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.     

Costs of managing severe hypoglycaemia in three European countries

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the costs of severe hypoglycaemic events (SHEs) in diabetes patients in Germany, Spain and the UK.

Methods: Healthcare resource use was measured by surveying 639 patients aged ≥16 years, receiving insulin for type 1 (n=319) or type 2 diabetes (n=320), who experienced ≥1 SHE in the preceding year. Patients were grouped by location of SHE treatment: group 1, community (family/domestic); group 2, community (healthcare professional); group 3, hospital. Costs were calculated from published unit costs applied to estimated resource use. Costs per SHE were derived from patient numbers per subgroup. Weighted average costs were derived using a prevalence database.

Results: Hospital treatment was a major cost in all countries. In Germany and Spain, costs per SHE for type 1 patients differed from those for type 2 patients in each group. Average SHE treatment costs were higher for patients with type 2 diabetes (Germany, €533; Spain, €691; UK, €537) than type 1 diabetes patients (€441, €577 and €236, respectively). Telephone calls, visits to doctors, blood glucose monitoring and patient education contributed substantially to costs for non-hospitalised patients.

Conclusions: Treatment of SHEs adds significantly to healthcare costs. Average costs were lower for type 1 than for insulin-treated type 2 diabetes, in all three countries.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Comparison of costs and outcomes of dapagliflozin with other glucose-lowering therapy classes added to metformin using a short-term cost-effectiveness model in the US setting

Objective: To compare 1-year costs and benefits of dapagliflozin (DAPA), a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, with those of other treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), such as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), sulfonylureas (SUs), thiazolidinediones (TZDs), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), all combined with metformin.

Methods: A short-term decision-analytic model with a 1-year time horizon was developed from a payer’s perspective in the United States setting. Costs and benefits associated with four clinical end-points (glycated hemoglobin [A1C], body weight, systolic blood pressure [SBP], and risk of hypoglycemia) were evaluated in the analysis. The impact of DAPA and other glucose-lowering therapy classes on these clinical end-points was estimated from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Data for costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with a per-unit change in these clinical end-points were taken from published literature. Drug prices were taken from an annual wholesale price list. All costs were inflation-adjusted to December 2016 costs using the medical care component of the consumer price index. Total costs (both medical and drug costs), total QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to explore uncertainty in the inputs. To assess face validity, results from the short-term model were compared with long-term models published for these drugs.

Results: The total annual medical cost for DAPA was less than that for GLP-1RA ($186 less), DPP-4i ($1,142 less), SU ($2,474 less), and TZD ($1,640 less). Treatment with DAPA resulted in an average QALY gain of 0.0107, 0.0587, 0.1137, and 0.0715 per treated patient when compared with GLP-1RA, DPP-4i, SU, and TZD, respectively. ICERs for DAPA vs SU and TZD were $19,005 and $25,835, respectively. DAPA was a cost-saving option when compared with GLP-1RAs and DPP-4is. Among all four clinical end-points, change in weight had the greatest impact on total annual costs and ICERS. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were robust, and results from the short-term model were found to be similar to those of published long-term models.

Conclusion: This analysis showed that DAPA was cost-saving compared with GLP-1RA and DPP-4i, and cost-effective compared with SU and TZD in the US setting over 1 year. Furthermore, the results suggest that, among the four composite clinical end-points, change in weight and SBP had an impact on cost-effectiveness results.     

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-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro,insulin glargine,and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum.

Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources.

Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments.

Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs.

Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.     

Native American Obesity: An Economic Model of the "Thrifty Gene" Theory

Native American obesity is hypothesized to result from three potential causes: (1) a genetic predisposition, or the "thrifty gene," (2) a rational addiction to nutrients, and (3) dietary adjustment costs. These hypotheses are tested using a two-stage household production approach and scanner data from a panel of Native and non-Native supermarkets. Nutrient intake for both groups is strongly influenced by adjustment costs. Native Americans tend to place higher implicit valuations on protein relative to fats and carbohydrates compared to non-Natives. Consequently, reductions in real carbohydrate prices over time may be a cause of high incidence of Native American obesity.     

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.