Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus liraglutide added to basal insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the USA

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.

Effects of qigong Training on Muscle Strengths, Flexibility, Cardiopulmonary Fitness, and Antioxidant/Oxidant Responses in Sedentary Middle-Aged and Elderly Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Women: A Quasi-Experimental Design, Placebo-Controlled Study

Background: Qigong exercise training has been suggested to elicit beneficial effects on physical functioning, reduction of oxidative stress, and improved antioxidant capacity in women. However, regular exercise training may support the development of antioxidant defense mechanisms and beneficially modulate oxidant/antioxidant responses. Objective: To evaluate the effects of an 8-week qigong exercise training on exercise performance and oxidative stress responses in sedentary middle-aged and elderly women suffering from type 2 diabetic mellitus (T2DM). Method/design: Quasi-experimental design, placebo-controlled study. Setting: The Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Allied Health Science, Burapha University, Thailand. Participants: Thirty-six sedentary middle-aged and elderly women with T2DM. Intervention: Participants were allocated to qigong exercise (n = 20) or to the control group (CG, n = 20). Primary outcome measures: Muscle strengths, flexibility, VO2 max predicted, and walking intensity derived from the 6-minute walk test. Secondary outcome measures: Fasting plasma glucose, antioxidant/oxidant stress parameters, and body composition. Results: Leg strength and trunk flexibility were improved after qigong training and changes were significantly different compared with the CG (all p < 0.05). VO2 max predicted, 6-min walking distance, and walking intensity were all increased (p < 0.05), and oxidative stress markers were diminished after qigong training (p < 0.05). The antioxidant/oxidant balance was improved after qigong training (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The presented findings indicate that 8 weeks of qigong training significantly improved leg strength and trunk flexibility in middle-aged and elderly women with T2DM, partly associated with a more favorable antioxidant/oxidant balance. These effects may beneficially impact on health in this specific population. Clinical Trial Number: TCTR20221003001.

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.

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.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

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.

An Overview of Prospective Drugs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

Aims:

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of several emerging anti-diabetic molecules.

Background:

Diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder involving the dysregulation of glucose homeostasis at various levels. Insulin, which is produced by β-pancreatic cells, is a chief regulator of glucose metabolism, regulating its consumption within cells, which leads to energy generation or storage as glycogen. Abnormally low insulin secretion from β-cells, insulin insensitivity, and insulin tolerance lead to higher plasma glucose levels, resulting in metabolic complications. The last century has witnessed extraordinary efforts by the scientific community to develop anti-diabetic drugs, and these efforts have resulted in the discovery of exogenous insulin and various classes of oral anti-diabetic drugs.

Objective:

Despite these exhaustive anti-diabetic pharmaceutical and therapeutic efforts, long-term glycemic control, hypoglycemic crisis, safety issues, large-scale economic burden and side effects remain the core problems.

Method:

The last decade has witnessed the development of various new classes of anti-diabetic drugs with different pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Details of their FDA approvals and advantages/disadvantages are summarized in this review.

Results:

The salient features of insulin degludec, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors, glucokinase activators, fibroblast growth factor 21 receptor agonists, and GLP-1 agonists are discussed.

Conclusion :

In the future, these new anti-diabetic drugs may have broad clinical applicability. Additional multicenter clinical studies on these new drugs should be conducted.

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.

Clinical Use of IDegLira: Initiation to Titration After Basal Insulin

Delayed treatment intensification is common in U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin. Concerns about weight gain, hypoglycemia, increased regimen complexity, and additional copayments may lead to reluctance to initiate prandial insulin. IDegLira is a titratable, fixed-ratio coformulation that combines the advantages of insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a single once-daily injection and mitigates the side effects associated with each component. Clinical trials have demonstrated that IDegLira improves glycemic control without the increased risk of hypoglycemia and weight gain observed with basal insulin up-titration and the addition of prandial insulin, and this is achieved using twice-weekly titration. Clinical trials and real-world studies have also shown that IDegLira has the potential to reduce therapeutic and titration inertia. However, better outcomes could be achieved with IDegLira initiation in suitable patients with timely titration and by providers sharing their experience with this combination product. This review describes considerations for initiation, titration, and intensification of IDegLira in patients previously receiving basal insulin.

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.

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.

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.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

AIMS

The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

Qigong Exercises for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Background: The purpose of this article is to clarify and define medical qigong and to identify an appropriate study design and methodology for a large-scale study looking at the effects of qigong in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), specifically subject enrollment criteria, selection of the control group and study duration. Methods: A comprehensive literature review of English databases was used to locate articles from 1980-May 2017 involving qigong and T2DM. Control groups, subject criteria and the results of major diabetic markers were reviewed and compared within each study. Definitions of qigong and its differentiation from physical exercise were also considered. Results: After a thorough review, it was found that qigong shows positive effects on T2DM; however, there were inconsistencies in control groups, research subjects and diabetic markers analyzed. It was also discovered that there is a large variation in styles and definitions of qigong. Conclusions: Qigong exercise has shown promising results in clinical experience and in randomized, controlled pilot studies for affecting aspects of T2DM including blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, weight, BMI and insulin resistance. Due to the inconsistencies in study design and methods and the lack of large-scale studies, further well-designed randomized control trials (RCT) are needed to evaluate the 'vital energy' or qi aspect of internal medical qigong in people who have been diagnosed with T2DM.

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.