Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Plus Liraglutide (IDegLira) in a Fixed Combination for Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Sweden

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.

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.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide versus Dulaglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes with Inadequate Glycemic Control in China

INTRODUCTION

The objective of the current study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin in the Chinese setting.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute of Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was used to evaluate the long-term health and economic outcomes of once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide. Analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare systems over a time horizon of 40 years. Data on baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial. Costs included treatment costs and costs of complications. Projected health and economic outcomes were discounted at a rate of 5% annually. The robustness of the results was evaluated through one-way sensitivity analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 years, respectively, and improvements in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.08 and 0.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of 8355 Chinese Yuan (CNY) with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 11,553 CNY with once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg. Sensitivity analyses verified the robustness of the research results.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly semaglutide was suggested to be dominant (more effective and less costly) versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin treatment in China.

Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015).

Insulin degludec/liraglutide versus its monotherapy on T2D patients: A lifetime cost-utility analysis in China

Introduction: IDegLira (brand name Xultophy) is a novel fixed ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. This study aimed to investigate the lifetime cost-effective value of IDegLira compared with its single component (Degludec or Liraglutide) and to explore the suitable annual cost of IDegLira if necessary. Methods: UKPDS OM2 was applied to determine the long-term quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and total costs. The efficacy data that were inputted into the model were synthesized from 6 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that directly assessed the clinical benefit of IDegLira and its components in the treatment of uncontrolled T2D patients. The economic results were examined by one-way sensitivity analysis (OSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). Further price reduction of IDegLira was investigated by binary search. Results: The IDegLira, IDeg, and Lira yielded 11.79 QALYs, 11.62 QALYs, and 11.73 QALYs and total cost of $20281.61, $3726.76, and $11941.26, respectively. The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of IDegLira versus IDeg was $99464.12/QALYs, and the ICUR of IDegLira versus Lira was $143348.26/QALYs, which indicated that IDegLira was not a cost-effective therapy for T2D patients compared with its components at the current price from a Chinese national healthcare system perspective. Base case results were robust to OSA and PSA. A further binary search showed that IDegLira appears to only be cost-effective if the annual cost of IDegLira is decreased by 58% when IDeg is considered as a reference, or by 30.57% when Lira is considered as a reference. Conclusion: In conclusion, IDegLira appears to not be cost-effective when compared with the current prices of IDeg or Lira for T2D patients in China. However, after the binary search, IDegLira appears to only be cost-effective if the annual cost of IDegLira is decreased 58% when IDeg is considered as a reference, or by 30.57% when Lira is considered as a reference.

Review and estimation of disutility for joint health states of severe and nonsevere hypoglycemic events in diabetes

Aim: Many economic evaluations used linear or log-transformed additive methods to estimate the disutility of hypoglycemic events in diabetes, both nonsevere (NSHEs) and severe (SHEs). Methods: We conducted a literature search for studies of disutility for hypoglycemia. We used additive, minimum and multiplicative methods, and the adjusted decrement estimator to estimate the disutilities of joint health states with both NSHEs and SHEs in six scenarios. Results: Twenty-four studies reported disutilities for hypoglycemia in diabetes. Based on construct validity, the adjusted decrement estimator method likely provides less biased estimates, predicting that when SHEs occur, the additional impact from NSHEs is marginal. Conclusion: Our proposed new method provides a different perspective on the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years in economic evaluations of hypoglycemic treatments.

The burden of poor glycaemic control in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Sweden: A health economic modelling analysis based on nationwide data

AIM

To evaluate the economic and clinical burden associated with poor glycaemic control in Sweden, in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population data were obtained from Swedish national registers. Immediate glycaemic control was compared with delays in achieving control of 1 and 3 years, with outcomes projected over 3, 10 and 50 years in the validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Glycaemic control was defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets of 52, 48 and 42 mmol/mol, as recommended in Swedish guidelines, according to age and disease duration. Costs (expressed in 2019 Swedish krona [SEK]) were accounted from a Swedish societal perspective.

RESULTS

Immediate glycaemic control was associated with population-level cost savings of up to SEK 279 million and SEK 673 million versus delays of 1 and 3 years, respectively, as well as small population-level life expectancy benefits of up to 1305 and 2590 life years gained. Reduced levels of burden were a result of lower incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in people with T2D initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy, the economic burden of poor glycaemic control in Sweden is substantial, but could be reduced by early and effective treatment to achieve glycaemic targets.

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.

Comparing the Cohort and Micro-Simulation Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Study of the IHE Diabetes Cohort Model and the Economics and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM

BACKGROUND

Economic modeling is widely used in estimating cost-effectiveness in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Because type 2 diabetes is complex and patients are heterogenous, the cohort modeling approach may generate biased estimates of costeffectiveness. The IHE Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was constructed using the cohort approach as an alternative for stakeholders with limited resources, some of whom have voiced reasonable concerns about a lack of transparency with type 2 diabetes micro-simulation models and long run times.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to inform decision makers by investigating the direction and magnitude of bias of IHE-DCM cost-effectiveness estimates that can be attributed to the cohort modeling approach.

METHODS

Simulation scenarios inspired by the 9th Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge were simulated with IHE-DCM and with a micro-simulation model, the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM), and key metrics (absolute and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years, event rates, and cost-effectiveness) were compared for evidence of systematic differences. The models were harmonized to the extent possible to ensure that differences were driven primarily by the unit of observation and not by other model differences.

RESULTS

IHE-DCM run times were faster and IHE-DCM produced uniformly larger estimates of absolute life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs than ECHO-T2DM but smaller between-arm (incremental) differences. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits varied similarly and predictably across the scenarios. On average, IHE-DCM estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits were CAN$269 (3%) and CAN$2935 (10%) smaller, respectively, than ECHO-T2DM.

CONCLUSIONS

There was little evidence that estimated cost-effectiveness metrics, the outcomes that matter most to stakeholders, differed systematically.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Empagliflozin Versus Oral Semaglutide, in Addition to Metformin, for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION

International guidelines recommend treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with progression on metformin. In the randomised, controlled, Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 2 trial, the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin was compared with the GLP-1 receptor agonist oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin. The aim of the current study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin 25 mg versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, in addition to metformin, for T2DM patients in the UK.

METHODS

Analyses were conducted from the UK healthcare payer perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model, with a time horizon of 50 years. Patients received either empagliflozin or oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin, until Hba1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was exceeded, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or oral semaglutide plus metformin was assumed. Baseline cohort characteristics and 52-week treatment effects were derived from the PIONEER 2 trial. Treatment effects of empagliflozin and GLP-1 receptor agonists on hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF) were based on the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) real-world study. Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Direct costs for empagliflozin plus metformin were considerably lower than those for oral semaglutide plus metformin (by more than GBP 6000). Compared with oral semaglutide plus metformin, empagliflozin plus metformin was a cost-effective treatment for T2DM patients in all scenarios tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed cost-effectiveness in > 95% of the iterations using a threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Empagliflozin 25 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, when used in addition to metformin, for the treatment of T2DM patients in the UK.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of semaglutide versus dulaglutide, as an add-on to metformin monotherapy, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), from a Canadian societal perspective.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Cohort Model of T2D was used to assess the cost effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) versus once-weekly dulaglutide (0.75 or 1.5 mg) over a 40-year time horizon. Using data from the SUSTAIN 7 trial, which demonstrated comparatively greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index and systolic blood pressure with semaglutide, compared with dulaglutide, a deterministic base-case and scenario simulation were conducted. The robustness of the results was evaluated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses and 15 deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis indicated that semaglutide is a dominant treatment option, compared with dulaglutide. Semaglutide was associated with lower total costs (Canadian dollars [CAN$]) versus dulaglutide for both low-dose (CAN$113,287 vs. CAN$113,690; cost-saving: CAN$403) and high-dose (CAN$112,983 vs. CAN$113,695; cost-saving: CAN$711) comparisons. Semaglutide resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and QALY gains, compared with dulaglutide, for both low-dose (11.10 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.04 QALYs) and high-dose (11.12 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.05 QALYs) comparisons. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for 66-73% of iterations, semaglutide was either dominant or was considered cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000.

CONCLUSIONS

From a Canadian societal perspective, semaglutide may be a cost-effective treatment option versus dulaglutide in patients with T2D who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden

Aims: This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide vs glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin or basal insulin in Sweden. Materials and methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used. For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg. In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide. The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide. Limitations and conclusions: It is likely that this analysis is conservative in estimating the cardiovascular (CV) cost benefits associated with treatment with once-weekly semaglutide. In patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin, the analyses vs lixisenatide were based on results from an NMA, as no head-to-head clinical trial has been conducted for this comparison. These CEA results show that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective GLP-1 RA therapy for the treatment of T2D in patients inadequately controlled on metformin or basal insulin, addressing many current clinician, patient, and payer unmet needs in Sweden.

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.

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.

Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in the Czech Republic: Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus iGlarLixi

INTRODUCTION

Few patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieve recommended glycemic control targets in the Czech Republic. Novel therapies, such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, may contribute to better glycemic control. In the analysis presented here, the present analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of two fixed-ratio combinations, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide), for the treatment of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison as no head-to-head data for IDegLira versus iGlarLixi are currently available. IDegLira was compared with two iGlarLixi pens (100 U/mL insulin glargine + 33 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively). Direct medical costs associated with pharmaceutical interventions, screening and diabetes-related complications were captured. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with gains in life expectancy of 0.11 years and in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was also associated with higher projected costs due to higher acquisition costs; however, these were partially offset by cost savings from avoided complications. IDegLira was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Czech Koruna (CZK) 695,998 and CZK 348,323 per QALY gained versus iGlarLixi pens containing 33 and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively. These ratios were below the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of CZK 1,200,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis indicated that IDegLira was associated with clinical benefits relative to iGlarLixi over patient lifetimes and was likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk. Plain language summary is available for this article.

Cost-minimization analysis of degludec/liraglutide versus glargine/aspart: economic implications of the DUAL VII study outcomes

Background

Diabetes represents a relevant public health problem worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and socioeconomic burden. There is no doubt that tight glycemic control reduces the development of diabetic complications such as the long-term costs related to the disease. The aim of our model was to calculate total direct costs associated with the two treatments considered in DUAL VII study, and hence evaluate the potential economic benefits for the National Health System (NHS) deriving from the use of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) in a once-daily fixed combination.

Materials and methods

We applied the cost-minimization technique adopting the NHS point of view to the DUAL VII trial outcomes. In the model, developed in Microsoft Excel^®, we calculated and compared annual costs per patient of the two therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and metformin described in the trial, including costs of therapy management and side effects, both negative and positive. Annual treatment costs were calculated based on IDegLira and basal bolus end-of-trial doses resulting in a 1:2 ratio (40.4 U vs 84.1 U). Therefore, maintaining the IDegLira/basal bolus at 1:2 dose ratio, we calculated the correlation between the dose reduction and costs compared to DUAL VII doses base case scenario.

Results

Total treatment costs were obtained by adding annual cost of drug, needles, glycemic self-monitoring, hypoglycemic events, and effect on consumption of other drugs. Total annual costs of IDegLira combination resulted in €434 higher than basal bolus in DUAL VII base case (40.4 U); the two treatments reported equal costs at 34% dose reduction (26.7 U), while below this value IDegLira treatment became less expensive, with about €215 gain at 50% dose reduction (20.2 U). It is also important to notice that above the break-even point, until an IDegLira dose of 30 U, the cost difference is negligible in view of the clinical benefit provided by the fixed combination highlighted in DUAL VII trial.

Conclusion

Adding the significant clinical findings derived from DUAL VII trial to our economic evaluation, IDegLira seems to offer an important alternative to basal-bolus therapy.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin

AIMS

To obtain estimates of the relative treatment effects between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on basal insulin therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis. Outcomes of interest were changes in HbA_1c, body weight and insulin dose, and rate ratio of hypoglycemia. The indirect comparison of the reported trial findings followed the principles of Bucher et al.

RESULTS

IDegLira was estimated to provide a 0.44 [95% CI = 0.17-0.71] %-point reduction in HbA_1c compared with iGlarLixi. Body weight was reduced by 1.42 [95% CI = 0.35-2.50] kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi. Insulin dose was comparable between the two interventions. The rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (self-measured plasma glucose [SMPG] ≤ 3.1 mmol/L) hypoglycemia with IDegLira was approximately half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio = 0.51 [95% CI = 0.29-0.90]). However, using the American Diabetes Association definition of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG ≤3.9 mmol/L) the rate was comparable between the two treatments (rate ratio = 1.07 [95% CI = 0.90-1.28]).

LIMITATIONS

The assumptions made in the indirect comparison and differences between the included trials in baseline HbA_1c levels, previous use of sulfonylureas, definitions of hypoglycemia, presence or absence of run-in period, the different duration of the trials, and the cross-over design of one of the trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this indirect treatment comparison demonstrate that, among patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, treatment with IDegLira results in a greater reduction of HbA_1c and a greater reduction in body weight compared with iGlarLixi at similar insulin doses.

The Clinical Use of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Insulin Degludec and Liraglutide (Xultophy 100/3.6) for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of the fixed-dose combination of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-I receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), liraglutide (IDegLira) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data Sources: A PubMed and MEDLINE search (1966 to July 2017) of the keywords insulin degludec, liraglutide, and type 2 diabetes mellitus was conducted. References were reviewed to identify additional citations. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Articles written in English were included if they evaluated the pharmacokinetics, pharmacology, clinical efficacy, or safety of IDegLira in humans. Data Synthesis: IDegLira displayed pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties similar to that of the individual components. IDegLira has shown significant hemoglobin A1C (A1C) reductions of 1.3% to 1.9% and fasting plasma glucose reductions of 45 to 65 mg/dL when used in patients with T2DM previously receiving oral antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs), GLP-1 RAs, or basal insulin. Weight loss also occurred when IDegLira was started in patients previously receiving oral AHAs or basal insulin. Adverse effects (AEs) tended to be mild and transient. The most common AEs were headache, nasopharyngitis, upper-respiratory infections, and gastrointestinal disorders. Hypoglycemia risk was lower with IDegLira than basal insulin alone but higher than liraglutide alone. Conclusions: IDegLira may provide additional glycemic control with fewer AEs for patients uncontrolled on a GLP-RA or basal insulin alone. Additional studies evaluating use in patients on oral AHAs with higher A1C values and in comparison to bolus insulin are needed.

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

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with IDegLira has the potential to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without the weight gain and with a lower risk of hypoglycemia than with other therapies. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus insulin glargine U100 with re-education and up-titration of the dose for treatment of patients with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the DUAL V randomized controlled trial in which adults with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic targets with insulin glargine U100 were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or insulin glargine U100. Long-term projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (13.99 [standard deviation 0.19] versus 13.82 [standard deviation 0.20] years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.14 [standard deviation 0.12] versus 8.87 [standard deviation 0.13] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared to insulin glargine U100. IDegLira was associated with increased direct costs of $16,970, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $63,678 per QALY gained versus insulin glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses identified that the key driver of cost-effectiveness was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin with IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on head-to-head clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is likely to improve long-term clinical outcomes for patients with T2DM not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin compared to re-education and up-titration of the dose of insulin glargine U100, with these improvements coming at an increased cost from a healthcare payer perspective. An ICER within the range described as high care value was calculated, suggesting IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the US.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc.