Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

Cost per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets and Number Needed to Treat with Tirzepatide Versus Semaglutide 1 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Achieving glycemic control can help reduce complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study compared the pharmacy cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) of tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg versus semaglutide 1 mg to achieve glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints in patients with T2D in the United States.

METHODS

The proportions of patients achieving glycemic, weight loss, and composite treatment endpoints were obtained from the phase 3 SURPASS-2 randomized clinical trial which compared tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg to semaglutide 1 mg. Annual pharmacy costs were calculated using 2022 wholesale acquisition costs. Cost per responder and NNT were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals and tests for statistical significance (P ≤  0.05).

RESULTS

Tirzepatide had a lower cost per responder to achieve glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) endpoints of ≤ 6.5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses) and < 5.7% (all doses) and weight loss endpoints of ≥ 5% (10 mg and 15 mg doses), ≥ 10% (all doses), and ≥ 15% (all doses). The cost per responder to achieve HbA1c < 7% (all doses of tirzepatide) and ≤ 6.5% (5 mg tirzepatide) were not statistically significantly different between tirzepatide and semaglutide 1 mg. The cost per patient to achieve the composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0%, ≤ 6.5%, or < 5.7%/weight loss ≥ 10%/no hypoglycemia) was statistically significantly lower for all doses of tirzepatide than for semaglutide 1 mg. The NNTs for all doses of tirzepatide were statistically significantly lower than that for semaglutide 1 mg to achieve all individual and composite endpoints, with the exception of the 5 mg dose for HbA1c < 7.0% and HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, where tirzepatide had numerically lower NNTs that were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) that may offer the potential to achieve stringent glycemic goals, weight loss targets, and composite treatment goals at a lower cost per responder compared to semaglutide 1 mg among people with T2D.

Oral semaglutide versus injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: a cost of control analysis

Aims: The efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide, the first glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist developed for oral administration for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, was evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program, and a recently published network meta-analysis allowed comparison with further injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists. The present study aimed to assess the short-term cost- effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus subcutaneous once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg, once-weekly exenatide 2 mg, twice-daily exenatide 10 µg, once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg, once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, in terms of the cost per patient achieving glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets (cost of control).Materials and methods: Cost of control was calculated by dividing the annual treatment costs associated with an intervention by the proportion of patients achieving the treatment target with an intervention, with outcomes calculated for targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% for all included GLP-1 receptor agonists. Annual treatment costs were accounted in 2019 United States dollars (USD), based on 2019 wholesale acquisition cost.Results: For the treatment target of HbA1c ≤6.5%, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg were associated with the lowest costs of control, at USD 15,430 and USD 17,383 per patient achieving target, respectively. Similarly, the cost of control was lowest with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg at USD 12,627 per patient achieving target, followed by oral semaglutide 14 mg at USD 13,493 per patient achieving target for the target of HbA1c <7.0%. All other interventions were associated with higher cost of control values for both targets.Conclusions: Oral semaglutide 14 mg is likely to be cost-effective versus dulaglutide, exenatide (once weekly and twice daily), liraglutide, and lixisenatide in terms of bringing people with type 2 diabetes to glycemic control targets of HbA1c ≤6.5% and HbA1c <7.0% in the US.

Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US.

METHODS

Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c < 7.0%; (3) ≥ 1.0%-point HbA1c reduction and weight loss ≥ 3.0%; and (4) HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain. The proportions of patients achieving each endpoint were sourced from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 trials. Treatment costs were accounted over an annual time-period in 2019 US dollars (USD), based on wholesale acquisition cost. Cost of control was calculated by dividing treatment costs by the proportion of patients achieving each target.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was consistently associated with the lowest cost of control for all four endpoints. For the targets of HbA1c ≤ 6.5% and HbA1c < 7.0%, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with lower cost of control than empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg by USD 15,036, 14,697, and 6996, respectively, and USD 931, 346 and 4497, respectively. For the double composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 525, 32,277 and 13,011, respectively versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. For the triple composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 1255, 7510 and 5774, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was associated with lower cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to four clinically-relevant treatment targets versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

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.

Cost of achieving HbA1c and weight loss treatment targets with IDegLira vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the USA

Background

Compared with basal-bolus insulin therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart), IDegLira has been shown to be associated with similar improvements in HbA1c, with superior weight loss and reduced hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. The present analysis evaluated the cost per patient with type 2 diabetes achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets with IDegLira and insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart (≤4 times daily).

Methods

The proportions of patients achieving treatment targets were obtained from the treat-to-target, non-inferiority DUAL VII study (NCT02420262). The annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) was analyzed from a US healthcare payer perspective. The annual cost of control was assessed for eight prespecified endpoints and four post-hoc endpoints.

Results

The number needed to treat to bring one patient to targets of HbA1c <7.0% and HbA1c ≤6.5% was similar with IDegLira and insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. However, when weight gain and/or hypoglycemia were included, the number needed to treat was lower with IDegLira. IDegLira and insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart had similar costs of control for HbA1c <7.0%. However, cost of control values were substantially lower with IDegLira when the more stringent target of HbA1c ≤6.5% was used, and when patient-centered outcomes of hypoglycemia risk and impact on weight were included.

Conclusion

IDegLira was shown to be a cost-effective treatment vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic targets on basal insulin in the USA.

One-year follow-up on liraglutide treatment for prediabetes and overweight/obesity in clozapine- or olanzapine-treated patients

OBJECTIVE

Treatment with most antipsychotics is associated with an increased risk of weight gain and metabolic disturbances. In a randomized trial, we previously demonstrated that 16 weeks of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide treatment vs. placebo significantly reduced glucometabolic disturbances and body weight in prediabetic, overweight/obese schizophrenia-spectrum disorder patients treated with clozapine or olanzapine. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the beneficial effects of the 16-week intervention were sustained beyond the intervention period.

METHOD

One year after completion of the intervention, we investigated changes in body weight, fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, C-peptide, and lipids comparing 1-year follow-up levels to end of treatment (week 16) and baseline (week 0) levels.

RESULTS

From end of treatment to the 1-year follow-up, body weight had increased in the liraglutide-treated group. However, compared to baseline levels, the placebo-subtracted body weight loss remained significantly reduced (-3.8 kg, 95% CI: -7.3 to -0.2, P = 0.04). Fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin, C-peptide, and lipids had each returned to baseline levels 1 year after stopping liraglutide.

CONCLUSION

The body weight reduction during 16 weeks of liraglutide treatment was partially sustained 1 year after the intervention was completed. However, the improvements in other metabolic parameters returned to baseline levels.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients with elevated cardiovascular risk: a US-managed care perspective

BACKGROUND

The Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes Results (LEADER) clinical trial demonstrated that liraglutide added to standard-of-care (SoC) therapy for type 2 diabetes (T2D) with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk was associated with lower rates of death from CVD, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or nonfatal stroke than SoC alone.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) and budget impact of liraglutide vs SoC in T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, over a lifetime horizon from a US managed care perspective.

METHODS

A cohort state-transition model (costs and benefits discounted at 3% per year) was used to predict diabetes-related complications and death (CV and all-cause). Events, treatment effects, and discontinuation rates were from LEADER trial; utility and cost data (US$, 2017) were from literature. Sensitivity analysis explored the impact of uncertainty on results. Additionally, a budget impact analysis was conducted to evaluate the financial impact of liraglutide use in this population, with displacement from dulaglutide, assuming a health care plan with 1 million members.

RESULTS

Liraglutide patients experienced 6.3% fewer events, had event-related cost-savings of $15,182, gained additional life-years of 0.67 and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 0.57, and had additional total costs ($60,928) vs SoC. Liraglutide was cost-effective with an incremental CE ratio of $106,749/QALY which was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000/QALY accepted by the Institute of Clinical and Economic Research. Liraglutide was cost-effective across all sensitivity analyses, except when the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality varied. The budget impact was neutral, with a per-plan-per-year and per-member-per-month cost-savings of $266,334 and $0.02, respectively.

CONCLUSION

From a US-managed care perspective, for T2D patients with established CVD or elevated CV risk, liraglutide is a cost-effective and a budget neutral treatment option for health care plans.

Cost of Glycemic Target Achievement with Sodium Glucose Co-transporter 2 Inhibitors in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes-related costs make up a large portion of healthcare expenditures in the UK. Many of these costs are related to treatment of diabetes-related complications. Reducing HbA1c to <7.0% (53 mmol/mol) reduces the incidence of complications and comorbidities. Metformin plus sulfonylurea is the most common dual oral combination therapy in the UK. The costs of achieving HbA1c <7.0% in patients inadequately controlled on metformin plus sulfonylurea were analyzed for the sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and empagliflozin from the perspective of the UK National Health System.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was used to compare the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin plus sulfonylurea that achieved HbA1c <7.0% after 26 weeks with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg; odds ratios (ORs) and pairwise probabilities (P) for canagliflozin versus dapagliflozin and empagliflozin were calculated. The costs associated with achieving HbA1c <7.0% were estimated on the basis of medication costs and the proportion of patients achieving the HbA1c goal.

RESULTS

NMA results showed that a higher proportion of patients treated with canagliflozin 300 mg achieved HbA1c <7.0% (41%) compared with those treated with dapagliflozin 10 mg (25%), empagliflozin 10 mg (23%), empagliflozin 25 mg (28%), or canagliflozin 100 mg (27%). The odds of achieving HbA1c <7.0% were greater with canagliflozin 300 mg than with dapagliflozin 10 mg (OR 2.03 [P = 94%]), empagliflozin 10 mg (OR 2.29 [P = 99%]), or empagliflozin 25 mg (OR 1.71 [P = 93%]). The per patient costs of achieving HbA1c <7.0% at 26 weeks were £881, £580, £951, £1034, and £849 with canagliflozin 100 and 300 mg, dapagliflozin 10 mg, and empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis suggests that, in the UK, canagliflozin 300 mg provides the best value for money among all SGLT2 inhibitors in terms of achieving HbA1c <7.0% when used as part of triple therapy with metformin plus sulfonylurea.

FUNDING

Janssen Global Services, LLC, Raritan, NJ, USA.