Cost effectiveness of duloxetine in the treatment of fibromyalgia in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of duloxetine when considered as an alternative treatment for patients in the United States (US) being treated for fibromyalgia pain.

Research design and methods:

A Markov model was used to evaluate the economic and clinical advantages of duloxetine in controlling fibromyalgia pain symptoms over a 2-year time horizon. A base-case treatment sequence was adopted from clinical guidelines, based on tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, anticonvulsants, and opioids. Treatment response was modeled using changes from baseline in pain severity, and response thresholds: full response (at least a 50% change), response (30–49% change), and no response (less than a 30% change). Clinical efficacy and discontinuation data were taken from placebo- and active-controlled trials identified in a systematic literature review and mixed-treatment comparison. Utility data were based on EQ-5D data.

Main outcome measures:

Additional symptom-control months (SCMs), defined as the amount of time at a response level of 30% or less, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 2-year time horizon.

Results:

For every 1000 patients, first-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 665 SCMs and 12.3 QALYs, at a cost of $582,911 (equivalent to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs] of $877 per SCM and $47,560 per QALY). Second-line duloxetine resulted in an additional 460 SCMs and 8.7 QALYs, at a cost of $143,752 (equivalent to ICERs of $312 per SMC and $16,565 per QALY).

Limitations:

Response data for TCAs are limited to 30% improvement levels, reported trials are small, and have low placebo response rates. The model necessarily assumes that response rates are independent of placement in the treatment sequence.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that the introduction of duloxetine into the standard treatment sequence for fibromyalgia not only provides additional patient benefits, reflected by time spent in pain control, but also is cost effective when compared with commonly adopted thresholds.     

Economic evaluation of duloxetine as a first-line treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Mexico

Abstract

Objective:

To perform an economic evaluation of duloxetine, pregabalin, and both branded and generic gabapentin for managing pain in patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (PDPN) in Mexico.

Research design and methods:

The analysis was conducted using a 3-month decision model, which compares duloxetine 60?mg once daily (DUL), pregabalin 150?mg twice daily (PGB), and gabapentin 600?mg three-times daily (GBP) for PDPN patients with moderate-to-severe pain. A systematic review was performed and placebo-adjusted risk ratios for achieving good pain relief (GPR), adverse events (AE), and withdrawal owing to intolerable AE were calculated. Direct medical costs included drug acquisition and additional visits due to lack of efficacy (poor pain relief) or intolerable AE. Unit costs were taken from local sources. Adherence rates were used to estimate the expected drug costs. All costs are expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos (MXN). Utility values drawn from published literature were applied to health states. The proportion of patients with GPR and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were assessed.

Results:

Branded-GBP was dominated by all the other options. PGB was more costly and less effective than DUL. Compared with branded-GBP and PGB, DUL led to savings of 1.01 and 1.74 million MXN (per 1000 patients). The incremental cost per QALY gained with DUL used instead of generic-GBP was $102 433 MXN. This amount is slightly lower than the estimated gross domestic product per capita in Mexico for 2010. During a second-order Monte Carlo simulation, DUL had the highest probability of being cost-effective (61%), followed by generic-GBP (25%) and PGB (14%).

Limitations:

Study limitations include a short timeframe and using data from different dosage schemes for GBP and PGB.

Conclusions:

This study suggests that DUL provides overall savings and better health outcomes compared with branded-GBP and PGB. Administering DUL rather than generic-GBP is a cost-effective intervention to manage PDPN in Mexico.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Understanding the effects on HR-QoL of treatment for overactive bladder: a detailed analysis of EQ-5D clinical trial data for mirabegron

Abstract

Background:

Analysis of EQ-5D data often focuses on changes in utility, ignoring valuable information from other parts of the instrument. The objective was to explore how the utility index, EQ-5D profile, and EQ-VAS captured change in clinical trials of mirabegron, a new treatment for overactive bladder (OAB).

Data:

Data were pooled from three phase III clinical trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of mirabegron vs placebo. Tolterodine ER 4?mg was included as an active control in one study: (1) placebo, mirabegron 50?mg and 100?mg, and tolterodine 4?mg ER; (2) placebo, mirabegron 50?mg and 100?mg; (3) placebo, and mirabegron 25?mg and 50?mg. Data were collected at baseline, week 4, 8, and 12.

Methods:

Analyses were performed on full analysis and modified intention to treat (ITT) data sets using UK utilities. Analysis controlled for relevant patient characteristics. Analysis of Covariance identified changes from baseline at each time point in utilities and EQ-VAS. Areas Under the Curve were estimated to summarize inter-temporal differences in effect. EQ-5D profile data were analysed using the Paretian Classification of Health Change.

Results:

In modified ITT analyses, mirabegron 50?mg was superior to tolterodine 4?mg in changes from baseline utilities after 12 weeks (p?<?0.05); similarly, AUC results showed mirabegron 50?mg to be superior to tolterodine (p?<?0.05) and placebo (p?<?0.05) with the benefit already apparent at 4 weeks (p?<?0.05). EQ-VAS more consistently indicated superior outcomes: all three mirabegron doses showed statistically significant greater effectiveness compared to tolterodine at 12 weeks. Individual EQ-5D dimensions and the overall profile showed no significant differences between study arms.

Conclusion:

Mirabegron showed quicker and superior improvement in HR-QoL compared to tolterodine 4?mg ER. A limitation of the study is that EQ-5D was a secondary outcome in the pivotal trials, which were not powered to measure differences on EQ-5D.     

Trajectory analysis of healthcare costs for patients with major depressive disorder treated with high doses of duloxetine

Abstract

Objective:

To examine healthcare cost patterns prior to and following duloxetine initiation in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), focusing on patients initiated at or titrated to high doses.

Research design and methods:

Retrospective analysis of 10,987 outpatients, aged 18–64 years, who were enrolled in health insurance for 6 months preceding and 12 months following duloxetine initiation.

Outcome measures:

Repeated measures and pre–post analyses were used to examine healthcare cost trajectories before and after initiation of low- (<60?mg/day), standard- (60?mg/day), and high-dose (>60?mg/day) duloxetine therapy. Decision tree analysis was used to identify patient characteristics that might explain heterogeneity in economic outcomes following titration to high-dose therapy.

Results:

Low-, standard-, and high-dose duloxetine were initiated for 29.6%, 60.9%, and 9.5% of patients, respectively. Within 6 months, 13.7% of patients had dose increases to >?60?mg/day. Regardless of dose, total costs increased prior to and decreased following initiation of treatment. The High Initial Dose Cohort had higher costs both prior to and throughout treatment compared to the other two cohorts. Following escalation to >?60?mg/day, higher medication costs were balanced by lower inpatient costs. Titration to high-dose therapy was cost-beneficial for patients with histories of a mental disorder in addition to MDD and higher prior medical costs.

Limitations:

Conclusions are limited by a lack of supporting clinical information and may not apply to patients who are not privately insured.

Conclusions:

In data taken from insured patients with MDD who were started on duloxetine in a clinical setting, healthcare costs increased prior to and decreased following initiation of therapy. Compared to patients initiated at low- and standard-doses, costs were greater prior to and following initiation for patients initiated at high doses. Increases in pharmacy costs associated with escalation to high-dose therapy were offset by reduced inpatient expenses.     

Longitudinal analysis of healthcare costs: a case study of patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine

Abstract

Objective:

To develop and apply a longitudinal model that adjusts for pre-treatment covariates to examine the trajectory of healthcare costs in duloxetine patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

Methods:

Retrospective healthcare cost data from Thomson Reuters Marketscan® Database included 10,987 patients with MDD, aged 18–64, receiving duloxetine at low (<60?mg/day), standard (60?mg/day), or high (>60?mg/day) initial doses. A linear mixed-effects model for repeated measures used dose, month, and dose*month as fixed effects and patient (dose) as a random effect, and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, body system disorders, and prior medication history. Model goodness-of-fit was evaluated with R². Rates of change (slopes) were estimated from the fitted model and differences in the cost trajectory among dosing cohorts were tested using the F-test. Bootstrapping and propensity score (PS) stratification were conducted to provide sensitivity analyses.

Results:

Main effects and covariates were all significant (p?<?0.05). Adjustment by pre-treatment covariates greatly improved the model fit (R^2?=?0.43). The model revealed a significant increase in healthcare costs in the 6 months preceding and a significant decrease in the 6 months following duloxetine initiation for each initial dose cohort and the overall cohort (p?<?0.05). In both the pre- and post-treatment periods, the high initial-dose cohort had higher healthcare costs than standard or low initial-dose cohorts (p?<?0.05). Bootstrapping and PS stratification confirmed these test results.

Limitations:

The analyses performed here were based on non-randomized, observational data, and thus subject to potential biases due to unmeasured confounding.

Conclusions:

Longitudinal models, compared with conventional mean-based methods, provide better opportunities to assess changes in cost trajectory patterns around the time of changes in medical treatment. In insured patients with MDD started on duloxetine, healthcare costs increased before duloxetine initiation, perhaps signaling a clinical deterioration that led to a change in treatment strategy. Healthcare costs then decreased following duloxetine initiation.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.     

Cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20 mg for the prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality: a Swedish economic evaluation of the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study estimated the long-term health outcomes, healthcare costs, and cost-effectiveness of rosuvastatin 20?mg therapy in primary prevention of major cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a Swedish population.

Methods:

Based on data from the JUPITER trial, long-term CVD outcomes with rosuvastatin vs no active treatment were estimated for patients with an elevated baseline CVD risk (Framingham CVD score >20%, sub-population of JUPITER population) and for a population similar to the total JUPITER population. Using a decision-analytic model, trial CVD event rates were combined with epidemiological and cost data specific for Sweden. First and subsequent CVD events and death were estimated over a lifetime perspective. The observed relative risk reduction was extrapolated beyond the trial duration. Incremental effectiveness was measured as life-years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained.

Results:

Treating 100,000 patients with rosuvastatin 20?mg was estimated to avoid 14,692 CVD events over the lifetime (8021 non-fatal MIs, 3228 non-fatal strokes, and 4924 CVD deaths) compared to placebo. This translated into an estimated gain of 42,122 QALYs and 36,865 total life years (LYG). Rosuvastatin was both more effective and less costly over a lifetime perspective, and rosuvastatin is subsequently a dominant alternative compared to no treatment in the assessed population. Using the overall JUPITER population, rosuvastatin was dominant for the lifetime horizon. In the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was the dominant treatment strategy over a 20-year time horizon, and cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY) of SEK 1783 over a 10-year time horizon.

Limitations:

Some model inputs were derived from literature or other data sources, but uncertainty was controlled by sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Results indicate that rosuvastatin 20?mg treatment is a cost-effective option vs no-treatment in patients with Framingham CVD risk >20% in Sweden and might even be cost saving if taking a long-term perspective.     

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden

Abstract

Objectives:

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.

Methods:

The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.

Results:

Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.

Limitations:

The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.

Conclusions:

This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss.

The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.     

Cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease based on findings from the JUPITER trial

Abstract

Objective:

This study assessed the long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo in reducing the incidence of major cardiovascular (CVD) events and mortality.

Methods:

A probabilistic Monte Carlo simulation model estimated long-term cost effectiveness of rosuvastatin therapy (20?mg daily) for the prevention of CVD mortality and morbidity. The model included three stages: (1) CVD prevention simulating the 4 years of the JUPITER trial, (2) initial CVD prevention beyond the trial, and (3) subsequent CVD event prevention. A US payer perspective was assessed reflecting direct medical costs, and up to a lifetime horizon. Sensitivity analyses tested the robustness of the model estimates.

Results:

For a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 patients at moderate and high risk of CVD events based on Framingham risk of ≥10%, estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with rosuvastatin therapy compared with placebo was 33,480 over a lifetime horizon, and 25,380 and 9916 over 20-year and 10-year horizons, respectively. Approximately 12,073 events were avoided over the lifetime; 6,146 non-fatal MIs, 2905 non-fatal strokes, and 4030 CVD deaths avoided. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for cost per QALY was $7062 (lifetime), $10,743 (20-year horizon), and $44,466 (10-year horizon). For a hypothetical cohort similar to the overall JUPITER population, the cost per QALY ICER was $11,025 for the lifetime and $60,112 for a 10-year horizon.

Limitations:

The cost-effectiveness comparison of rosuvastatin 20?mg was against no active treatment (as opposed to an alternative statin) due to lack of comparative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality risk reduction data for other statins in a population similar to the JUPITER trial population. The analysis was conducted from the payer perspective and lack of inclusion of indirect costs limit interpretability of results from a societal perspective.

Conclusions:

Treatment with rosuvastatin 20?mg daily, is a cost-effective treatment alternative to no treatment in patients at a higher risk (Framingham risk ≥10%) of CVD.     

Cost-utility of pregabalin as add-on to usual care versus usual care alone in the management of peripheral neuropathic pain in Belgium

Abstract

Background and objectivess:

The cost effectiveness of pregabalin as an add-on to the standard treatment of Belgian patients with post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN) had been demonstrated in a previously published Markov model. The purpose of this study was to update that model with more recent cost data and clinical evidence, and reevaluate the cost effectiveness from the payer’s perspective of add-on pregabalin in a wider set of NeP conditions.

Methods:

The model, featuring 4-week cycles and a 1-year time horizon, consisted in four possible health states: mild, moderate or severe pain and withdrawn from therapy. Three versions of the model were developed, using transition probabilities derived from pain scores reported in three placebo-controlled studies. The two treatment arms were ‘usual care’ or ‘usual care?+?pregabalin’. Resource use and utility data were obtained from a chart review and unit costs from recent published data. The final outcome of the model was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained when adding pregabalin to standard care.

Results:

Based on 1000 simulations, two versions of the model showed that pregabalin was dominant respectively in 94.8% and 67.2% of the simulations, while the incremental cost per QALY was below €32,000/QALY in respectively 99.1% and 94.6% of the simulations. The third version did not show cost effectiveness, despite an incremental cost of only €300 after 1 year. However, in the corresponding study, patients seemed less responsive to GABA analogs, since 55% of them had failed to respond to gabapentin before study inclusion.

Limitations:

The studies upon which the model is based have a short follow-up time as compared to the model horizon. The endpoints of two studies were only provided at the aggregated level and do not necessarily reflect the real practice.

Conclusion:

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that from a Belgium payer perspective pregabalin offers a slight increase in quality of life in the studied populations as compared to standard care. Pregabalin is cost effective in the majority of cases except in one published clinical study, despite a low incremental cost per year (€300).     

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.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of solifenacin vs. trospium in the treatment of patients with overactive bladder in the German National Health Service

Objective:

To carry out a cost–utility analysis comparing initial treatment of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) with solifenacin 5?mg/day versus either trospium 20?mg twice a day or trospium 60?mg/day from the perspective of the German National Health Service.

Methods:

A decision analytic model with a 3 month cycle was developed to follow a cohort of OAB patients treated with either solifenacin or trospium during a 1 year period. Costs and utilities were accumulated as patients transitioned through the four cycles in the model. Some of the solifenacin patients were titrated from 5?mg to 10?mg/day at 3 months. Utility values were obtained from the published literature and pad use was based on a US resource utilization study. Adherence rates for individual treatments were derived from a United Kingdom general practitioner database review. The change in the mean number of urgency urinary incontinence episodes/day from after 12 weeks was the main outcome measure. Baseline effectiveness values for solifenacin and trospium were calculated using the Poisson distribution. Patients who failed second-line therapy were referred to a specialist visit. Results were expressed in terms of incremental cost–utility ratios.

Results:

Total annual costs for solifenacin, trospium 20?mg and trospium 60?mg were €970.01, €860.05 and €875.05 respectively. Drug use represented 43%, 28% and 29% of total costs and pad use varied between 45% and 57%. Differences between cumulative utilities were small but favored solifenacin (0.6857 vs. 0.6802 to 0.6800). The baseline incremental cost–effectiveness ratio ranged from €16,657 to €19,893 per QALY.

Limitations:

The difference in cumulative utility favoring solifenacin was small (0.0055–0.0057 QALYs). A small absolute change in the cumulative utilities can have a marked impact on the overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and care should be taken when interpreting the results.

Conclusion:

Solifenacin would appear to be cost-effective with an ICER of no more than €20,000/QALY. However, small differences in utility between the alternatives means that the results are sensitive to adjustments in the values of the assigned utilities, effectiveness and discontinuation rates.     

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.