Multivariate Prediction Equations for HbA1c Lowering, Weight Change, and Hypoglycemic Events Associated with Insulin Rescue Medication in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Informing Economic Modeling

Early use of oral semaglutide in the UK: A cost-effectiveness analysis versus continuing metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVES

Many people with type 2 diabetes experience clinical inertia, remaining in poor glycaemic control on oral glucose-lowering medications rather than intensifying treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, despite an efficacious, orally administered option, oral semaglutide, being available. The present study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating oral semaglutide versus continuing metformin plus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor therapy in the UK.

DESIGN

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (V.9.0). Clinical data were taken from the oral semaglutide and placebo arms of the patient subgroup receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in PIONEER 4. Costs, expressed in 2021 Pounds sterling (GBP), were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective.

INTERVENTIONS

Modelled patients received oral semaglutide immediately (in the first year of the analysis) or after a 2-year delay, after which all physiological parameters were brought to values observed in the immediate therapy arm. During the simulation, patients intensified with the addition of basal insulin and, subsequently, by switching to basal-bolus insulin.

RESULTS

Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.17 (95% CIs 0.16 to 0.19) years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15 (0.14 to 0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus a 2-year delay. Benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 1423 (1349 to 1496) higher with immediate oral semaglutide therapy versus a 2-year delay, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 9404 (8380 to 10 538) per QALY gained versus a 2-year delay.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate oral semaglutide is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment in people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02863419.

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).

Model-based predictions on health benefits and budget impact of implementing empagliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease

AIM

To perform a model-based analysis of the short- and long-term health benefits and costs of further increased implementation of empagliflozin for people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (eCVD) in Sweden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The validated Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was used to estimate health benefits and a 3-year budget impact, and lifetime costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained of increased implementation of adding empagliflozin to standard of care (SoC) for people with type 2 diabetes and eCVD in a Swedish setting. Scenarios with 100%/75%/50% implementation were explored. Analyses were based on 30 model cohorts with type 2 diabetes and eCVD (n = 131 412 at baseline) from national health data registers. Sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over 3 years, SoC with empagliflozin (100% implementation) versus SoC before empagliflozin resulted in 7700 total life years gained and reductions in cumulative incidence of cardiovascular deaths by 30% and heart failures by 28%. Annual costs increased by 15% from higher treatment costs and increased survival. Half of these benefits and costs are not yet reached with current implementation below 50%. SoC with empagliflozin yielded 0.37 QALYs per person, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 16 000 EUR per QALY versus SoC before empagliflozin.

CONCLUSIONS

Model simulations using real-world data and trial treatment effects indicated that a broader implementation of empagliflozin, in line with current guidelines for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and eCVD, would lead to further benefits even from a short-term perspective.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK

AIMS

Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective.

RESULTS

Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide in Spain: A Long-Term Health Economic Analysis Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist oral semaglutide has demonstrated greater improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus oral medications empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide, in the PIONEER clinical trial program. Based on these data, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide in Spain.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 3.0% annually. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from PIONEER 2 and 4 for the comparisons of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, and PIONEER 3 for oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in 2020 euros (EUR). Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5% and then treatment-intensified to basal insulin.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13, 0.19 and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with direct costs EUR 168 higher versus empagliflozin and EUR 236 and 1415 lower versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 1339 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and was considered dominant (clinically superior and cost saving) versus sitagliptin and liraglutide. Additional analyses demonstrated that oral semaglutide 7 mg was associated with improvements of 0.11 QALYs and increased costs of EUR 226 versus sitagliptin and was therefore associated with an ICER of EUR 2011 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was dominant versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, and cost-effective versus empagliflozin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg versus Canagliflozin 300 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Canadian Setting

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled with metformin from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in Canada.

METHODS

Head-to-head data from the SUSTAIN 8 randomised trial (NCT03136484) were extrapolated over 40 years using economic simulation modelling. The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus canagliflozin 300 mg for treating T2DM was estimated using the Swedish Institute for Health Economics-Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) and the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM). Unit costs and disutility weights capturing treatments and key macro- and microvascular complications were sourced from the literature to best match the Canadian setting. A probabilistic base-case simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with reductions in macro- and microvascular complications, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of (Canadian dollars [CAD]) CAD16,392 and 18,098 per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus canagliflozin 300 mg for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a healthcare payer perspective. Accounting for productivity loss as well, ICERs were CAD14,127 and 13,188 per QALY gained for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base-case results were robust to changes in input parameters and assumptions used.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD50,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was cost-effective over 40 years versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg for the treatment of T2DM in patients failing to maintain glycemic control with metformin alone.

Effect of self-managed lifestyle treatment on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes

The lack of effective, scalable solutions for lifestyle treatment is a global clinical problem, causing severe morbidity and mortality. We developed a method for lifestyle treatment that promotes self-reflection and iterative behavioral change, provided as a digital tool, and evaluated its effect in 370 patients with type 2 diabetes (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04691973). Users of the tool had reduced blood glucose, both compared with randomized and matched controls (involving 158 and 204 users, respectively), as well as improved systolic blood pressure, body weight and insulin resistance. The improvement was sustained during the entire follow-up (average 730 days). A pathophysiological subgroup of obese insulin-resistant individuals had a pronounced glycemic response, enabling identification of those who would benefit in particular from lifestyle treatment. Natural language processing showed that the metabolic improvement was coupled with the self-reflective element of the tool. The treatment is cost-saving because of improved risk factor control for cardiovascular complications. The findings open an avenue for self-managed lifestyle treatment with long-term metabolic efficacy that is cost-saving and can reach large numbers of people.

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).

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 long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide in Portugal

BACKGROUND

Oral semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog that has been associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in the PIONEER 2 clinical trial and in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA), respectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in Portugal.

METHODS

In two separate analyses, outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 4% per annum. Clinical data were sourced from the PIONEER 2 trial and the NMA for the comparisons versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, respectively. Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to solely basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a National Healthcare Service perspective in Portugal and expressed in 2021 euros (EUR). Utilities were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.10 and 0.03 years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.03 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. Improved clinical outcomes were due to a reduced cumulative incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications with oral semaglutide. Total costs were projected to be EUR 2548 and EUR 814 higher with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, with higher acquisition costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 23,571 and EUR 23,927 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Portugal.

The economic burden of poor glycemic control associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in Denmark

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the economic burden associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) in Denmark.

METHODS

The economic burden for a newly diagnosed Danish T2D population was estimated using a validated diabetes model (The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE) Cohort model), based on achieving varying levels of glycemic control. The analyses were based on clinical data from the Danish Centre for Strategic Research (DD2) and supplemented with relevant Swedish data where variables were missing. The analysis estimated the economic burden for populations achieving different guideline-recommended targets for glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) and for a number of therapeutic inertia scenarios. To estimate the population-level burden Danish specific epidemiology data were incorporated. All costs are reported in 2020 Danish kroner (DKK) and 2020 Euros (€).

RESULTS

The baseline HbA_1c level used for this analysis was 7.9% (63 mmol/mol), which was observed in newly diagnosed Danish T2D patients prior to their first anti-diabetic treatment. Therapeutic inertia was associated with substantial economic burden compared to achieving immediate glycemic control (target < 6.5% (< 48 mmol/mol)). Per patient burdens were between 3562 DKK and 20,160 DKK (€477- €2701) dependent on the duration of therapeutic inertia (1-7 years), with this further increased when indirect costs were included (9649 DKK to 51,585 DKK [€1393-€6912]). The economic burden at a population level was between 27 million DKK to 150 million DKK (€3.6 million to €20 million), dependent on the duration of therapeutic inertia, rising to 72 million DKK to 384 million DKK (€9.6 million to €51.4 million) when indirect costs were included.

CONCLUSION

Achieving early and intensive glycemic control, thereby minimizing therapeutic inertia can lead to substantial savings for the Danish society, ranging between 72 million DKK and 384 million DKK (€9.6 million to €51.4 million) (1-7 years of therapeutic inertia). This study highlights that efforts to minimize therapeutic inertia, by securing timely intensification before individual HbA_1c targets are exceeded, results in significant long-term cost savings in Denmark.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide in the Netherlands based on the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide in the Netherlands, based on the results of the PIONEER clinical trials.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical data were derived from PIONEER 2, 3 and 4. Patients were assumed to receive initial treatments until glycated hemoglobin exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective in 2019 euros (EUR).

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15, 0.22 and 0.09quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with combined costs EUR1,032 higher, EUR115 higher and EUR1,267 lower. Oral semaglutide was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR7,061 and EUR516 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term projections, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Empagliflozin 25 mg for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Setting

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes represents a continuing healthcare challenge, and choosing cost-effective treatments is crucial to ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of initiation of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg were based on an indirect comparison conducted using patient-level data, as there is currently no head-to-head clinical trial comparing these therapies. Modelled patients received treatments until glycated haemoglobin exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), at which point patients initiated basal insulin. The analysis captured pharmacy costs and costs of diabetes-related complications, expressed in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP). Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Scenario analyses were prepared to assess uncertainty around projected outcomes.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with increases in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 years and 0.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, compared with empagliflozin 25 mg. Projected improvements in quality and duration of life resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with increased pharmacy costs, but this was partially offset by avoided costs of treating complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with an increase in costs of GBP 1017 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4439 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be a cost-effective treatment option from a healthcare payer perspective compared with empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Exenatide versus GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of exenatide 2 mg/week compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week, liraglutide 1.2 mg/day, liraglutide 1.8 mg/day and lixisenatide 20 μg/day) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin alone from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

METHODS

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and total costs of each assessed drug combined with metformin (2 g/day) were estimated over a 40-year time horizon using the Cardiff Diabetes Model (based on UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] 68 equations), which simulates disease progression considering the T2DM-related micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia, nausea, body mass index (BMI) changes and treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects (AEs). Drug efficacy derived from an indirect comparison performed in a network meta-analysis. Patient characteristics were obtained from the literature. The baseline utility value (0.80) was derived from the PANORAMA study, applying utility decrements to micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia episodes and changes in BMI. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs or poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c > 7.5%) involved switching to second-line (basal insulin) or third-line (basal-bolus insulin) treatment. Total cost (€, 2018) included the costs of drug acquisition, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, micro- and macrovascular complications, nausea and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed.

RESULTS

In base-case, exenatide 2 mg/week resulted in more QALYs (8.26) than dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week (8.19 QALYs), liraglutide 1.2 mg/day (8.10 QALYs), liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (8.20 QALYs) and lixisenatide 20 μg/day (8.13 QALYs). Total cost/patient was €20,423.27 (exenatide 2 mg/week), €22,611.94 (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week), €21,065.97 (liraglutide 1.2 mg/day), €24,865.69 (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day) and €21,334.58 (lixisenatide 20 μg/day). Deterministic SA confirmed the robustness of the model. In the probabilistic SA, 95-99% of the 1000 Monte Carlo iterations performed were under a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide 2 mg/week would be a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) versus the other GLP-1 receptor agonists assessed for the treatment of T2DM patients who are not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

Meta-analysis of average change in laboratory-measured HbA1c among people with type 1 diabetes mellitus using the 14 day Flash Glucose Monitoring System

AIM

FreeStyle Libre™ Flash Glucose Monitoring System (Flash GM), a novel, sensor-based, factory-calibrated system has been compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in a well-controlled adult type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) population (HbA1c ≤ 7.5%, 58 mmol/mol), in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The need for RCTs to recruit homogenous patients and for a well-controlled environment may not necessarily reflect use of a new technology in real clinical practice.

METHODS

A random effects meta-analysis of all identified studies in T1D was performed to investigate changes in laboratory-measured HbA1c following introduction of Flash GM.

RESULTS

Flash GM introduction showed a mean change from baseline to longest follow-up timepoint of -0.41% ([95% CI -0.51%, -0.31%]; P < 0.001; -4.5 [95% CI -5.6, -3.3] mmol/mol) in HbA1c in the random effects meta-analysis (34 studies comprising 5,466 participants). When the Flash GM arms of the two RCTs were excluded, there was a similar change in HbA1c of -0.41% ([95% CI -0.50%, -0.32%], P < 0.001; -4.5 [95% CI -5.4, -3.5] mmol/mol) in the 32 uncontrolled studies. Considerable heterogeneity was shown in all meta-analyses (I² values > 85%), likely due to the inclusion of diverse populations and variations in study protocols, meaning random effects meta-analyses should be strongly preferred.

CONCLUSIONS

In people with T1D, use of Flash GM for 2 to 24 months was associated with an estimated HbA1c reduction from baseline of 0.4%. A similar reduction occurred in uncontrolled studies where baseline HbA1c was generally higher compared with Flash GM arms of well-controlled studies.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

Introduction

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Methods

Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources.

Results

In the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis.

Conclusions

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01337-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme

INTRODUCTION

The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting.

METHODS

Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

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.

Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide, Exenatide ER, Liraglutide and Lixisenatide: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Danish Setting

INTRODUCTION

Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus GLP-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release (ER), liraglutide and lixisenatide in the SUSTAIN trial program and a network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide versus all available GLP-1 receptor agonists in Denmark, using a clinically orientated treatment approach.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the corresponding SUSTAIN trials and the NMA. Patients were assumed to initiate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy and subsequently treatment-intensify according to clinical treatment guidelines, with addition of basal insulin and switching to basal-bolus insulin occurring when HbA1c exceeded recommended targets. Patients were assumed to receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin therapy once HbA1c levels reached 7.5% and a basal-bolus insulin regimen once HbA1c exceeded 8.0%. Costs were captured in 2017 Danish kroner (DKK), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum.

RESULTS

Primary analyses indicated that semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.34 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus dulaglutide, achieved at cost savings of DKK 289 and DKK 13,416, respectively. Supporting analyses indicated that both doses of semaglutide were either cost-effective or dominant versus exenatide ER, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg and lixisenatide.

CONCLUSION

Semaglutide represents a cost-effective alternative to other GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies available in Denmark, demonstrating clinical benefits versus dulaglutide, exenatide ER, liraglutide and lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with T2D.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.