Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

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.

A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013).

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies.

RESULTS

We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in China

BACKGROUND

To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus sitagliptin as an add-on therapy for type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled on metformin in China, to better inform healthcare decision making.

METHODS

The Cardiff diabetes model which is a Monte Carlo micro-simulation model was used to project short-term effects of once-weekly semaglutide versus sitagliptin into long-term outcomes. Short-term data of patient profiles and treatment effects were derived from the 30-week SUSTAIN China trial, in which 868 type 2 diabetes patients with a mean age of 53.1 years inadequately controlled on metformin were randomized to receive once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, or sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated from a healthcare system perspective at a discount rate of 5%. Univariate sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to test the uncertainty.

RESULTS

Over patients' lifetime projections, patients in both once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg arms predicted less incidences of most vascular complications, mortality, and hypoglycemia, and lower total costs compared with those in sitagliptin arm. For an individual patient, compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg conferred a small QALY improvement of 0.08 and a lower cost of $5173, while once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg generated an incremental QALY benefit of 0.12 and a lower cost of $7142, as an add-on to metformin. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant versus sitagliptin with more QALY benefits at lower costs.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide may represent a cost-effective add-on therapy alternative to sitagliptin for type 2 diabetes patients inadequately controlled on metformin in China.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of six GLP-1RAs for treatment of Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients that inadequately controlled on metformin: a micro-simulation model

Objective

To systematically estimate and compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) approved in China and to quantify the relationship between the burden of diabetic comorbidities and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) or body mass index (BMI).

Methods

To estimate the costs (US dollars, USD) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) for six GLP-1RAs (exenatide, loxenatide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, semaglutide, and liraglutide) combined with metformin in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) which is inadequately controlled on metformin from the Chinese healthcare system perspective, a discrete event microsimulation cost-effectiveness model based on the Chinese Hong Kong Integrated Modeling and Evaluation (CHIME) simulation model was developed. A cohort of 30,000 Chinese patients was established, and one-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) with 50,000 iterations were conducted considering parameter uncertainty. Scenario analysis was conducted considering the impacts of research time limits. A network meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effects of six GLP-1RAs on HbA1c, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. The incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) between therapies was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. China's per capita GDP in 2021 was used as the willingness-to-pay threshold. A generalized linear model was used to quantify the relationship between the burden of diabetic comorbidities and HbA1c or BMI.

Results

During a lifetime, the cost for a patient ranged from USD 42,092 with loxenatide to USD 47,026 with liraglutide, while the QALY gained ranged from 12.50 with dulaglutide to 12.65 with loxenatide. Compared to exenatide, the INMB of each drug from highest to lowest were: loxenatide (USD 1,124), dulaglutide (USD -1,418), lixisenatide (USD -1,713), semaglutide (USD -4,298), and liraglutide (USD -4,672). Loxenatide was better than the other GLP-1RAs in the base-case analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analysis results were consistent with the base-case analysis. Overall, the price of GLP-1RAs most affected the results. Medications with effective control of HbA1c or BMI were associated with a significantly smaller disease burden (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Loxenatide combined with metformin was identified as the most economical choice, while the long-term health benefits of patients taking the six GLP-1RAs are approximate.

Value of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes patients with and without established cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using real-world data

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model was utilized to estimate healthcare costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of receiving treatments over 10 years from the healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were derived from the analyses of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database or published literature on Taiwanese T2D populations. Base-case analysis was performed for the overall study cohort and subgroup analyses were stratified by the presence or absence of established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or chronic kidney diseases (CKDs).

RESULTS

Overall, using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs cost $6,053 per QALY gained. Results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Among patients with established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy saved $673 (cost-saving) and cost $1,675 per QALY gained, respectively. Among patients without established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy cost $9,093 and $7,659 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for T2D patients represented good economic value in real-world practice. Pronounced economic benefits of GLP-1RA therapy among those with prior CVDs or CKDs support rational treatment decisions and optimal healthcare resource allocation for these patients.

Cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a real-world study and systematic review

BACKGROUND

To conduct a real-word-study-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) versus insulin among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy and a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses incorporating real-world effectiveness and cost data were conducted for a cohort of 1022 propensity-score-matched pairs of GLP-1RA and insulin users from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2007-2016. Study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events, healthcare costs, and cost per case of event prevented. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were performed from a third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. Structured systematic review procedures were conducted to synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, the NNT using a GLP-1RA versus insulin to prevent one case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia was 57 and 30, respectively. Using GLP-1RAs instead of insulin cost US$54,851 and US$29,115 per case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia prevented, respectively, from the payer perspective, and saved US$19,391 and US$10,293, respectively, from the healthcare sector perspective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin being cost-effective for preventing one case of all-cause mortality or hospitalized hypoglycemia ranged from 60 to 100%. The systematic review revealed a cost-effective profile of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus insulin for type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy in clinical practice is cost-effective.

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.

Choice across 10 pharmacologic combination strategies for type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines recommend a stepped-escalation treatment strategy for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Across multiple treatment strategies varying in efficacy and costs, no clinical or economic studies directly compared them. This study aims to estimate and compare the cost-effectiveness of 10 commonly used pharmacologic combination strategies for T2DM.

METHODS

Based on Chinese guideline and practice, 10 three-stepwise add-on strategies were identified, which start with metformin, then switch to metformin plus one oral drug (i.e., sulfonylurea, thiazolidinedione, α-glucosidase inhibitor, glinide, or DPP-4 inhibitor) as second line, and finally switch to metformin plus one injection (i.e., insulin or GLP-1 receptor agonist) as third line. A cohort of 10,000 Chinese patients with newly diagnosed T2DM was established. From a healthcare system perspective, the Cardiff model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the strategies, with clinical data sourced from a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison of 324 trials, costs from claims data of 1164 T2DM patients, and utilities from an EQ-5D study. Outcome measures include costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), and net monetary benefits (NMBs).

RESULTS

Over 40-year simulation, the costs accumulated for a patient ranged from $7661 with strategy 1 to $14,273 with strategy 10, while the QALY gains ranged from 13.965 with strategy 1 to 14.117 with strategy 8. Strategy 7 was dominant over seven strategies (strategies 2~6, 9~10) with higher QALYs but lower costs. Additionally, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $30,787/QALY (i.e., 3 times GDP/capita for China), strategy 7 was cost-effective compared with strategy 1 (ICER of strategy 7 vs. 1, $3371/QALY) and strategy 8 (ICER of strategy 8 vs. 7, $132,790/QALY). Ranking the strategies by ICERs and NMBs, strategy 7 provided the best value for money when compared to all other strategies, followed by strategies 5, 9, 8, 1, 3, 6, 10, 2, and 4. Scenario analyses showed that patients insist on pharmacologic treatments increased their QALYs (0.456~0.653) at an acceptable range of cost increase (ICERs, $1450/QALY~$12,360/QALY) or even at cost saving compared with those not receive treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence-based references for diabetes management. Our findings can be used to design the essential drug formulary, infer clinical practice, and help the decision-maker design reimbursement policy.

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.

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.

HYPOGLYCEMIA IN THE ELDERLY WITH DIABETES: A GROWING PROBLEM WITH EMERGING SOLUTIONS

Hypoglycemia is the major side effect of insulin therapy. The elderly are especially vulnerable to episodes of hypoglycemia, and with greater risks of complications such as falls. Two new long-acting basal insulins, glargine-300 (Gla-300) and degludec, are associated with lower incidences of hypoglycemia than previously available basal insulins. One of them, Gla-300, was studied in the elderly and has a lower incidence of hypoglycemia in patients over 65 years old. These new data should be incorporated into decision making when treating the elderly patient with insulin, whether they have type 1 or 2 diabetes.

ABBREVIATIONS

A1c = glycated hemoglobin A1c Gla-100 = glargine 100 U/mL Gla-300 = glargine 300 U/mL GLP-1 RA = glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor analogue.