The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model: a novel, patient-level model for estimating long-term clinical and cost outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Adherence and persistence among people with type 2 diabetes newly initiating oral semaglutide versus DPP-4is in a US real-world setting

AIMS

To investigate real-world treatment adherence and persistence in people with type 2 diabetes newly initiating oral semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), or a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Merative™ MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare databases. Index date was the first fill for the cohort medication. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered (PDC) over the 12-month post-index period ('adherent' = ≥0.8). Persistence was number of days until discontinuation, based on a 45-day gap. Results were compared between cohorts using inverse probability treatment weighting.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide (n=5485) and DPP-4i (n=4980) cohorts had similar percentages of people who were adherent (PDC ≥0.8; 41.6 % vs. 42.9 %; P = 0.182) and persistent for ≥9 months (45.0 % vs. 46.3 %; P = 0.185). The DPP-4i cohort used significantly more anti-diabetic medication (ADM) classes over the post-index period (mean±SD: 2.6±1.0 vs. 2.9±1.1, P < 0.001), with 23.2 % filling a GLP-1 RA in the post-period.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence and persistence were similar between cohorts. However, there are potential benefits to prescribing oral semaglutide over DPP-4is, including reduced need for additional ADM.

The Health Economics of Automated Insulin Delivery Systems and the Potential Use of Time in Range in Diabetes Modeling: A Narrative Review

Intensive therapy with exogenous insulin is the treatment of choice for individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and some with type 2 diabetes, alongside regular glucose monitoring. The development of systems allowing (semi-)automated insulin delivery (AID), by connecting glucose sensors with insulin pumps and algorithms, has revolutionized insulin therapy. Indeed, AID systems have demonstrated a proven impact on overall glucose control, as indicated by effects on glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), risk of severe hypoglycemia, and quality of life measures. An alternative endpoint for glucose control that has arisen from the use of sensor-based continuous glucose monitoring is the time in range (TIR) measure, which offers an indication of overall glucose control, while adding information on the quality of control with regard to blood glucose level stability. A review of literature on the health-economic value of AID systems was conducted, with a focus placed on the growing place of TIR as an endpoint in studies involving AID systems. Results showed that the majority of economic evaluations of AID systems focused on individuals with T1D and found AID systems to be cost-effective. Most studies incorporated HbA1c, rather than TIR, as a clinical endpoint to determine treatment effects on glucose control and subsequent quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains. Likely reasons for the choice of HbA1c as the chosen endpoint is the use of this metric in most validated and established economic models, as well as the limited publicly available evidence on appropriate methodologies for TIR data incorporation within conventional economic evaluations. Future studies could include the novel TIR metric in health-economic evaluations as an additional measure of treatment effects and subsequent QALY gains, to facilitate a holistic representation of the impact of AID systems on glycemic control. This would provide decision makers with robust evidence to inform future recommendations for health care interventions.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective.

METHODS

The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

An Economic Evaluation of the Relationship Between Glycemic Control and Total Healthcare Costs for Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Glycemic control is associated with better outcomes among individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This research examines total US all-cause medical costs for adults with T2D with recommended glycemic control (HbA1c < 7%) compared to poor glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 7%).

METHODS

The study used administrative claims data linked to HbA1c laboratory test results from January 1, 2015 through June 30, 2021 to identify adults with T2D with a recorded HbA1c test. Patients with recommended glycemic control at index date were propensity score matched to patients with poor glycemic control. General linear models and two-part models were used to compare all-cause outpatient, drug, acute care and total costs for 1 year post index date.

RESULTS

The study included 59,830 propensity-matched individuals. Results indicate that recommended glycemic control, compared to poor glycemic control, was associated with statistically significantly lower all-cause acute care ($23,868 ± $21,776 vs. $24,352 ± $22,223), drug ($10,277 ± $14,671 vs. $10,540 ± $14,928), and total medical costs ($41,381 ± $42,757 vs. $42,054 ± $43,422) but significantly higher outpatient costs ($7290 ± $12,028 vs. $7026 ± $11,587) (all p < 0.0001). Sensitivity analyses examined results based upon alternative HbA1c thresholds of ≤ 6.5% and < 8%. Results were generally robust to alternative HbA1c thresholds, with higher HbA1c thresholds associated with higher all-cause total costs as well as increased savings for having HbA1c below threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycemic control was associated with significantly lower all-cause total, drug, and acute care medical costs. Given the high prevalence of T2D in the USA, our results suggest potential economic benefits associated with glycemic control for healthcare providers.

Prediction of complications in health economic models of type 2 diabetes: a review of methods used

AIM

Diabetes health economic (HE) models play important roles in decision making. For most HE models of diabetes 2 diabetes (T2D), the core model concerns the prediction of complications. However, reviews of HE models pay little attention to the incorporation of prediction models. The objective of the current review is to investigate how prediction models have been incorporated into HE models of T2D and to identify challenges and possible solutions.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from January 1, 1997, to November 15, 2022, to identify published HE models for T2D. All models that participated in The Mount Hood Diabetes Simulation Modeling Database or previous challenges were manually searched. Data extraction was performed by two independent authors. Characteristics of HE models, their underlying prediction models, and methods of incorporating prediction models were investigated.

RESULTS

The scoping review identified 34 HE models, including a continuous-time object-oriented model (n = 1), discrete-time state transition models (n = 18), and discrete-time discrete event simulation models (n = 15). Published prediction models were often applied to simulate complication risks, such as the UKPDS (n = 20), Framingham (n = 7), BRAVO (n = 2), NDR (n = 2), and RECODe (n = 2). Four methods were identified to combine interdependent prediction models for different complications, including random order evaluation (n = 12), simultaneous evaluation (n = 4), the 'sunflower method' (n = 3), and pre-defined order (n = 1). The remaining studies did not consider interdependency or reported unclearly.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodology of integrating prediction models in HE models requires further attention, especially regarding how prediction models are selected, adjusted, and ordered.

The challenges and pitfalls of incorporating evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials in health economic modelling of type 2 diabetes

The clinical evidence base for evaluating modern type 2 diabetes interventions has expanded greatly in recent years, with numerous efficacious treatment options available (including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors). The cardiovascular safety of these interventions has been assessed individually versus placebo in numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs), statistically powered to detect differences in a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events. There have been growing calls to incorporate these data in the long-term modelling of type 2 diabetes interventions because current diabetes models were developed prior to the conduct of the CVOTs and therefore rely on risk equations developed in the absence of these data. However, there are numerous challenges and pitfalls to avoid when using data from CVOTs. The primary concerns are around the heterogeneity of the trials, which have different study durations, inclusion criteria, rescue medication protocols and endpoint definitions; this results in significant uncertainty when comparing two or more interventions evaluated in separate CVOTs, as robust adjustment for these differences is difficult. Analyses using CVOT data inappropriately can dilute clear evidence from head-to-head clinical trials, and blur healthcare decision making. Calibration of existing models may represent an approach to incorporating CVOT data into diabetes modelling, but this can only offer a valid comparison of one intervention versus placebo based on a single CVOT. Ideally, model development should utilize patient-level data from CVOTs to prepare novel risk equations that can better model modern therapies for type 2 diabetes.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.