Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the US: a budget impact analysis with rebate tables

Background and aims: Drug rebates are almost universally negotiated privately between the manufacturer and the payer in the US. The aim of the present study was to illustrate the use of a “rebate table” to improve the transparency and utility of published budget impact analyses in the US by modeling ranges of hypothetical rebates for two comparators. Worked examples were conducted to illustrate the budgetary implications of using insulin degludec (IDeg) relative to insulin glargine (IGlar) U100 in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes.

Methods: A short-term (1-year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of switching to IDeg from IGlar in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes on basal-bolus and basal-only insulin, respectively. The analysis used insulin dose and hypoglycemia data from recent randomized trials, data on the prevalence of diabetes, and estimates of the proportion of patients using each insulin regimen. The model was configured to run multiple rebate scenarios to generate a rebate table in a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan.

Results: Relative to IGlar, IDeg resulted in reductions in non-severe and severe hypoglycemia incidence and costs both in patients with type 1 and patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin acquisition costs were higher, and respective rebates of 7.3% and 10.6% were required for IDeg to break-even with IGlar at the full list price. Incremental per member per month IDeg costs without a rebate were USD 0.04 in type 1 diabetes and USD 0.80 in type 2 diabetes.

Conclusions: Using IDeg instead of IGlar at list price could result in a modest increase in costs when considering insulin and hypoglycemia costs alone, but modest incremental rebates with IDeg would result in cost neutrality relative to IGlar. In addition, IDeg would result in reduced incidence of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Cost-effectiveness of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands

Aims: Up to 30% of insulin-treated type 2 diabetes patients are unable to achieve HbA1c targets despite optimization of insulin multiple daily injections (MDI). For these patients the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful but under-utilized alternative. The aim of the present analysis was to examine the cost-effectiveness of initiating CSII in type 2 diabetes patients failing to achieve good glycemic control on MDI in the Netherlands. Methods: Long-term projections were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from the OpT2mise trial. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon. The discount rates applied to future costs and clinical outcomes were 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively. Results: CSII was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy compared with MDI (9.38 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] vs 8.95 QALYs, respectively). The breakdown of costs indicated that ～50% of costs were attributable to diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs of CSII vs MDI were partially offset by the reduction in complications. The ICER was estimated at EUR 62,895 per QALY gained and EUR 60,474 per QALY gained when indirect costs were included. Conclusions: In the Netherlands, CSII represents a cost-effective option in patients with type 2 diabetes who continue to have poorly-controlled HbA1c despite optimization of MDI. Since the ICER falls below the willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 80,000 per QALY gained, CSII is likely to represent good-value for money in the treatment of poorly-controlled T2D patients compared with MDI.     

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Aims: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

Materials and methods: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8?mg vs lixisenatide 20?μg for five end-points.

Results: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8?mg than lixisenatide 20?μg for targets of HbA1c?Conclusions: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8?mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20?μg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

Abstract

Aims: The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

Materials and methods: Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results: IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

Aims: Dulaglutide is a new once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist administered via a disposable auto-injection pen for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide vs insulin glargine for the management of T2DM from a Japanese healthcare perspective, in accordance with recently approved Japanese Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9) was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of treatment with dulaglutide and insulin glargine. Direct comparative data from the Araki 2015 trial (NCT01584232) was used to inform the analysis. Costs associated with treatment and complications were derived from Japanese sources wherever possible and inflated to 2015 Japanese Yen (JPY). Utilities were based upon a European systematic review of diabetes utilities and adjusted for use in a Japanese population. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were conducted on all inputs and key modeling assumptions.

Results: Dulaglutide 0.75?mg was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and total costs, compared to insulin glargine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 416,280 JPY/QALY gained. Treatment with dulaglutide increased the time alive and free from diabetes-related complications by 4 months. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust to plausible variations in input parameters and modeling assumptions.

Limitations: Key limitations of this study are similar to other cost-utility analyses of diabetes, including the extrapolation of short-term clinical trial data into lifelong durations. In addition, due to the lack of robust published Japanese data, some values were derived from non-Japanese sources.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that dulaglutide 0.75?mg may be a cost-effective treatment alternative to insulin glargine for patients with T2DM in Japan.     

Resource utilisation and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or conventional basal insulin under real-world conditions in Germany: LIVE-SPP study

Objective: To assess and compare the total costs relevant to diabetes care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) treated at specialised diabetes practices with either insulin glargine- or conventional basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH])-based therapies from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective.

Methods: The Long Acting Insulin Glargine Versus NPH Cost Evaluation in Specialised Practices (LIVE-SPP) study is an observational, retrolective, multicentre longitudinal cost comparison in adults with T2D. Costs were evaluated from the German SHI perspective based on official 2005 prices. Average total costs per patient for insulin glargine-versus NPH-based therapies were compared using multivariate general linear modelling. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the main cost factors by ± 25%.

Results: Patients (n=1,024, 512 patients per cohort) were on average 62 years of age, with an average 8-year diabetes history at study start. The average unadjusted total annual costs per patient were €1,868.41 (95% CI 1,744.27–1,992.56) for insulin glargine-based vs. €2,063.72 (95% CI 1,922.91–2,204.54) for NPH-based therapies. Average adjusted total annual costs per patient between insulin glargine- (€1,241.13) and NPH-based therapies (€1,607.86) were statistically significantly different (p=0.0004). The economic advantage for insulin glargine-based therapies resulted mainly from fewer blood glucose measurements and other diabetes-related materials (e.g. needles). The savings remained stable in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: The LIVE-SPP study suggests that insulin glargine-based therapies may offer an economic advantage over NPH-based therapies.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

Abstract

Aim:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25–40?kg/m². Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

Results:

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR?=?11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

Conclusions:

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine,or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes

Abstract

Aims:

The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all?±?oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita.

Results:

Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, ?0.68 in India, ?0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, ?0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses.

Conclusions:

Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all?±?OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.     

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

Abstract

Objective:

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

Research design and methods:

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

Results:

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

Limitations:

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs bolus insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy when glycemic control is sub-optimal with titrated basal insulin glargine and metformin.

Methods: The analysis was based on the recent 4B Study, which compared exenatide BID and lispro TID as add-on therapies in subjects with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled, despite titrated insulin glargine. The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate patient costs and health benefits beyond the 4B Study. The Swedish healthcare perspective was adopted for this analysis; costs are reported in €EUR to aid interpretation. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with exenatide BID compared to lispro TID.

Results: Exenatide BID was associated with an incremental cost of €1,270 and a QALY increase of +0.64 compared with lispro TID over 40 years. The cost per QALY gained with exenatide BID compared with lispro TID was €1,971, which is within conventional limits of cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness results were generally robust to alternative assumptions and values for key model parameters.

Limitations: Extrapolation of trial data over the longer term can be influenced by modeling and parameter uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness results were generally insensitive to alternative values of key model input parameters and across scenarios.

Conclusions: The addition of exenatide BID rather than insulin lispro to basal insulin is associated with similar or better clinical outcomes. Illustrated from the Swedish healthcare perspective, analysis with the Cardiff Diabetes Model demonstrated that exenatide BID represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to lispro TID as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients insufficiently controlled on basal insulin.     

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Research design and methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine.

Results:

At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2?mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35?kg/m²) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Background and objective: Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China.

Methods: The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties.

Results: The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion: Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.     

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.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of once daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide compared to bolus insulin both in combination with basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Norway

Abstract

Background:

Lixisenatide is a potent, selective and short-acting once daily prandial glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist which lowers glycohemoglobin and body weight by clinically significant amounts in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin, with limited risk of hypoglycemia.