Incretin therapy for type 2 diabetes in Spain: a cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.

METHODS

The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are widely used oral antidiabetic agents that exert antihyperglycemic effects in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without increased risk of weight gain or hypoglycemic events. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the latest evidence that was associated with the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic literature search of eligible articles published since inception up to March 2021 in Web of Science, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and ECONLIT. Fifty-four eligible articles were included in our review, in which DPP-4i were compared to metformin (4 studies), sulphonylurea (SU) (16 studies), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) (3 studies), thiazolidinediones (TZD) (4 studies), other DPP-4i (3 studies), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (10 studies), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (18 studies), insulin (5 studies), and other antidiabetic therapies (5 studies).

EXPERT OPINION

This study provided the updated evidence of systematic pharmacoeconomic evaluation associated with DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM. The evidence from the literature suggested that DPP-4i may be more cost-effective compared to SU and insulin as second-line therapy after metformin but not a cost-effective alternative compared to SGLPT-2i and GLP-1RA.

Meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies: data harmonisation and methodological issues

BACKGROUND

In the context of ever-growing health expenditure and limited resources, economic evaluations aid in making evidence-informed policy decisions. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is often used, and CUA data synthesis is also desirable, but methodological issues are challenged. Hence, we aim to provide a step-by-step process to prepare the CUA data for meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data harmonisation methods were constructed specifically considering CUA methodology, including inconsistent reports, economic parameters, heterogeneity (i.e., country's income, time horizon, perspective, modelling approaches, currency, willingness to pay). An incremental net benefit (INB) and its variance were estimated and pooled across studies using a basic meta-analysis by COMER.

RESULTS

Five scenarios show how to obtain INB and variance with various reported data: Study reports the mean and variance (Scenario 1) or 95% confidence interval (Scenario 2) of ΔC, ΔE, and ICER for INB/variance calculations. Scenario 3: ΔC, ΔE, and variances are available, but not for the ICER; a Monte Carlo was used to simulate ΔC and ΔE data, variance and covariance can be then estimated leading INB calculation. Scenario-4: Only the CE plane was available, ΔC and ΔE data can be extracted; means of ΔC, ΔE, and variance/covariance can be estimated accordingly, leading to INB/variance estimates. Scenario-5: Only mean cost/outcomes and ICER are available but not for variance and the CE-plane. A variance INB can be borrowed from other studies which are similar characteristics, including country income, ICERs, intervention-comparator, time period, country region, and model type and inputs (i.e., discounting, time horizon).

CONCLUSION

Out data harmonisation and meta-analytic methods should be useful for researchers for the synthesis of economic evidence to aid policymakers in decision making.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Sitagliptin in the Spanish Setting

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population, but must work within constrained budgets. Therefore, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus once daily sitagliptin 100 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes from a healthcare payer perspective in the Spanish setting.

METHODS

Cost and clinical outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects on initiation of semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg were based on the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 7 and 2). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.0% annually.

RESULTS

Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.02 and 0.11 years, respectively, and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.17 and 0.24 years, respectively and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg from a healthcare payer perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were considered dominant (more effective and less costly) versus sitagliptin 100 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I²=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I²=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I²=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I²=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I²=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I²=0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25,000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies’ methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients’ clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.

Quantifying the Value of Orally Delivered Biologic Therapies: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Oral Semaglutide

Oral semaglutide, which has undergone multiple phase 3 clinical trials, represents the first oral biologic medication for type 2 diabetes in the form of a daily capsule. It provides similar efficacy compared with its weekly injection counterpart, but it demands a dose on the order of 100 times as high and requires more frequent administration. We perform a cost effectiveness analysis using a first and second order Monte Carlo simulation to estimate quality-adjusted life expectancies associated with an oral daily capsule, oral weekly capsule, daily injection, and weekly injection of semaglutide. We conclude that the additional costs incurred to produce extra semaglutide for the oral formulation are cost effective, given the greater quality of life experienced when taking a capsule over a weekly injection. We also demonstrate that the potency of semaglutide allows the formulation to be cost effective, and less potent drugs will require increased oral bioavailability to make a cost effective oral formulation.

Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies of newer antidiabetic medications.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Health Technology Assessment Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Wiley), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases (from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2018) were searched. The search strategies included the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term 'economics', and the MeSH entry terms 'cost', 'cost effectiveness', 'value', and 'cost utility', as well as all names for GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors. Inclusion criteria included (1) cost-effectiveness studies of the newer antidiabetic medications, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; and (2) full-text publications in English. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to select studies for data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of reporting cost-effectiveness analyses was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guideline.

RESULTS

Among 85 studies selected, 82 clearly stated the types of diabetes model used (e.g. CORE model), and 70 studied used validated diabetes models. Seventy-four (87%) studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 72 (85%) studies were conducted from a payer's perspective. Seventy-six (89%) studies presented were of good quality (20-24 CHEERS items), and nine were of moderate quality (14-19 items). Thirty studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with insulin, 3 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with thiazolidinediones (TZDs), 15 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with sulfonylureas, 40 studies compared new antidiabetic medications with alternative newer antidiabetic medication, and 9 studies compared other antidiabetic agents that were not included above. Newer antidiabetic medications were reported to be cost-effective in 26 of 30 (87%) studies compared with insulin, and 13 of 15 (87%) studies compared with sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

Most economic evaluations of antidiabetic medications have good reporting quality and use validated diabetes models. The newer antidiabetic medications in most of the reviewed studies were found to be cost effective, compared with insulin, TZDs, and sulfonylureas.

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.

The place of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment algorithm of diabetes type 2: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies of DPP-4 inhibitors for diabetes treatment versus other antidiabetics.

METHODS

Three investigators searched the CRD York, Tufts CEA Registry, and MEDLINE databases through 2015. We reviewed all potentially relevant titles and abstracts, and screened full-text articles, according to inclusion criteria. We established a quality score for each study based on a 35-item list.

RESULTS

A total of 295 studies were identified, of which 20 were included. The average quality score was 0.720 on a 0-1 scale. All studies were performed in high- and middle-income countries, using a 3rd-party payer perspective and randomized clinical trials to measure effectiveness. Sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin had an ICER below 25,000 €/QALY, as second-line and as add-ons to metformin, in comparison to sulfonylureas. When compared with sitagliptin, liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) had an ICER of up to 22,724 €/QALY for the 1.2-mg dosage, and up to 32,869 €/QALY for the 1.8-mg dosage. Insulin glargine was dominant when compared with sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the WHO threshold applied to the country and year of each study, DPP-4 inhibitors were highly cost-effective as second-line, as add-ons to metformin, in comparison with sulfonylureas. More recent therapies (GLP-1 receptor agonists and insulin glargine) were highly cost-effective in comparison to DPP-4 inhibitors. These results were obtained, however, on the basis of a limited number of studies, relying on the same few clinical trials, and financed by manufacturers. Further independent research is needed to confirm these findings.

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m2

OBJECTIVE

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m².

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs liraglutide 1.8 mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m². All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40 IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs.

RESULTS

Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5 mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results.

LIMITATIONS

Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations.

CONCLUSION

The model found that dulaglutide 1.5 mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

How Consistent is the Relationship between Improved Glucose Control and Modelled Health Outcomes for People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus? a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There are an increasing number of studies using simulation models to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between improvements in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) and simulated health outcomes in type 2 diabetes cost-effectiveness studies.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE to collect cost-effectiveness studies using type 2 diabetes simulation models that reported modelled health outcomes of blood glucose-related interventions in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or life expectancy (LE). The data extracted included information used to characterise the study cohort, the intervention's treatment effects on risk factors and model outcomes. Linear regressions were used to test the relationship between the difference in HbA_1c (∆HbA_1c) and incremental QALYs (∆QALYs) or LE (∆LE) of intervention and control groups. The ratio between the ∆QALYs and ∆LE was calculated and a scatterplot between the ratio and ∆HbA_1c was used to explore the relationship between these two.

RESULTS

Seventy-six studies were included in this research, contributing to 124 pair of comparators. The pooled regressions indicated that the marginal effect of a 1% HbA_1c decrease in intervention resulted in an increase in life-time QALYs and LE of 0.371 (95% confidence interval 0.286-0.456) and 0.642 (95% CI 0.494-0.790), respectively. No evidence of heterogeneity between models was found. An inverse exponential relationship was found and fitted between the ratio (∆QALY/∆LE) and ∆HbA_1c.

CONCLUSION

There is a consistent relationship between ∆HbA_1c and ∆QALYs or ∆LE in cost-effectiveness analyses using type 2 diabetes simulation models. This relationship can be used as a diagnostic tool for decision makers.

Liraglutide vs. sitagliptin add-on to metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Short-term cost-per-controlled patient in Italy

AIM

To estimate the short-term cost-per-controlled-patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus with liraglutide 1.2mg/day vs. sitagliptin 100mg/day as add-on treatment to metformin in Italy.

METHODS

The percentage of controlled patients, i.e. with "HbA1c<7% without hypoglycemia and weight gain", at 26 and 52 weeks with liraglutide and sitagliptin, as well as at 78 weeks for patients switching at 52 weeks from sitagliptin to liraglutide or hypothetically continuing on sitagliptin were obtained from randomized clinical trials (RCT) and a meta-analysis. The treatment cost-per-controlled-patient was calculated from the perspective of the National Health System over a 26, 52- and 78-week time horizon.

RESULTS

Despite the higher acquisition cost of liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, at 26 weeks liraglutide resulted in a lower cost-per-controlled-patient (€1460 vs. €1820 - with efficacy from RCT - and €1593 vs. €2234 - with efficacy from a meta-analysis), as well as at 52 weeks (€2627 vs. €2649). At 78 weeks, in patients who have switched from sitagliptin to liraglutide at 52 weeks, the cost-per-controlled-patient is also lower than that of patients continuing sitagliptin for 78 weeks (€2889 vs. €3970).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to higher efficacy, liraglutide is associated with better cost-benefit than sitagliptin at 26, 52 and 78 weeks.

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.

Clinical Effects of Liraglutide in a Real-World Setting in Spain: eDiabetes-Monitor SEEN Diabetes Mellitus Working Group Study

INTRODUCTION

A limitation with randomized controlled trials is that, while they provide unbiased evidence of the efficacy of interventions, they do so under unreal conditions and in a very limited and highly selected patient population. Our aim was to provide data about the effectiveness of liraglutide treatment in a real-world and clinical practice setting.

METHODS

In a retrospective and observational study, data from 753 patients with type 2 diabetes were recorded through an online tool (eDiabetes-Monitor).

RESULTS

Mean baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was 8.4 ± 1.4% and mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.6 ± 5.4 kg/m(2). After 3-6 months of treatment with liraglutide, we observed a change in HbA1c of -1.1 ± 1.2%, -4.6 ± 5.3 kg in weight and -1.7 ± 2.0 kg/m(2) in BMI (p < 0.001 for all). Compared to baseline, there was a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (-5.9 mmHg, p < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (-3.2 mmHg, p < 0.001), LDL cholesterol (-0.189 mmol/l, p < 0.001) and triglycerides (-0.09 mmol/l, p = 0.021). In patients switched from DPP-4 inhibitors, liraglutide induced a decrease of -1.0% in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a reduction in weight (-4.5 kg, p < 0.001). In patients treated with liraglutide as an add-on therapy to insulin a decrease of -1.08% in HbA1c (p < 0.001) and a weight reduction of -4.15 kg (p < 0.001) were observed.

CONCLUSION

Our study confirms the effectiveness of liraglutide in a real-life and clinical practice setting.

FUNDING

Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Incretin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes in Spain: 1.8 mg Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin

OBJECTIVES

Metformin is the first-line therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes, but the majority require treatment intensification at some stage due to the progressive nature of the disease. The 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial showed that liraglutide exhibited greater improvements compared with sitagliptin in glycated hemoglobin and body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. As a follow-up to a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of 1.2 mg liraglutide versus sitagliptin in Spain, the aim of this analysis was to compare long-term projections of the clinical and cost implications associated with 1.8 mg liraglutide and sitagliptin.

METHODS

For the modeling analysis, 52-week treatment effect data (as opposed to 26-week data in the previous analysis) were taken from the 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial, for adults with type 2 diabetes receiving 1.8 mg liraglutide or 100 mg sitagliptin daily in addition to metformin. Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2012 EUR) were made using a published and validated model of type 2 diabetes, with modeling assumptions as per the 1.2 mg liraglutide analysis.

RESULTS

Liraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy (14.24 versus 13.87 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.24 versus 8.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] over sitagliptin. Improved clinical outcomes were attributable to the improvement in glycemic control, leading to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications, including renal disease, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmic and diabetic foot complications. Liraglutide was associated with increased direct costs (EUR 56,628 versus EUR 52,450), driven by increased pharmacy costs. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,436 per QALY gained versus sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

A previous analysis has suggested that 1.2 mg liraglutide is cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective in Spain, and the present analysis suggests that the 1.8 mg dose is also likely to be cost-effective.

Cost-utility analysis of glucagon-like Peptide-1 agonists compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or neutral protamine hagedorn Basal insulin as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes in sweden

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the costs and benefits of three alternative second-line treatment strategies for Swedish patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who fail to reach glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤ 7% with metformin treatment alone: glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin.

METHODS

A previously developed cohort model for T2DM was applied over a 35-year time horizon. Data on T2DM patients on metformin monotherapy with HbA1c > 7% were collected from the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Treatment effects were taken from published studies. Costs and effects were discounted at 3% per annum, and the analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. The robustness of the results was evaluated using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Treatment with GLP-1 agonists was associated with a discounted incremental benefit of 0.10 and 0.25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and higher discounted costs of Swedish Krona (SEK) 34,865 and SEK 40,802 compared with DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin, respectively. Assuming willingness-to-pay (WTP) of SEK 500,000 per QALY, treatment strategy with GLP-1 agonists was a cost-effective option with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 353,172 and SEK 160,618 per QALY gained versus DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin, respectively. The results were most sensitive to incidence rate of moderate/major hypoglycemia and disutilities associated with insulin treatment, body mass index (BMI), and hypoglycemia.

CONCLUSION

Assuming a WTP of SEK 500,000 per QALY, treatment strategy with GLP-1 agonists is a cost-effective strategy in comparison to DPP-4 inhibitors and NPH insulin among T2DM patients inadequately controlled with metformin alone in a Swedish setting.

Cost effectiveness of liraglutide in type II diabetes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

As novel treatments for type II diabetes enter the market, there is a need to assess their long-term clinical and economic outcomes against currently available treatment alternatives. Objective compilation and evaluation of current pharmacoeconomic evidence can assist payers and decision makers in determining the appropriate place in therapy of a new medication.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost effectiveness and overall costs of treatment associated with liraglutide in type II diabetes.

DATA SOURCES

Medical literature indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and EconLit through 1 June 2014 was searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Full-text, English-language cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and other cost analyses in type II diabetes that compared liraglutide to one or more anti-diabetic agents were included. Initial screening was based on relevance of titles and abstracts followed by examination of the study methods of each remaining manuscript. Studies conducting original pharmacoeconomic analyses were chosen for inclusion.

STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS

Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were retrieved, and information on the study design and results was abstracted. Abstracted data elements were chosen and assessed based on the authors' experience as well as criteria set forth by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Task Force. Additionally, reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and selected sensitivity analysis results were converted to $US, year 2012 values, in order to facilitate comparison across studies.

RESULTS

A total of six cost studies and seven cost-utility studies were identified for inclusion. Across cost studies, liraglutide treatment resulted in costs ranging from a loss of $US2,730 (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. sitagliptin; pharmacy costs only) over a 1-year time horizon to a savings of $US9,367 (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride; diabetes-related complication costs only) over a 30-year time horizon. Cost-utility analysis results reported base-case ICERs ranging from $US15,774 (vs. glimepiride) to $US40,128 (vs. rosiglitazone) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ($US, year 2012) for liraglutide 1.2 mg and $US8,497 (vs. exenatide) to $US66,031 (vs. rosiglitazone)/QALY ($US, year 2012) for liraglutide 1.8 mg. Estimates were most sensitive to variations in time horizon and cardiovascular complication rates. Based on frequently cited, country-specific cost-utility thresholds, liraglutide was determined to have a probability of being cost effective of between 58 % (liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. sitagliptin) and 93 % (liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. glimepiride).

LIMITATIONS

Weaknesses of included studies related primarily to study model inputs that assumed long-term morbidity and mortality benefits in favor of liraglutide based on improvements in clinical biomarkers observed in short-term clinical trials. The exclusion of drug acquisition costs in two identified cost studies as well as the assumed lifetime duration of treatment with liraglutide in several cost-utility studies were also identified as weaknesses. The authors' review was limited by the possibility of incomplete literature retrieval, unintended omission of relevant data elements, and comparison of costs and ICERs generated from healthcare systems from differing countries.

CONCLUSIONS

The current literature presents liraglutide as a cost-effective adjunct treatment for type II diabetes that may also be associated with a reduction in diabetes-related complication costs; however, ICER values are largely dependent on assumptions regarding the benefits of long-term liraglutide treatment and the time horizon of the analysis. Real-world use may make liraglutide unattractive from a payer and policy-maker perspective.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide in patients with inadequately controlled Type 2 diabetes on oral antidiabetic drugs in Greece

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin or exenatide, added to oral antidiabetic drug mono- or combination therapy respectively, in patients with Type 2 diabetes in Greece.

METHODS

The CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was adapted to the Greek healthcare setting. Patient and intervention effects data were gathered from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.2 mg once daily vs. sitagliptin 100 mg once daily, both combined with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily vs. exenatide 10 μg twice daily, both as add-on to metformin, glimepiride or both. Direct costs were reported in 2013 Euros and calculated based on published and local sources. All future outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum, and the analysis was conducted from the perspective of a third-party payer in Greece.

RESULTS

Over a patient's lifetime, treatment with liraglutide 1.2 mg vs. sitagliptin drove a mean increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.13 (SD 0.23) years and in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.19 (0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), whereas therapy with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs. exenatide yielded increases of 0.14 (0.23) years and 0.19 (0.16) QALYs respectively. As regards lifetime direct costs, liraglutide 1.2 mg resulted in greater costs of €2797 (€1468) versus sitagliptin, and so did liraglutide 1.8 mg compared with exenatide (€1302 [€1492]). Liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg doses were associated with incremental cost effectiveness ratios of €15101 and €6818 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Liraglutide is likely to be a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a Greek setting.