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.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin

Objective:

To evaluate long-run cost-effectiveness in a Swedish setting for liraglutide compared with sulphonylureas (glimepiride) or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin for patients with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled with metformin in monotherapy.

Methods:

The IHE Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes from a societal perspective. Model input data were obtained from two clinical trials, the Swedish National Diabetes Register and the literature. Cost data reflected year 2013 price level. The robustness of results was checked with one-way-sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.

Results:

The cost per QALY gained for liraglutide (1.2?mg) compared to SU (glimepiride 4?mg), both as add-on to metformin, ranged from SEK 226,000 to SEK 255,000 in analyzed patient cohorts. The cost per QALY for liraglutide (1.2?mg) vs sitagliptin (100?mg) as second-line treatment was lower, ranging from SEK 149,000 to SEK 161,000. Costs of preventive treatment were driving costs, but there was also a cost offset from reduced costs of complications of ～20%. Notable cost differences were found for nephropathy, stroke, and heart failure. The predicted life expectancy with liraglutide increased the cost of net consumption for liraglutide.

Limitations:

The analysis was an ex-ante analysis using model input data from clinical trials which may not reflect effectiveness in real-world clinical practice in broader patient populations. This limitation was explored in the sensitivity analysis. The lack of specific data on loss of production due to diabetes complications implied that these costs may be under-estimated.

Conclusions:

Treatment strategies with liraglutide 1.2?mg improved the expected quality-of-life and increased costs when compared to SU and to sitagliptin for second-line add-on treatments. The cost per QALY for liraglutide was in the range considered medium by Swedish authorities.     

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-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.     

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.     

利拉鲁肽与罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比较

目的以第26周末达到HbA1c<7%、无体重增加和无低血糖事件作为糖尿病综合管理的有效复合终点,分析在中国2型糖尿病患者治疗中每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的经济性。方法利用利拉鲁肽全球Ⅲ期临床试验(LEADTM)的临床数据计算每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的成功治疗1例患者的成本。成本包括药物、针头、自我血糖监测,以及处置严重不良事件(SAE)、低血糖事件和体重干预的成本,效果指标为复合终点达标率,并进行单因素敏感度分析。结果在使用研究药物治疗26周后,相对罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽治疗每100例患者分别使额外26例、24例、7例和17例患者达到复合终点,利拉鲁肽成功治疗1例患者所需成本小于对应比较治疗方案。敏感度分析支持了结果的稳健性。结论相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,利拉鲁肽是具有成本-效果的治疗方案。     

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.     

A health economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of OPTIFAST for the treatment of obesity in the United States

Objectives: Obesity is associated with high direct medical costs and indirect costs resulting from productivity loss. The high prevalence of obesity generates a justified need to identify cost-effective weight loss approaches from a payer’s perspective. Within the variety of weight management techniques, OPTIFAST is a clinically recognized and scientifically proven total meal replacement Low Calorie Diet that provides meaningful results in terms of weight loss and reduction in comorbidities. The objective of this study is assess potential cost-savings of the OPTIFAST program in the US, as compared to “no intervention” and pharmacotherapy.

Methods: An event-driven decision analytic model was used to estimate payer’s cost-savings from reimbursement of the 1-year OPTIFAST program over 3 years in the US. The analysis was performed for the broad population of obese persons (BMI >30?kg/m²) undergoing the OPTIFAST program vs liraglutide 3?mg, naltrexone/bupropion and vs “no intervention”. The model included the risk of complications related to increased BMI. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official US price/tariff lists, and national population statistics. The primary perspective was that of a US payer; costs were provided in 2016?US dollars.

Results: OPTIFAST leads over a period of 3 years to cost-savings of USD 9,285 per class I and II obese patient (BMI 30–39.9?kg/m²) as compared to liraglutide and USD 685 as compared to naltrexone/bupropion. In the same time perspective, the OPTIFAST program leads to a reduction of cost of obesity complications of USD 1,951 as compared to “no intervention”, with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 6,475 per QALY. Scenario analyses also show substantial cost-savings in patients with class III obesity (BMI?≥?40.0?kg/m²) and patients with obesity (BMI?=?30–39.9?kg/m²) and type 2 diabetes vs all three previous comparators and bariatric surgery.

Conclusions: Reimbursing OPTIFAST leads to meaningful cost-savings for US payers as compared with “no intervention” and liraglutide and naltrexone/bupropion in obese patients. Similar results can be expected in matching healthcare settings of other countries. Moreover, OPTIFAST has additional clinical and economic advantages through very low complication and adverse events rates.     

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.     

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

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

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

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

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

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia: US perspective

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin in the treatment of fibromyalgia in a US patient population.

Methods:

A decision-analytic model was developed comparing pregabalin 150?mg twice a day (BID) and pregabalin 225?mg BID to placebo, duloxetine, gabapentin, tramadol, milnacipran, and amitriptyline in patients with severe fibromyalgia (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score >59; pain score >6.5). The model estimated response rates for all treatments at 12 weeks based on three randomized trials with pregabalin and a systematic review of published randomized controlled trials. Response was categorized as ≥30% improvement in baseline pain score plus global impression of change rating of much improved or very much improved. After 12 weeks of treatment, responders to treatment entered a treatment Markov model in which response was maintained, lost, or treatment discontinued. The cost-effectiveness end-points were cost per responder at 12 weeks and 1 year. Resource use was estimated from published studies and costs were estimated from the societal perspective.

Results:

Over 12 weeks, total cost per patient was $229 higher with pregabalin 150?mg BID than placebo, whereas pregabalin 225?mg BID was $866 less costly than placebo. At 1 year, pregabalin was cost saving and more effective than placebo, duloxetine, tramadol, milnacipran, and gabapentin. Compared with amitriptyline, pregabalin was not cost-effective at both dosages, although when excluding old and methodologically weak studies of clinical effectiveness of amitriptyline, pregabalin 225?mg BID became cost saving and pregabalin 150?mg BID was cost-effective.

Limitations:

Comparisons between pregabalin and other active agents are based on indirect comparisons, not head-to-head trials, and so should be interpreted with caution. Limitations for comparators include an inability to access sub-group data, inconsistency of response definitions, inclusion of older trials, and absence of long-term studies.

Conclusions:

This model found pregabalin to be cost-effective in treating patients with severe fibromyalgia.     

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.     

Modeling the cost-effectiveness of ilaprazole versus omeprazole for the treatment of newly diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 10?mg ilaprazole once-daily vs 20?mg omeprazole once-daily to treat newly-diagnosed duodenal ulcer patients in China.

Methods: A decision tree model was constructed and the treatment impact was projected up to 1 year. The CYP2C19 polymorphism distribution in the Chinese population, the respective cure rates in the CYP2C19 genotype sub-groups, the impact of Duodenal Ulcer (DU) on utility value and drug-related side-effect data were obtained from the literature. The total costs of medications were calculated to estimate the treatment costs based on current drug retail prices in China. Expert surveys were conducted when published data were not available. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results: Ilaprazole, when compared with omeprazole, achieved a better overall clinical efficacy. For the overall population, ilaprazole achieved an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ¥132 056 per QALY gained. This is less than the WHO recommended threshold of 3-times the average GDP per capita in China (2014). Furthermore, sub-group analysis showed that ilaprazole is cost-effective in every province in CYP2C19 hetEM patients and in the most developed provinces in CYP2C19 homEM patients. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that the results are robust with 97% probability that ilaprozole is considered cost-effective when a threshold of 3-times China’s average GDP per capita is considered.

Limitation: This study didn’t have the data of ilaprazole combined with Hp eradication therapy. Caution should be taken when extrapolating these findings to DU patients with an Hp eradication therapy.

Conclusions: The cost-effectiveness analysis results demonstrated that ilaprazole would be considered a cost-effective therapy, compared with omeprazole, in Chinese DU patients based on the efficacy projections in various CYP2C19 polymorphism types.     

A cost comparison of long-acting insulin analogs vs NPH insulin-based treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes using routinely collected primary care data from the UK

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate total healthcare costs, HbA1c, and weight changes over a 36-month period in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated on NPH or long-acting insulin analogs.

Methods:

Electronic patient data from 479 general practices in the UK (THIN database) were examined for new users of glargine (n?=?794), detemir (n?=?252), or NPH insulin (n?=?430). Annualized healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in years 1, 2, and 3 following insulin initiation were quantified and compared with baseline, using ANOVA and linear regression models.

Results:

A significant difference (p?<?0.05) in total healthcare costs increases at year 1 vs baseline was observed between glargine and detemir, detemir and NPH, but not between glargine and NPH (increase: +£486, +£635, and +£420 for glargine, detemir, and NPH users, respectively). However, increases by year 3 were not significantly different between the insulins. A propensity score analysis comparing analog and NPH insulin showed that, following insulin initiation, increases in costs were higher with insulin analogs at year one (+£220), but this difference decreased over time in each year following insulin initiation (+£168 and +£146, respectively, for years 2 and 3). HbA1c reductions were not significantly different between the groups at all time points. Differences in weight gain between glargine and NPH were statistically significant at year 1 (0.87?kg vs 1.11?kg) and year 3 (1.15?kg vs 1.57?kg), but other estimates of between-group differences in weight gain were non-significant.

Conclusions:

Following insulin initiation, the difference in healthcare costs of long-acting analogs compared to NPH insulin was transient. By year 3, the cost differences were not significantly different between the two cohorts, driven by an observed reduction in the cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the analog group and an increase in the cost of bolus insulin in the NPH group.