IDegLira Versus Insulin Glargine U100: A Long-term Cost-effectiveness Analysis in the US Setting

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.

IDegLira for type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

IDegLira is a novel fixed-ratio soluble combination of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. Individual trials have assessed the clinical profile of IDegLira vs different comparators. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IDegLira for T2D.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to August 15, 2023. The primary outcomes included change from baseline in haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and body weight. Risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to evaluate the outcomes.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis identified 1044 citations, and included 13 eligible trials, enroling 7773 patients. Compared with the control groups, IDegLira was optimal in change in HbA1c, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 7%, percentage of patients achieving HbA1c < 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain and without severe or blood glucose (BG)-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, HbA1c < 6.5% without weight gain and without severe or BG-confirmed hypoglycaemia episodes, change in fasting plasma glucose, change in self-measured plasma glucose, change in systolic pressure, and total daily insulin dose. No difference was found between the IDegLira and control groups in terms of change in body weight, change in diastolic pressure, severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, nocturnal severe or BG-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia, adverse events or serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D, IDegLira improved glycaemic control whilst balancing out risk for hypoglycaemia and gastrointestinal side effects.

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of IDegLira versus Other Forms of Basal Insulin Intensification in Mexico

OBJECTIVES

Achieving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes is important as it reduces the risk of complications and their related clinical and economic burden. Yet therapeutic inertia due to the fear of hypoglycemia, complex treatment regimens, weight gain, and therapy costs, among others, limits achieving glycemic control. This analysis aims to assess the short-term cost of control (cost per patient achieving treatment goals) with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other forms of basal insulin intensification (insulin glargine titration, basal-bolus therapy, and the combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide: IGlarLixi) in type 2 diabetes patients not controlled with basal insulin in the Mexican private setting.

METHODS

The proportion of patients achieving treatment goals was obtained from DUAL V and DUAL VII studies (full trial population) and a indirect treatment comparison analyzing IDegLira versus IGlarLixi. Annual cost of treatment was estimated using unitary costs from IQVIA's Pharmaceutical Market Mexico (PMM) audit and wholesale acquisition costs (both from December 2021). The cost of control was estimated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the corresponding treatment goal: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) < 7.0%, HbA1C < 7.0% without weight gain, HbA1C < 7.0% without hypoglycemia, and HbA1C < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and weight gain. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how variations in the model inputs impacted cost-effectiveness outcomes.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients achieving treatment goals was higher for IDegLira versus other forms of basal insulin intensification in all endpoints assessed. The annual cost of treatment with IDegLira was similar to the cost of treatment versus IGlarLixi or versus basal-bolus therapy ($54,659 versus $55,831 MXN and $51,008 versus $52,987 MXN, respectively), and higher in comparison with insulin glargine titration ($52,186 versus $40,194 MXN). The cost of controlling one patient with IDegLira was lower than any other form of basal insulin intensification, for all treatment goals.

CONCLUSION

When integrating the greater clinical efficacy of IDegLira with its annual cost, it can be shown that within 1 year, IDegLira is the best option in terms of value for money for payers in a private healthcare setting in Mexico in comparison with other forms of basal insulin intensification. Thus, investing in IDegLira not only represents a greater clinical benefit, but also an economical one for payers.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other treatment regimens in the chinese type 2 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.

METHODS

The clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSION

IDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.

The diminishing cost-effectiveness of the newer glucose-lowering drug classes in the United States: 2010-2018

BACKGROUND

The difference between the costs of the newer and older glucose-lowering drugs (GLMs) has been steadily increasing since 2010. In 2018, newer drugs cost 8-12 times more than older drugs (except for insulin). This study aimed to understand how the cost change influenced the cost-effectiveness of the newer GLMs.

METHODS

Based on our previous literature review on US-based cost-effectiveness studies comparing newer (i.e. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA), and sodium-glucose transport protein 2 inhibitors) with older GLMs, we identified 12 studies that reported the cost-effectiveness of newer drugs based on drug costs estimated before 2010. We updated the corresponding cost-effectiveness of each study by replacing the old cost estimates with 2018 estimates from the 2018 IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Databases. The time window and willingness to pay threshold were consistent with the original studies.

RESULTS

Only 8% of the original studies suggested that the older drugs were cost-effective. However, 58% of studies were in favor of the older drugs after the cost update. Among the four studies comparing newer drugs with thiazolidinediones, all the original results favored newer drugs. However, all studies suggested thiazolidinedione to be cost-effective in the updated analysis. For the four studies comparing newer drugs with sulfonylureas, two studies suggested the sulfonylureas to be cost-effective after the cost update. All four studies suggested newer drugs to be cost-effective when compared with insulin in the original study. Only 1 flipped its conclusion when 2018 costs were used. Our sensitivity analysis shows that our results are robust under a 30% rebate.

CONCLUSION

Significant changes in the cost of GLMs have impacted the economic value of different GLM classes substantially. More cost-effectiveness analyses are warranted to support the drug choice in T2DM management.

The validity of cost-effectiveness analyses of tight glycemic control. A systematic survey of economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility.

RESULTS

We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.

Clinical Considerations When Initiating and Titrating Insulin Degludec/Liraglutide (IDegLira) in People with Type 2 Diabetes

Therapeutic inertia is a substantial obstacle to the initiation of insulin therapy in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). This effect has in part been perpetuated by concerns over the impact of a burdensome regimen and the increased risk of hypoglycemia and body weight gain often associated with insulin use. An effective, yet simple, less burdensome regimen with a lower risk of body weight gain and hypoglycemia compared with an insulin-only regimen, may help to address these concerns more effectively. We review the available clinical and real-world data on IDegLira, a once-daily, injectable, fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec (degludec) and the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) liraglutide, in people with T2D. Evidence from the comprehensive DUAL clinical trial program suggests an advantage of IDegLira over traditional insulin therapies in a number of clinical outcomes, including maintenance of glycemic control, achievement of glycemic targets, reducing the risk of hypoglycemia, and body weight loss. These findings were demonstrated in participants with T2D irrespective of prior GLP-1RA and insulin use. Furthermore, the individual components of IDegLira have confirmed safety (degludec) or significant benefit in terms of improvement of cardiovascular risk (liraglutide). As an injectable therapy that is simple to titrate, IDegLira has the potential to optimize the ability to achieve relevant glycemic targets, and offers a suitable treatment option for people with T2D requiring insulin therapy who are at risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

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.

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets

BACKGROUND

Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer.

RESULTS

More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Clinical Use of IDegLira: Initiation to Titration After Basal Insulin

Delayed treatment intensification is common in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Concerns about weight gain, hypoglycemia, increased regimen complexity, and additional copayments may lead to reluctance to initiate prandial insulin. IDegLira is a titratable, fixed-ratio coformulation that combines the advantages of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a single once-daily injection and mitigates the side effects associated with each component. Clinical trials have demonstrated that IDegLira improves glycemic control without the increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain observed with basal insulin up-titration and the addition of prandial insulin, and this is achieved using twice-weekly titration. Clinical trials and real-world studies have also shown that IDegLira has the potential to reduce therapeutic and titration inertia. However, better outcomes could be achieved with IDegLira initiation in suitable patients with timely titration and by providers sharing their experience with this combination product. This review describes considerations for initiation, titration, and intensification of IDegLira in patients previously receiving basal insulin.

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.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes in Spain based on real-world clinical evidence

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus comparator regimens for type 2 diabetes in Spain, based on real-world evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data were taken from the European Xultophy Treatment Retrospective Audit (EXTRA) real-world evidence study in which patients failing to meet glycaemic targets were switched to IDegLira. Baseline regimens (prior to IDegLira treatment) were categorized as: multiple daily insulin injections (MDI; 28%); glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in combination with insulin (24%); basal insulin (19%); GLP-1 receptor agonists (10%); and non-injectable medications (19%). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term outcomes for patients switching to IDegLira or continuing their baseline regimens (excluding non-injectable regimens). Costs were accounted from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy versus all four comparators. IDegLira reduced direct medical costs versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with insulin, and versus GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, and was therefore considered dominant (cost saving while improving outcomes). IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus MDI and basal insulin with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 3013 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and EUR 6890 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections based on real-world evidence indicated that IDegLira is likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs or be cost-effective compared with other injectable regimens in people with type 2 diabetes in Spain.

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

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 management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of IDegLira versus basal-bolus insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes in the Slovak health system

Aims

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in Slovakia.

Methods

Long-term clinical and economic outcomes for patients receiving IDegLira and basal-bolus therapy were estimated using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model based on a published pooled analysis of patient-level data.

Results

IDegLira was associated with an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with basal-bolus therapy. The average lifetime cost per patient in the IDegLira arm was EUR 2,449 higher than in the basal-bolus therapy arm. Increased treatment costs with IDegLira were partially offset by cost savings from avoided diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was highly cost-effective versus basal-bolus therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 8,590 per QALY gained, which is well below the cost-effectiveness threshold set by the law in Slovakia.

Conclusion

IDegLira is cost-effective in Slovakia, providing a simple option for intensification of basal insulin therapy without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain and with fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen.

Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Insulin Intensification Regimens for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the insulin degludec/liraglutide combination (IDegLira) versus basal insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not optimally controlled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the QuintilesIMS Health CORE Diabetes model, an interactive internet-based model that simulates clinical outcomes and costs for cohorts of patients with diabetes. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Czech Republic public payer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters.

RESULTS

The use of IDegLira was associated with an improvement in the quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.31 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional cost of Czech Koruna (CZK) 107,829 over a patient's lifetime compared with basal-bolus therapy, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CZK 345,052 per QALY gained. In a scenario analysis, IDegLira was associated with an ICER of CZK 693,763 per QALY gained compared to basal insulin + glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). The ICERs are below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold (CZK 1,100,000/QALY gained at the time of this analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this evaluation suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option compared with basal-bolus therapy and basal insulin + GLP-1 RA for patients with T2DM in the Czech Republic whose diabetes is not optimally controlled with basal insulin.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.