month post-index epilepsy-related costs were lower in the outpatient cohort ($6,114 vs $12,733, p?<?0.0001). Time from physician referral to index VEEG was significantly shorter in the outpatient cohort (30.6 vs 42.5?days). Patients in the inpatient cohort were also more likely to undergo an additional subsequent follow-up inpatient VEEG (p?<?0.0001).

Limitations: Administrative claims data have limitations, including lack of data on clinical presentation, disease severity, and comprehensive health plan information. Generalizability may be limited to a US insured population of patients who met study criteria.

Conclusions: Index VEEG was less costly in an outpatient vs inpatient cohort, and costs were lower during the follow-up period of 12?months, suggesting that outpatient VEEG can be provided to appropriate patients as a less costly option. There were fewer follow-up tests in the outpatient cohort with similar pre- and post-index diagnoses.     

Healthcare costs of stroke and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants

Objective: To assess long-term healthcare costs related to ischemic stroke and systemic embolism (stroke/SE) and major bleeding (MB) events in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) treated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs).

Materials and methods: Optum’s Clinformatics Data Mart database from 1/2009–12/2016 was analyzed. Adult patients with ≥1 stroke/SE hospitalization (index date) were matched 1:1 to patients without stroke/SE (random index date), based on propensity scores. Patients with an MB event were matched to patients without MB. All patients had an NOAC dispensing overlapping index date, ≥12?months of eligibility pre-index date, and ≥1 NVAF diagnosis. The observation period spanned from the index date until the earliest date of death, switch to warfarin, end of insurance coverage, or end of data availability. Mean costs were evaluated: (1) per-patient-per-year (PPPY) and (2) at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years using Lin's method.

Results: The cost differences were, respectively, $48,807 and $28,298 PPPY for NOAC users with stroke/SE (n?=?1,340) and those with MB (n?=?3,774) events compared to controls. Cost differences of patients with vs without stroke/SE were $49,876, $51,627, $57,822, and $60,691 at 1, 2, 3, and 4?years post-index, respectively (p?p?Limitations: Limitations include unobserved confounders, coding and/or billing inaccuracies, limited sample sizes over longer follow-up, and the under-reporting of mortality for deaths occurring after 2011.

Conclusions: The incremental healthcare costs incurred by patients with vs without stroke/SE was nearly twice as high as those of patients with vs without MB. Moreover, each additional year up to 4?years after the first event was associated with an incremental cost for patients with a stroke/SE or MB event compared to those without an event.