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.     

Factors associated with increased healthcare costs in Medicare Advantage patients with type 2 diabetes enrolled in a large representative health insurance plan in the US

Abstract

Aim:

The objective of this study was to apply quantile regression (QR) methodology to a population from a large representative health insurance plan with known skewed healthcare utilization attributes, co-morbidities, and costs in order to identify predictors of increased healthcare costs. Further, this study provides comparison of the results to those obtained using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression methodology.

Methods:

Members diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes and with 24 months of continuous enrollment were included. Baseline patient demographic, clinical, consumer/behavioural, and cost characteristics were quantified. Quantile regression was used to model the relationship between the baseline characteristics and total healthcare costs during the follow-up 12 month period.

Results:

The sample included 83,705 patients (mean age?=?70.6 years, 48% male) residing primarily in the southern US (78.1%); 81.2% of subjects were on oral-only anti-diabetic therapy. Co-morbid conditions included nephropathy (43.5%), peripheral artery disease (26.4%), and retinopathy (18.0%). Variables with the strongest relationship with costs during the follow-up period included outpatient visits, ER visits, inpatient visits, and Diabetes Complications Severity Index score during the baseline period. In the top cost quantiles, each additional glycohemoglobin (HbA1c) test was associated with cost savings ($1400 in the 98th percentile). Stage 4 and Stage 5 chronic kidney disease were associated with an incremental cost increase of $33,131 and $106,975 relative to Stage 1 or no CKD in the 98th percentile ($US).

Conclusions:

These results demonstrate that QR provides additional insight compared to traditional OLS regression modeling, and may be more useful for informing resource allocation to patients most likely to benefit from interventions. This study highlights that the impact of clinical and demographic characteristics on the economic burden of the disease vary across the continuum of healthcare costs. Understanding factors that drive costs on an individual patient level provide important insights that will help in ameliorating the clinical, humanistic, and economic burden of diabetes.     

Incremental costs associated with myocardial infarction and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an overview for economic modeling

Objective:

To identify cost estimates related to myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) for use in economic models.

Methods:

A systematic literature review was conducted. Electronic databases and conference abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria, which included studies performed in patients who had T2DM before experiencing an MI or stroke. Primary cost studies and economic models were included. Costs were converted to 2012 pounds sterling.

Results:

Fifty-four studies were identified: 13 primary cost studies and 41 economic evaluations using secondary sources for complication costs. Primary studies provided costs from 10 countries. Estimates for a fatal event ranged from £2482–£5222 for MI and from £4900–£6694 for stroke. Costs for the year a non-fatal event occurred ranged from £5071–£29,249 for MI and from £5171–£38,732 for stroke. Annual follow-up costs ranged from £945–£1616 for an MI and from £4704–£12,926 for a stroke. Economic evaluations from 12 countries were identified, and costs of complications showed similar variability to the primary studies.

Discussion:

The costs identified within primary studies varied between and within countries. Many studies used costs estimated in studies not specific to patients with T2DM. Data gaps included a detailed breakdown of resource use, which affected the ability to compare data across countries.

Conclusions:

In the development of economic models for patients with T2DM, the use of accurate estimates of costs associated with MI and stroke is important. When country-specific costs are not available, clear justification for the choice of estimates should be provided.     

Comparison of utilization,cost, adherence,and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe

Abstract

Background:

Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n?=?239) and vial/syringe (n?=?590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p?<?0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p?<?0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (–$235 vs. +$61, p?=?0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (–1.3 vs. –0.7, p?=?0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

Limitations:

Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention.

Conclusion:

Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.     

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.     

Outcomes associated with concordance of oral antidiabetic drug treatments to prescribing information in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease

Abstract

Objectives:

This retrospective study aims to examine the association between prescribing information (PI)-concordant oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) treatment and clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stages 3–5 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Methods:

The study used a large, national administrative claims database with laboratory findings to identify patients with a diagnosis of diabetes and indication of stages 3–5 CKD (first observed indication as the index date) between 1/1/2005 and 30/06/2009. OADs prescribed during 6 months following the index date (baseline period) were evaluated and patients were considered non-PI-concordant if any did not meet the recommendations regarding patients with renal impairment. Glycemic control and measures of healthcare costs (standardized to 2010 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index) and resource utilization were assessed during the 12 months following the baseline period. Severe hypoglycemic events were assessed after the baseline period until lost to follow-up. Regression analyses were performed after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics.

Results:

Among the 3300 patients included in the study, 2454 (74.4%) were non-PI-concordant. The non-PI-concordant patients had higher risk of severe hypoglycemic events identified in all settings (HR?=?1.35, 95% CI: 1.10–1.67) and events identified in inpatient hospital setting (HR?=?2.51, 95% CI: 1.49–4.22), were more likely to have inpatient hospital admissions (OR?=?1.27, 95% CI: 1.02–1.57), and were less likely to have glycemic control (OR?=?0.56, 95% CI: 0.44–0.71). Annual diabetes-related cost was $1638 higher in the non-PI-concordant cohort (p?=?0.0048).

Limitations:

The retrospective cohort design does not allow for conclusions to be drawn on the causal effect of PI-concordant use based on the associations observed.

Conclusion:

Our findings suggest PI-concordant treatment to be associated with better clinical and diabetes-associated economic outcomes. Future research is warranted to confirm the associations found in this study.     

Real-world rates,predictors, and associated costs of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine: results of a pooled analysis of six retrospective observational studies

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the real-world rates of hypoglycemia and related costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine with either a disposable pen or vial-and-syringe.

Methods:

Pooled data were evaluated from six previously published, retrospective, observational studies using US health plan insurance claims databases to investigate adults with T2DM who initiated insulin glargine. The current study evaluated baseline characteristics, hypoglycemic events, and costs during the 6 months prior to and 12 months following insulin glargine initiation. Comparisons were made between patients initiating treatment with a disposable pen (GLA-P) and vial-and-syringe (GLA-V). Multivariate analyses using baseline characteristics as covariates determined predictors of hypoglycemia after initiating insulin glargine.

Results:

This study included 23,098 patients (GLA-P: 14,911; GLA-V: 8187). Overall annual prevalence of hypoglycemia was low (6.3% overall, 2.2% related to hospital admission or emergency department visit). Prevalence was significantly lower with GLA-P (5.5% vs 7.7%; p?<?0.0001). Furthermore, average glycated hemoglobin HbA1c reduction was higher with GLA-P (?1.22% vs ?0.86%; p?=?0.0012). The average annual hypoglycemia-related cost associated with initiating insulin glargine was $293, with GLA-P being 46% lower than GLA-V ($225 vs $417; p?=?0.001). Patients who had already developed microvascular complications at the time of initiating insulin therapy were at higher risk for developing hypoglycemia.

Limitations:

This study is limited by the use of retrospective data and ICD-9-CM codes, which are subject to coding error. In addition, this pooled analysis used unmatched cohorts, with multivariate regression analyses employed to adjust for between-group differences. Finally, results describe a managed care sample and cannot be generalized to all patients with T2DM.

Conclusions:

Patients with T2DM initiating insulin glargine treatment showed low rates of hypoglycemia, especially when using a disposable pen device. Hypoglycemia-related costs were low, contributing a very small proportion to overall diabetes-related healthcare costs.     

Economic modelling of costs associated with outcomes reported for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in the CANVAS and EMPA-REG cardiovascular outcomes trials

Aims: To model direct medical costs associated with reductions in cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in T2DM patients reported in the CANVAS and EMPA-REG trials, which assessed the cardiovascular safety of canagliflozin and empagliflozin, respectively.

Materials and methods: Costs were modeled from a US managed care organization (MCO) perspective for the CVD outcomes included in both trials: three-point major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and its components (cardiovascular-related death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke), as well as heart failure requiring hospitalization. The rate of CVD events averted (difference between study drug and placebo) was projected to the portion of an MCO T2DM population matching the respective trial’s inclusion criteria. A targeted literature search for paid amounts directly associated with each CVD event provided the unit costs, which were applied to the projected number of events averted, to calculate costs avoided per member per year (PMPY). One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on events averted, unit costs, and percentages of trial-applicable patients.

Results: Based on three-point MACE events averted, costs avoided PMPY of $6.17 (range: $1.27–$10.94) for CANVAS and $2.75 ($0.19–$4.83) for EMPA-REG were estimated. Costs avoided for individual components of MACE ranged from $0.77 to $3.84 PMPY for CANVAS and from -$0.97 (additional costs) to $1.54 for EMPA-REG. PMPY costs avoided for heart failure were $2.72 for CANVAS and $1.32 for EMPA-REG.

Limitations and conclusions: Models assumed independent, non-recurrent outcomes and were restricted to medical costs directly associated with the trial-reported events. The reductions in CVD events in T2DM patients reported for both CANVAS and EMPA-REG project to a positive cost avoidance for these events in an MCO population. The analysis did not include an assessment of the impact on total cost, as the costs associated with adverse events, drug utilization or other clinical outcomes were not examined.     

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.