Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi in People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Suboptimally Controlled on Basal Insulin Plus Metformin in the UK

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.

Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters.

RESULTS

Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of iGlarLixi Versus IDegAsp and Appropriate Price Exploration of iGlarLixi for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin glargine plus lixisenatide, have been demonstrated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. However, no relevant economic analysis of iGlarLixi has been done in China. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese T2DM patients, and then back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi to support its pricing after listing in China.

METHODS

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) was applied to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes from the Chinese health-care system perspective. As no head-to-head comparison data are currently available, the baseline cohort characteristics and the initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were derived from the randomized LixiLan-L-China trial. The relative treatment effects for IDegAsp were based on an indirect treatment comparison. Due to the unavailability of iGlarLixi pricing data, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was assumed to be equal to that of IDegAsp at the beginning of the study. Afterwards, a break-even analysis using comparator drug price and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was performed to back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi. One-way sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Based on the initial assumption of equal annual medication cost of iGlarLixi and IDegAsp, iGlarLixi was cost effective compared to IDegAsp with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) far below the WTP threshold in Chinese T2DM patients. From the back calculation for the price of iGlarLixi, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was $656.96 and $1075.96 to obtain an ICER of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp close to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP, respectively. When the discount rate was changed from the base value to 8% (the most sensitive parameter to the model results in one-way sensitivity analysis), the ICER was nearly equal to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP with the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi decreasing to $590.41 and $865.03, respectively. Thus, iGlarLixi was dominant over IDegAsp with an annual medication cost of $590.41 to $865.03. The findings were robust to one-way sensitivity analysis, PSA and scenario analysis.

CONCLUSION

This long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in Chinese T2DM patients indicates that iGlarLixi, assuming equal price to IDegAsp, is cost-effective versus IDegAsp with an ICER far below the WTP threshold. With 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP threshold set we back-calculate the appropriate annual medication cost of iGlarLixi to be $590.41 to $865.03, respectively.

Fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists as a promising strategy for treating diabetes

The maintenance of appropriate glycemic control is important for the prevention of diabetic complications in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Numerous oral antidiabetic drugs are now clinically available, but in particular, the introduction of injection regimens using insulin and/or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA)s represents promising step-up options for oral antidiabetic drug treatment. The recently licensed fixed-ratio combination (FRC) products, which comprise basal insulin and a GLP-1RA, have potent anti-hyperglycemic effects and reduce the undesirable side-effects of each component, such as body weight gain, hypoglycemia, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Two FRCs-insulin degludec/Liraglutide and insulin glargine/Lixisenatide-are now clinically available and, to date, several phase II/III trials have been conducted in particular groups of subjects with T2D. However, their utility in real-world clinical settings is of interest for most clinicians. Recently reported real-world clinical trials of these two FRCs in various situations have demonstrated their efficacy regarding glycemic control and the quality of life of people with T2D. Their long-term safety and efficacy require confirmation, but a treatment strategy that includes an FRC may be compatible with the concept of “well-balanced” therapy in certain groups of patients with T2D who have inadequate glycemic control.

Health Care Resource Utilization in Adults Living With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus in the South African Public Health Sector: Protocol for a 1-Year Retrospective Analysis With a 5-, 10-, and 25-Year Projection

BACKGROUND

Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is less common than type 2 diabetes mellitus but is increasing in frequency in South Africa. It tends to affect younger individuals, and upon diagnosis, exogenous insulin is essential for survival. In South Africa, the health care system is divided into private and public health care systems. The private system is well resourced, whereas the public sector, which treats more than 80% of the population, has minimal resources. There are currently no studies in South Africa, and Africa at large, that have evaluated the immediate and long-term costs of managing people living with T1DM in the public sector.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to quantify the cost of health care resource utilization over a 12-month period in patients with controlled and uncontrolled T1DM in the public health care sector. In addition, we will project costs for 5, 10, and 25 years and determine if there are cost differences in managing subsets of patients who achieve glycemic control (hemoglobin A_1c [HbA_1c] <7%) and those who do not.

METHODS

The study was performed in accordance with Good Epidemiological Practice. Ethical clearance and institutional permissions were acquired. Clinical data were collected from 2 tertiary hospitals in South Africa. Patients with T1DM, who provided written informed consent, and who satisfied the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Data collection included demographic and clinical characteristics, acute and chronic complications, hospital admissions, and so on. We plan to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis to quantify the costs of health care utilization in the preceding 12 months. In addition, we will estimate projected costs over the next 10 years, assuming that study participants maintain their current HbA_1c level. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be modeled using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. The primary outcome measures are incremental quality-adjusted life years, incremental costs, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and incremental life years.

RESULTS

Ethical clearance and institutional approval were obtained (reference number 200407). Enrollment began on February 9, 2021, and was completed on August 24, 2021, with 224 participants. A database lock was performed on October 29, 2021. The statistical analysis and clinical study report were completed in January 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, there are no data assessing the short- and long-term costs of managing patients with T1DM in the South African public sector. It is hoped that the findings of this study will help policy makers optimally use limited resources to reduce morbidity and mortality in people living with T1DM.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR1-10.2196/44308.

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.