Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Inadequately Controlled With Oral Antidiabetics

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.

Risk preferences over health: Empirical estimates and implications for medical decision-making

Mainstream health economic theory implies that an expected gain in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) produces the same value for consumers, regardless of baseline health. Several strands of recent research call this implication into question. Generalized Risk-Adjusted Cost-Effectiveness (GRACE) demonstrates theoretically that baseline health status influences value, so long as consumers are not risk-neutral over health. Prior empirical literature casts doubt on risk-neutral expected utility-maximization in the health domain. We estimate utility over HRQoL in a nationally representative U.S. population and use our estimates to measure risk preferences over health. We find that individuals are risk-seeking at low levels of health, become risk-averse at health equal to 0.485 (measured on a 0-1 scale), and are most risk-averse at perfect health (coefficient of relative risk aversion = 4.51). We develop the resulting implications for medical decision making, cost-effectiveness analyses, and the proper theory of health-related decision making under uncertainty.

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 analysis of once-daily oral semaglutide versus placebo and subcutaneous glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists added to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

Introduction: Oral semaglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that improves glycated hemoglobin levels and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We aim to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily oral semaglutide in comparison to placebo and injectable GLP-1 RAs in Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled on basal insulin. Methods: The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (UKPDS OM2.1) was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Baseline characteristics of the simulation cohort were obtained from the PIONEER 8 trial. Utility and safety inputs were derived from a network meta-analysis of 12 trials. Direct medical costs were retrieved from published literature and discounted at an annual rate of 5%. We used a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $36,528.3 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Scenario analysis, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed. Results: The effectiveness of oral semaglutide was 10.39 QALYs with a total cost of $30,223.10, while placebo provided 10.13 QALYs at a lower total cost of $20,039.19. Oral semaglutide was not cost-effective at an ICER of $39,853.22 and $88,776.61 per QALY compared to placebo and exenatide at the WTP. However, at an annual price of $1,871.9, it was cost-effective compared with dulaglutide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide. The model was most sensitive to the discount rate and annual cost of oral semaglutide. The price of oral semaglutide needed to be reduced to $1,711.03 per year to be cost-effective compared to placebo and other injectable GLP-1 RAs except for exenatide and semaglutide injection. Conclusion: We found that once-daily oral semaglutide, at a comparable price of semaglutide injection, proves to be a cost-effective add-on therapy to insulin for Chinese patients with T2DM, especially when compared to subcutaneous GLP-1 RAs other than injectable semaglutide and exenatide. However, to achieve cost-effectiveness in comparison to placebo, further cost reduction of oral semaglutide is necessary. The estimated annual cost of $1,711.03 for oral semaglutide demonstrates a more cost-effective option than placebo, highlighting its potential value in the management of T2DM.

Impact of BMI and comorbidities on efficacy of once-weekly semaglutide: Post hoc analyses of the STEP 1 randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the effects of semaglutide on body weight, cardiometabolic risk factors, and glycemic status in individuals categorized by baseline BMI with or without additional obesity-related comorbidities, including prediabetes and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS

This was a post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis of the Semaglutide Treatment Effect in People with Obesity (STEP) 1 trial (NCT03548935), in which participants without diabetes and BMI ≥30 kg/m2 , or BMI ≥27 kg/m2 with ≥1 weight-related comorbidity, were randomized to once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2.4 mg or placebo for 68 weeks. For this analysis, individuals were categorized into subgroups based on baseline BMI <35 versus ≥35 kg/m2 (with no additional criteria, with ≥1 comorbidity, with prediabetes, and with prediabetes and high risk of CVD).

RESULTS

Mean changes in body weight from baseline to week 68 with semaglutide were -16.2% and -14.0% in the subgroups with baseline BMI <35 and ≥35 kg/m2 , respectively (both p < 0.0001 vs. placebo). Similar changes were observed in individuals with comorbidities, with prediabetes, and with prediabetes plus high CVD risk. The beneficial effects of semaglutide on cardiometabolic risk factors were consistent across all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

This subgroup analysis confirms that semaglutide is effective in individuals with baseline BMI <35 and ≥35 kg/m2 , including in those with comorbidities.

Oral versus subcutaneous semaglutide for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events: cost per outcome analysis of SUSTAIN-6 and PIONEER-6

BACKGROUND

Semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP1a), reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). An oral version of semaglutide is now available, and patients may prefer it over the subcutaneous form. Our objective was to compare the value for money of the two modalities by assessing the cost needed to treat (CNT) to prevent MACE.

METHODS

The CNT to prevent MACE was figured by multiplying the one-year number needed to treat (NNT) with either oral or subcutaneous semaglutide by the annual cost of therapy. Efficacy estimates and the resulting NNT figures were extracted from the published results of the SUSTAIN-6 and the PIONEER-6 trials for the injectable and oral versions of semaglutide, respectively. Drug costs were estimated as 75% of the United States national average drug acquisition cost listing in June 2021. We performed a scenario analysis to mitigate the primary differences between the populations in the two trials. Sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of price changes of the interventions.

RESULTS

The CNT to prevent one MACE with subcutaneous semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6 was $966,693 ($594,888-$5,035,302) compared to $948,689 ($463,465-∞) with oral semaglutide in PIONEER-6. The scenario analysis demonstrated a 17% lower CNT for oral semaglutide. The difference between CNTs was sensitive to price fluctuations of the two interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral and subcutaneous semaglutide prescribed to prevent MACE in patients with T2DM provide similar value for money. The choice between both therapies should be guided mainly by patient preferences.