The Cost-Effectiveness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide Treatment in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease

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.

Multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin for heart failure patients with ejection fraction >40

AIMS

Heart failure is a chronic progressive condition, with considerable burden on patients' quality of life and economic burden for the healthcare systems. Before the approval of empagliflozin, there were no proven effective treatments for patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction (HF LVEF) > 40%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone for patients with HF LVEF > 40%, from the perspective of the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, and France, and to quantify the healthcare costs for these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A lifetime Markov cohort state-transition model was developed based on discrete health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score quartiles to track disease severity. Model inputs relied primarily on the EMPEROR-Preserved trial data or obtained from published literature or country-specific databases, as well as local guidelines for the requirements for the conduct of the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies. The total lifetime cost of receiving SoC per patient was £10 092, €15 765, and €14 958 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively, which increased by £1407, €1148, and €1485, respectively, with the addition of empagliflozin to the SoC. Empagliflozin + SoC was associated with significantly reduced number of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with SoC alone, which was a key driver offsetting its drug acquisition costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was consistently favourable at £14 851, €11 706, and €15 447 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively. Scenario analysis using the New York Heart Association functional class showed similar results. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed more than 50% probability for cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £/€20 000/QALY for the three countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin was found to be the first targeted treatment option that is clinically effective and cost-effective for patients with HF LVEF > 40%. Prescribing empagliflozin with SoC to patients with HF LVEF > 40% is expected to improve clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life and substantially below accepted WTP threshold for the healthcare systems in the UK, Spain, and France.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Newer Non-Insulin Antidiabetic Drugs: Trends in Decision-Analytical Models for Modelling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic overview of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing Non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) with other NIADs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using decision-analytical modelling (DAM), focusing on both the economic results and the underlying methodological choices.

METHODS

Eligible studies were CEAs using DAM to compare NIADs within the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor classes with other NIADs within those classes for the treatment of T2DM. The PubMed, Embase and Econlit databases were searched from 1 January 2018 to 15 November 2022. Two reviewers screened the studies for relevance by titles and abstracts and then for eligibility via full-text screening, extracted the data from the full texts and appendices, and then stored the data in a spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The search yielded 890 records and 50 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting (60%). Industry sponsorship was found in 82% of studies. The CORE diabetes model was used in 48% of the studies. GLP1 and SGLT2 products were the main comparators in 31 and 16 studies, respectively, while one study had DPP4 and two had no easily discernible main comparator. Direct comparison between SGLT2 and GLP1 occurred in 19 studies. At a class level, SGLT2 dominated GLP1 in six studies and was cost effective against GLP1 once as part of a treatment pathway. GLP1 was cost effective in nine studies and not cost effective against SGLT2 in three studies. At a product level, oral and injectable semaglutide, and empagliflozin, were cost effective against other within-class products. Injectable and oral semaglutide were more frequently found cost effective in these comparisons, with some conflicting results. Most of the modelled cohorts and treatment effects were sourced from randomised controlled trials. The following model assumptions varied depending on the class of the main comparator: choice of and reasoning behind risk equations, the time until the treatment switch, and how often the comparators were discontinued. Diabetes-related complications were emphasised on par with quality-adjusted life-years as model outputs. The main quality issues were regarding the description of alternatives, the perspective of analysis, the measurement of costs and consequences, and patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The included CEAs using DAMs have limitations that hinder their ability to inform decision makers on the cost-effective choice: lack of updated reasoning behind the choice of key model assumptions, over-reliance on risk equations based on older treatment practices, and sponsorship bias. The question of which NIAD is cost effective for the treatment of which T2DM patient is a pressing one and the answer remains unclear.

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Antidiabetic Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Newer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.

Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide vs. Empagliflozin, Canagliflozin, and Sitagliptin for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Denmark: A Decision-Analytic Modelling Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral and subcutaneous semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs (i.e., empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and sitagliptin) for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Denmark using clinically relevant treatment intensification rules.

METHODS

A Markov-type cohort model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways for T2D was used to produce cost-effectiveness estimates based on four head-to-head trials. Evidence from PIONEER 2 and 3 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin and sitagliptin. Evidence from SUSTAIN 2 and 8 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin and canagliflozin. Base case analyses used trial product estimands of treatment efficacy to avoid the confounding effects of rescue medication use during trials. Deterministic scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates.

RESULTS

Semaglutide-based treatment regimens were consistently associated with higher lifetime diabetes treatment costs, lower costs of complications, and higher lifetime accumulated QALYs. The PIONEER 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin was DKK 150,618/QALY (€20,189). The PIONEER 3 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 95,093/QALY (€12,746). The SUSTAIN 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 79,982/QALY (€10,721). The SUSTAIN 8 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. canagliflozin was DKK 167,664/QALY (€22,474).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily oral and weekly subcutaneous semaglutide are likely to both increase cost and health benefits, but are likely to do so under commonly considered cost-effectiveness thresholds.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered August 11, 2016); NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered November 18, 2015); NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2; registered August 28, 2013); NCT03136484 (SUSTAIN 8; registered May 2, 2017).

The challenges and pitfalls of incorporating evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials in health economic modelling of type 2 diabetes

The clinical evidence base for evaluating modern type 2 diabetes interventions has expanded greatly in recent years, with numerous efficacious treatment options available (including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors). The cardiovascular safety of these interventions has been assessed individually versus placebo in numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs), statistically powered to detect differences in a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events. There have been growing calls to incorporate these data in the long-term modelling of type 2 diabetes interventions because current diabetes models were developed prior to the conduct of the CVOTs and therefore rely on risk equations developed in the absence of these data. However, there are numerous challenges and pitfalls to avoid when using data from CVOTs. The primary concerns are around the heterogeneity of the trials, which have different study durations, inclusion criteria, rescue medication protocols and endpoint definitions; this results in significant uncertainty when comparing two or more interventions evaluated in separate CVOTs, as robust adjustment for these differences is difficult. Analyses using CVOT data inappropriately can dilute clear evidence from head-to-head clinical trials, and blur healthcare decision making. Calibration of existing models may represent an approach to incorporating CVOT data into diabetes modelling, but this can only offer a valid comparison of one intervention versus placebo based on a single CVOT. Ideally, model development should utilize patient-level data from CVOTs to prepare novel risk equations that can better model modern therapies for type 2 diabetes.

First-Line Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes With Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 Inhibitors and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists : A Cost-Effectiveness Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. Expanding their use as first-line therapy has been proposed but the clinical benefits may not outweigh their costs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of a strategy of first-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists.

DESIGN

Individual-level Monte Carlo-based Markov model.

DATA SOURCES

Randomized trials, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention databases, RED BOOK, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

TARGET POPULATION

Drug-naive U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes.

TIME HORIZON

Lifetime.

PERSPECTIVE

Health care sector.

INTERVENTION

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP1 receptor agonists.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Life expectancy, lifetime costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).

RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS

First-line SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists had lower lifetime rates of congestive heart failure, ischemic heart disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with metformin. First-line SGLT2 inhibitors cost $43 000 more and added 1.8 quality-adjusted months versus first-line metformin ($478 000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]). First-line injectable GLP1 receptor agonists cost more and reduced QALYs compared with metformin.

RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

By removing injection disutility, first-line GLP1 receptor agonists were no longer dominated (ICER, $327 000 per QALY). Oral GLP1 receptor agonists were not cost-effective (ICER, $823 000 per QALY). To be cost-effective at under $150 000 per QALY, costs for SGLT2 inhibitors would need to be under $5 per day and under $6 per day for oral GLP1 receptor agonists.

LIMITATION

U.S. population and costs not generalizable internationally.

CONCLUSION

As first-line agents, SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists would improve type 2 diabetes outcomes, but their costs would need to fall by at least 70% to be cost-effective.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

American Diabetes Association.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US

INTRODUCTION

Many people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) experience suboptimal glycemic control and require therapy advancement. This cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi (insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide) versus BIAsp 30 (biphasic insulin aspart 30) in people with T2DM suboptimally controlled with basal insulin.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2DM from a US healthcare payer perspective. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical study, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with twice-daily BIAsp 30. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for iGlarLixi versus BIAsp 30 was estimated; the willingness-to-pay threshold was considered to be $50,000. A subgroup analysis considered people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

RESULTS

Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi compared with BIAsp 30 (9.3 vs. 9.2), with lower costs for iGlarLixi ($117,854 vs. $120,109); the ICER for iGlarLixi was therefore considered dominant over BIAsp 30 in the base case. Key drivers for cost savings were the higher dose and twice-daily administration for BIAsp 30 versus once-daily administration for iGlarLixi. The robustness of the base-case results was confirmed by sensitivity and scenario analyses. Results were similar in a subgroup of people with T2DM aged ≥ 65 years.

CONCLUSION

In people with T2DM with suboptimal glycemic control on basal insulin, iGlarLixi confers improved QALYs and reduced costs compared with BIAsp 30.

Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the UK

INTRODUCTION

iGlarLixi is indicated as an adjunct to diet and exercise in addition to metformin (with or without sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) to improve glycemic control in adults with insufficiently controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D). A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare iGlarLixi with premix biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with T2D suboptimally controlled with basal insulin (BI).

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes for people with T2D from a UK health care perspective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. Initial clinical data were based on the phase 3 randomized, open-label, active-controlled SoliMix clinical trial which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily iGlarLixi with that of twice-daily BIAsp 30. Costs associated with management and complications and utilities values were derived from published sources. Lifetime costs (in £GBP) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Estimated QALYs gained were slightly higher with iGlarLixi (8.9 vs. 8.8) compared with premix BIAsp 30, at a higher cost (£23,204 vs. £21,961). The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY was £13,598. Treatment acquisition was the main driver of cost differences (iGlarLixi, £11,750; premix BIAsp 30, £10,395). Costs associated with management and complications were generally similar between comparators.

CONCLUSION

iGlarLixi provides improved QALY outcomes at an acceptable cost compared with premix BIAsp 30, with an ICER below the threshold generally considered acceptable by UK authorities. In people with T2D, iGlarLixi is a simple, cost-effective option for advancing therapy of BI, with fewer daily injections than premix BIAsp 30.

The Place and Value of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Evolving Treatment Paradigm for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review

Over recent years, the expanding evidence base for sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) therapies has revealed benefits beyond their glucose-lowering efficacy in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), resulting in their recognition as cardiorenal medicines. While SGLT2is continue to be recommended among the second-line therapies for the treatment of hyperglycaemia, their true value now extends to the prevention of debilitating and costly cardiovascular and renal events for high-risk individuals, with particular benefit shown in reducing major adverse cardiac events and heart failure (HF) and slowing the progression of chronic kidney disease. However, SGLT2i usage is still suboptimal among groups considered to be at greatest risk of cardiorenal complications. The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has intensified financial pressures on healthcare systems, which may hamper further investment in newer effective medicines. Emerging evidence indicates that glycaemic control should be prioritised for people with T2DM in the era of COVID-19 and practical advice on the use of T2DM medications during periods of acute illness remains important, particularly for healthcare professionals working in primary care who face multiple competing priorities. This article provides the latest update from the Improving Diabetes Steering Committee, including perspectives on the value of SGLT2is as cost-effective therapies within the T2DM treatment paradigm, with particular focus on the latest published evidence relating to the prevention or slowing of cardiorenal complications. The implications for ongoing and future approaches to diabetes care are considered in the light of the continuing coronavirus pandemic, and relevant aspects of international treatment guidelines are highlighted with practical advice on the appropriate use of SGLT2is in commonly occurring T2DM clinical scenarios. The 'SGLT2i Prescribing Tool for T2DM Management', previously published by the Steering Committee, has been updated to reflect the latest evidence and is provided in the Supplementary Materials to help support clinicians delivering T2DM care.

Current gaps in management and timely referral of cardiorenal complications among people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Middle East and African countries: Expert recommendations

The upsurge of type 2 diabetes mellitus is a major public health concern in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and Africa (AFR) region, with cardiorenal complications (CRCs) being the predominant cause of premature morbidity and mortality. High prevalence of cardiometabolic risk factors, lack of awareness among patients and physicians, deficient infrastructure, and economic constraints lead to a cascade of CRCs at a significantly earlier age in MENA and AFR. In this review, we present consensus recommendations by experts in MENA and AFR, highlighting region-specific challenges and potential solutions for management of CRCs. Health professionals who understand sociocultural barriers can significantly increase patient awareness and encourage health-seeking behavior through simple educational tools. Increasing physician knowledge on early identification of CRCs and personalized treatment based on risk stratification, alongside optimum glycemic control, can mitigate therapeutic inertia. Early diagnosis of high-risk people with regular and systematic monitoring of cardiorenal parameters, development of region-specific care pathways for timely referral to specialists, followed by guideline-recommended care with novel antidiabetics are imperative. Adherence to guideline-recommended care can catalyze utilization of sodium glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists with demonstrated cardiorenal benefits-thus paving the way for overcoming care gaps in a cost-effective manner. Leveraging digital technology like electronic medical records can help generate real-world data and provide insights on voids in adoption of newer antidiabetic medications. A patient-centric approach, collaborative care among physicians from different specialties, alongside involvement of policy makers are key for improving patient outcomes and quality of care in MENA and AFR.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line empagliflozin versus liraglutide for type 2 diabetes in the United States

AIM

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide after metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the US payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An economic simulation model with a lifetime horizon was developed to estimate T2D-related complications (including cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renal outcomes) using EMPA-REG OUTCOME data or UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk equations, in patients with or without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), respectively. Evidence synthesis methods were used to provide effectiveness inputs for empagliflozin and liraglutide. Population characteristics, adverse event rates, treatment escalation, costs ($2019), and utilities (both discounted 3%/year) were taken from US sources.

RESULTS

Compared with second-line liraglutide in the overall T2D population, second-line empagliflozin was dominant as it was associated with lower total lifetime cost ($11 244/patient less) and resulted in a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (0.32/patient). Second-line empagliflozin was associated with reductions in CV death (by 5%) and lower cumulative complication rates in patients with CVD (by 2%), relative to second-line liraglutide. These findings were consistent among patients with co-morbid CVD, with gains in incremental QALYs (0.43/patient) and lower lifetime cost (by $10 175/patient) relative to second-line liraglutide. Scenario analyses consistently showed dominance for second-line empagliflozin.

CONCLUSION

For patients with T2D, use of second-line empagliflozin combined with metformin was a dominant strategy for US payers, associated with extended survival, improved QALYs, and lower costs compared with second-line liraglutide.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

International and Danish guidelines recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors already in second line in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (CE) of subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide (GLP-1 RA) versus empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor) in individuals with T2D uncontrolled on metformin alone from a Danish payer's perspective.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were conducted from a Danish payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model (CDM 9.5), with a time horizon of 50 years and an annual discount of 4% on costs and effects. Patients received either SC semaglutide or empagliflozin, in addition to metformin, until HbA1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was reached, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or SC semaglutide plus metformin was considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published CEA. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were also obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from Danish official sources. Scenario analyses were also performed to test the accuracy of the base case results.

RESULTS

Individuals with T2D on SC semaglutide plus metformin gained 0.065 life-years (LYs) and 0.130 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), respectively, at an incremental cost of DKK 96,923 (€ 13,031) compared to empagliflozin plus metformin, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DKK 745,561(€ 100,239) per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results showed that the SC semaglutide plus metformin was cost-effective in 19% of simulations assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of DKK 357,100 (€ 48,011)/QALY gained. Duration of therapy with SC semaglutide seems the key driver of results.

CONCLUSION

The current analyses suggest that SC semaglutide plus metformin is not cost-effective compared to empagliflozin plus metformin from a Danish payer's perspective.

The Influence of Tofogliflozin on Treatment-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Treatment-related quality of life (QOL) is an important aspect of diabetes management. We evaluated the influence of a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, tofogliflozin, on treatment-related QOL in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This is the prespecified subanalysis study of the "Using TOfogliflozin for Possible better Intervention against Atherosclerosis for type 2 diabetes patients (UTOPIA)" trial. Treatment-related QOL was evaluated at baseline, week 26, week 52, and week 104 after the initiation of the study using the Diabetes Therapy-Related QOL questionnaire (DTR-QOL). Among the 340 patients in the original UTOPIA study, a total of 252 patients (127, tofogliflozin group; 125, conventional treatment group) who completed the DTR-QOL questionnaire at baseline were the study subjects of the current subanalysis.

RESULTS

The tofogliflozin and conventional treatment groups exhibited almost comparable baseline clinical characteristics, while the use of antihypertensive drugs and lipid-lowering agents was significantly lower in the tofogliflozin treatment group than in the conventional treatment group. Tofogliflozin treatment increased the total score of DTR-QOL7 from baseline (P < 0.001), while conventional treatment did not change it. There were statistically significant differences in delta change in the total DTR-QOL7 score and DTR-QOL7 Q4, Q5, Q6, and Q7 scores from the baseline to week 104 between the treatment groups. Delta changes in HbA1c (Spearman's correlation coefficient, ρ =  - 0.30, P < 0.001), fasting blood glucose (ρ =  - 0.16, P = 0.031), BMI (ρ =  - 0.19, P = 0.008), and waist circumference (ρ =  - 0.17, P = 0.024) at week 104 were negatively associated with delta change in the total QOL7 score.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicated that tofogliflozin treatment improved treatment-related QOL compared to conventional treatment in Japanese patients with T2DM, in accordance with the improvement of major cardiovascular risk factors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000017607.