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.     

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin

Aims: To obtain estimates of the relative treatment effects between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on basal insulin therapy.

Materials and methods: Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis. Outcomes of interest were changes in HbA_1c, body weight and insulin dose, and rate ratio of hypoglycemia. The indirect comparison of the reported trial findings followed the principles of Bucher et al.

Results: IDegLira was estimated to provide a 0.44 [95% CI?=?0.17–0.71] %-point reduction in HbA_1c compared with iGlarLixi. Body weight was reduced by 1.42 [95% CI?=?0.35–2.50] kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi. Insulin dose was comparable between the two interventions. The rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (self-measured plasma glucose [SMPG]?≤?3.1?mmol/L) hypoglycemia with IDegLira was approximately half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio?=?0.51 [95% CI?=?0.29–0.90]). However, using the American Diabetes Association definition of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG ≤3.9?mmol/L) the rate was comparable between the two treatments (rate ratio?=?1.07 [95% CI?=?0.90–1.28]).

Limitations: The assumptions made in the indirect comparison and differences between the included trials in baseline HbA_1c levels, previous use of sulfonylureas, definitions of hypoglycemia, presence or absence of run-in period, the different duration of the trials, and the cross-over design of one of the trials.

Conclusions: The results of this indirect treatment comparison demonstrate that, among patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, treatment with IDegLira results in a greater reduction of HbA_1c and a greater reduction in body weight compared with iGlarLixi at similar insulin doses.     

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

Objectives:

The present study aimed to compare the projected long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide, sitagliptin and glimepiride in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus failing to achieve glycemic control on metformin monotherapy in France.

Methods:

Clinical input data for the modeling analysis were taken from two randomized, controlled trials (LIRA-DPP4 and LEAD-2). Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2013 Euros; €) were made using a validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes. Costs were taken from published France-specific sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and an increase in mean direct healthcare costs of €2558 per patient compared with sitagliptin. In the comparison with glimepiride, liraglutide was associated with an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.23 QALYs and an increase in direct costs of €4695. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €10,275 per QALY gained vs sitagliptin and €20,709 per QALY gained vs glimepiride in France.

Conclusion:

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.     

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.     

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.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden.

Methods:

A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios.

Results:

Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively.

Limitations:

The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart from human premix insulin in a US setting

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp 30) from human premix insulin for type 2 diabetes patients in the United States (US) setting.

Methods: The previously published and validated IMS Core Diabetes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and costs over 30 years. Patient characteristics and treatment effects were based on Canadian patients included the IMPROVE observational study (n = 311). Mean glycohaemoglobin (HbA_1c) was 8.4%, duration of diabetes 16 years and prevalence of complications high at baseline. Simulations were conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer, with costs accounted in 2008 US dollars ($).

Results: BIAsp 30 was projected to improve life expectancy by 0.202 years and QALE by 0.301 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), due to a reduced incidence of most diabetes-related complications. BIAsp 30 was associated with increased lifetime direct medical costs ($76,517 vs. 67,518) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $29,870 per QALY gained. Long-term outcomes were sensitive to the impact of BIAsp 30 on hypoglycaemia and changes in HbA_1c.

Conclusions: BIAsp 30 may represent a cost-effective treatment option in the US setting for advanced type 2 diabetes patients experiencing poor glycaemic control or hypoglycaemia on human premix insulin.

Limitations: The application of treatment effect data derived from a Canadian cohort to the US setting was a limitation of the cost-effectiveness analysis. The findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis are not applicable to insulin-naïve diabetes 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.     

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.     

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.     

Glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes who initiate basal insulin: a retrospective cohort study

Objective:

To examine changes in glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after initiation of basal insulin and factors associated with improved glycemic control.

Methods:

An analysis of retrospective medical records of patients with T2DM was examined using Humedica’s electronic medical records database (January 2007–August 2012). Patients with T2DM, initiating basal insulin, age ≥21 years, with a recorded HbA1c test in both the 1 year prior and the 2 years post-initiation were included. A multivariate regression examined factors associated with changes in glycemic control. Logistic regressions examined factors associated with improvements or worsening of glycemic control, compared to relatively unchanged glycemic control.

Results:

Many (14,457) individuals met the inclusion–exclusion criteria. Multivariate analyses revealed that older age (p?p?p?=?0.0138), and higher household income (p?=?0.0065) were associated with improved glycemic control. Patients diagnosed with comorbid peripheral vascular disease (p?=?0.0072), cancer (p?=?0.0019), obesity (p?=?0.0002), moderate (p?=?0.0103), and severe chronic kidney disease (p?p?=?0.0075) in the pre-period were found to have significantly improved glycemic control in the post-period. Use of prandial insulin (p?=?0.0087), pre-mix insulin (p?=?0.0003) in the pre-period, a higher pre-period HbA1c score (p?p?Limitations:

Analyses rely on electronic medical records which cannot capture patient healthcare utilization occurring outside of the data capture system. Analyses do not control for insulin dosage or type of basal insulin prescribed.

Conclusions:

Among patients with T2DM treated with basal insulin, a number of factors may influence glycemic outcomes. These findings suggest a role for a more personalized approach to the treatment of patients with T2DM.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of droxidopa in patients with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension: post-hoc economic analysis of Phase 3 clinical trial data

Objective:

Falls are associated with neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) and are an economic burden on the US healthcare system. Droxidopa is approved by the US FDA to treat symptomatic nOH. This study estimates the cost-effectiveness of droxidopa vs standard of care from a US payer perspective.

Methods:

A Markov model was used to predict numbers of falls and treatment responses using data from a randomized, double-blind trial of patients with Parkinson’s disease and nOH who received optimized droxidopa therapy or placebo for 8 weeks. The severity of falls, utility values, and injury-related costs were derived from published studies. Model outcomes included number of falls, number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and direct costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Outcomes were extrapolated over 12 months.

Results:

Patients receiving droxidopa had fewer falls compared with those receiving standard of care and gained 0.33 QALYs/patient. Estimated droxidopa costs were $30,112, with estimated cost savings resulting from fall avoidance of $14,574 over 12 months. Droxidopa was cost-effective vs standard of care, with ICERs of $47,001/QALY gained, $24,866 per avoided fall with moderate/major injury, and $1559 per avoided fall with no/minor injury. The main drivers were fall probabilities and fear of fall-related inputs.

Limitations:

A limitation of the current study is the reliance on falls data from a randomized controlled trial where the placebo group served as the proxy for standard of care. Data from a larger patient population, reflecting ‘real-life’ patient use and/or comparison with other agents used to treat nOH, would have been a useful complement, but these data were not available.

Conclusion:

Using Markov modeling, droxidopa appears to be a cost-effective option compared with standard of care in US clinical practice for the treatment of nOH.     

The cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol versus paricalcitol for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism in stage 3–4 CKD

Abstract

Aims: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) not on dialysis frequently have vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT), which are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease, fracture, CKD progression, and death. This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of extended-release calcifediol (ERC) vs paricalcitol for the treatment of patients with CKD stages 3–4 that have SHPT and VDI.

Materials and methods: An economic analysis of SHPT treatments among a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI was developed to estimate differences in the rates and costs of CV events, fractures, CKD stage progression, and mortality in patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol. A Markov model was developed with 1-year cycles and a 5-year time horizon from a US Medicare payer perspective with costs valued in 2017?US dollars.

Results: The outcomes of the model were rates of clinical events, total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Across a 1,000-person cohort, ERC was the dominant (less costly, more effective) treatment strategy when compared with paricalcitol. Treatment with ERC resulted in cost savings of $14.8?M (95% CI = –$10.0?M–$45.2?M) and an incremental gain of 340 QALYs (95% CI = 200–496) compared to treatment with paricalcitol.

Limitations: Bridging biochemical levels to clinical outcomes may not represent real-world risk of the clinical events modeled. Future real-world outcomes of patients treated with ERC and paricalcitol may be used to evaluate the model results.

Conclusions: This model demonstrated favorable short- and long-term clinical benefits associated with the use of ERC in patients with CKD Stage 3 and 4 with SHPT and VDI, suggesting ERC may be cost-effective from the Medicare perspective compared to paricalcitol.     

Cost effectiveness of adding clostridial collagenase ointment to selective debridement in individuals with stage IV pressure ulcers

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness (from a payer’s perspective) of adding clostridial collagenase ointment (CCO) to selective debridement compared with selective debridement alone (non-CCO) in the treatment of stage IV pressure ulcers among patients identified from the US Wound Registry.

Methods: A 3-state Markov model was developed to determine costs and outcomes between the CCO and non-CCO groups over a 2-year time horizon. Outcome data were derived from a retrospective clinical study and included the proportion of pressure ulcers that were closed (epithelialized) over 2 years and the time to wound closure. Transition probabilities for the Markov states were estimated from the clinical study. In the Markov model, the clinical outcome is presented as ulcer-free weeks, which represents the time the wound is in the epithelialized state. Costs for each 4-week cycle were based on frequencies of clinic visits, debridement, and CCO application rates from the clinical study. The final model outputs were cumulative costs (in US dollars), clinical outcome (ulcer-free weeks), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 2 years.

Results: Compared with the non-CCO group, the CCO group incurred lower costs ($11,151 vs $17,596) and greater benefits (33.9 vs 16.8 ulcer-free weeks), resulting in an economically dominant ICER of ?$375 per ulcer. Thus, for each additional ulcer-free week that can be gained, there is a concurrent cost savings of $375 if CCO treatment is selected. Over a 2-year period, an additional 17.2 ulcer-free weeks can be gained with concurrent cost savings of $6,445 for each patient.

Conclusions: In this Markov model based on real-world data from the US Wound Registry, the addition of CCO to selective debridement in the treatment of pressure ulcers was economically dominant over selective debridement alone, resulting in greater benefit to the patient at lower cost.     

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.