Validation of the CORE Diabetes Model against epidemiological and clinical studies

Impact of real-time glucose monitoring using FreeStyle Libre 3 on glycaemia in type 2 diabetes managed with basal insulin plus SGLT2 inhibitor and/or GLP-1 agonist: the FreeDM2 randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Effective management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) consists of lifestyle modification and therapy optimisation. While glycaemic monitoring can be used as a tool to guide these changes, this can be challenging with self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). The FreeStyle Libre 3 (FSL3) is a real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system designed to replace SMBG. The evidence for the benefit of CGM in people with T2DM on non-intensive insulin regimens is limited. This study aims primarily to assess the glycaemic impact of FSL3 in people with suboptimally controlled T2DM treated with basal-only insulin regimens plus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor and/or glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 agonist.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an open-label, multicentre, parallel design, randomised (2:1) controlled trial. Recruitment has been offered across 24 clinical centres in the UK and nationally through self-referral. Adults with T2DM treated with basal-only insulin regimens plus SGLT-2 inhibitor and/or GLP-1 agonist and with screening HbA1c from ≥59 mmol/mol to ≤97 mmol/mol are included. Eligible participants will be randomised to either FSL3 (intervention) for 32 weeks or continuation of SMBG (control). The study is split into two phases, each of 16 weeks duration: phase 1 consisting of self-management with basal-insulin self-titration and phase 2 where additional therapies may be initiated. Control group participants may subsequently enter an optional extension phase to receive FSL3. The primary endpoint is the difference between treatment groups in mean change from baseline in HbA1c at 16 weeks. Secondary outcomes include HbA1c at 32 weeks, CGM-based metrics, therapy changes, physical activity levels and psychosocial measures. An economic evaluation for costs and patient outcomes will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Health Research Authority, Health and Care Research Wales and the West Midlands-Edgbaston Research Ethics Committee (reference: 23/WM/0092). Study results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05944432.

SECONDARY IDENTIFYING NUMBER

Identifier assigned by the sponsor: ADC-UK-PMS-22057.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Revision D. Dated, 13 December 2024.

Automated Insulin Delivery Versus Standard of Care in the Management of People Living with Type 1 Diabetes and HbA1c <8%: A Cost-Utility Analysis in The Netherlands

Introduction: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems improve glycemic control in people living with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D). AID is cost-effective versus other management approaches in a range of country settings and populations. This cost-utility analysis adds an evaluation of the MiniMedTM 780G system versus standard of care (SoC) in PwT1D and baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level <8% not reaching glycemic targets, conducted from a societal perspective in The Netherlands. Methods: The analysis was run using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, over 50 years. Costs were discounted at 3% per year, effects at 1.5% per year. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the MiniMed 780G arm of a prospective multicenter study. Costs and utility estimates were taken from Dutch databases and published sources. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to address uncertainty. Results: AID improved life expectancy by 0.52 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.99 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus SoC. AID was associated with an incremental combined cost of EUR 28,635 due to higher acquisition costs, which were partially offset by reduced direct treatment costs for diabetes-related complications and reduced indirect costs due to less time off work. Based on combined costs, the MiniMed 780G system was associated with an incremental cost-utility ratio of EUR 29,836 per QALY gained. Conclusions: For PwT1D in The Netherlands, who had a baseline HbA1c <8% and do not reach glycemic targets, AID system initiation was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes and reduce both direct costs for the treatment of diabetes-related complications and productivity losses. From a societal perspective, the MiniMed 780G likely represents good value for money in The Netherlands.

Hybrid closed-loop systems for managing blood glucose levels in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and economic modelling

Background

Hybrid closed-loop systems are a new class of technology to manage type 1 diabetes mellitus. The system includes a combination of real-time continuous glucose monitoring from a continuous glucose monitoring device and a control algorithm to direct insulin delivery through an insulin pump. Evidence suggests that such technologies have the potential to improve the lives of people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and their families.

Aim

The aim of this appraisal was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop systems for managing glucose in people who have type 1 diabetes mellitus and are having difficulty managing their condition despite prior use of at least one of the following technologies: continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion, real-time continuous glucose monitoring or flash glucose monitoring (intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring).

Methods

A systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence following predefined inclusion criteria informed by the aim of this review. An independent economic assessment using iQVIA CDM to model cost-effectiveness.

Results

The clinical evidence identified 12 randomised controlled trials that compared hybrid closed loop with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. Hybrid closed-loop arm of randomised controlled trials achieved improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent [hybrid closed loop decreased glycated haemoglobin per cent by 0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to -0.21), increased per cent of time in range (between 3.9 and 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of 8.6 (95% confidence interval 7.03 to 10.22), and significantly decreased time in range (per cent above 10.0 mmol/l) with a MD of -7.2 (95% confidence interval -8.89 to -5.51), but did not significantly affect per cent of  time below range (< 3.9 mmol/l)]. Comparator arms showed improvements, but these were smaller than in the hybrid closed-loop arm. Outcomes were superior in the hybrid closed-loop arm compared with the comparator arm. The cost-effectiveness search identified six studies that were included in the systematic review. Studies reported subjective cost-effectiveness that was influenced by the willingness-to-pay thresholds. Economic evaluation showed that the published model validation papers suggest that an earlier version of the iQVIA CDM tended to overestimate the incidences of the complications of diabetes, this being particularly important for severe visual loss and end-stage renal disease. Overall survival's medium-term modelling appeared good, but there was uncertainty about its longer-term modelling. Costs provided by the National Health Service Supply Chain suggest that hybrid closed loop is around an annual average of £1500 more expensive than continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring, this being a pooled comparator of 90% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring and 10% continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + real-time continuous glucose monitoring due to clinical effectiveness estimates not being differentiated by continuous glucose monitoring type. This net cost may increase by around a further £500 for some systems. The Evidence Assessment Group base case applies the estimate of -0.29% glycated haemoglobin for hybrid closed loop relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring. There was no direct evidence of an effect on symptomatic or severe hypoglycaemia events, and therefore the Evidence Assessment Group does not include these in its base case. The change in glycated haemoglobin results in a gain in undiscounted life expectancy of 0.458 years and a gain of 0.160 quality-adjusted life-years. Net lifetime treatment costs are £31,185, with reduced complications leading to a net total cost of £28,628. The cost-effectiveness estimate is £179,000 per quality-adjusted life-year.

Conclusions

Randomised controlled trials of hybrid closed-loop interventions in comparison with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion + continuous glucose monitoring achieved a statistically significant improvement in glycated haemoglobin per cent in time in range between 3.9 and 10 mmol/l, and in hyperglycaemic levels.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021248512.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR133547) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 80. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

iDiabetes platform-enhanced phenotyping of patients with diabetes for precision diagnosis, prognosis and treatment: study protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled study in Tayside, Scotland

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Diabetes is a global health emergency with increasing prevalence and diabetes-associated morbidity and mortality. One of the challenges in optimising diabetes care is translating research advances in this heterogeneous disease into clinical care. A potential solution is the introduction of precision medicine approaches into diabetes care.We aim to develop a digital platform called 'intelligent Diabetes' (iDiabetes) to support a precision diabetes care model in Scotland and assess its impact on the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, hospitalisation rate, renal function decline and glycaemic control.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The impact of iDiabetes will be evaluated through a cluster-randomised controlled study, recruiting up to 22 500 patients with diabetes. Primary care general practices (GPs) in the National Health Service (NHS) Scotland Tayside Health Board are the units (clusters) of randomisation. Each primary care GP will form one cluster (approximately 400 patients per cluster), with up to 60 clusters recruited. Randomisation will be to iDiabetes (guideline support), iDiabetesPlus or usual diabetes care (control arm). Patients of participating primary care GPs are automatically enrolled on the study when they attend for their annual diabetes screening or are newly diagnosed with diabetes. A composite hierarchical primary outcome, evaluated using Win-Ratio statistical methodology, will consist of (1) all-cause mortality, (2) all-cause hospitalisation rate, (3) proportion with >40% estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] reduction from baseline or new development of end-stage renal disease, (4) proportion with absolute HbA1C reduction >0.5%. Outcomes will be evaluated after a 2-year median follow-up period. Comprehensive qualitative and health economic analyses will be conducted, assessing the cost-effectiveness, budget impact and user acceptability of the iDiabetes platform.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was reviewed by the NHS Health Research Authority and approved by the East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (reference: 23/ES/0008). Study findings will be disseminated via publications, presented at scientific conferences and shared with patients and the public on the study website and social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN18000901.

Cost-Utility of Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Insulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

Objective

Management of advanced type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically involves daily insulin therapy alongside frequent blood glucose monitoring, as treatments such as oral antidiabetic agents are therapeutically insufficient. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) has been shown to facilitate greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels and improvements in patient satisfaction relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). This study aimed to investigate the cost-utility of rt-CGM versus SMBG in Spanish patients with insulin-treated T2D..

Methods

The analysis was conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM V9.5). Baseline characteristics of the simulated patient cohort and treatment efficacy data were sourced from a large-scale, United States-based retrospective cohort study. Costs were obtained from Spanish sources and inflated to 2022 Euros (EUR) where required. A remaining lifetime horizon (maximum 50 years) was used, alongside an annual discount rate of 3% for future costs and health effects. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of EUR 30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was adopted, based on precedent across previous cost-effectiveness studies set in Spain. A Spanish payer perspective was adopted.

Results

Over patient lifetimes, rt-CGM yielded 9.933 QALYs, versus 8.997 QALYs with SMBG, corresponding to a 0.937 QALY gain with rt-CGM. Total costs in the rt-CGM arm were EUR 2347 higher with rt-CGM versus SMBG (EUR 125,365 versus EUR 123,017). The base case incremental cost-utility ratio was therefore EUR 2506 per QALY gained, substantially lower than the WTP threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY. The analysis also projected a reduction in cumulative incidence of ophthalmic, renal, neurological, and cardiovascular events in rt-CGM users, with reductions of 16.03%, 13.07%, 7.34%, and 9.09%, respectively.

Conclusion

Compared to SMBG, rt-CGM is highly likely to be a cost-effective intervention for patients living with insulin-treated T2D in Spain.

Modeling the Clinical and Economic Burden of Therapeutic Inertia in People with Type 2 Diabetes in Saudi Arabia

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes, defined as a failure to intensify treatment despite poor glycemic control, can arise due to a variety of factors, despite evidence linking improved glycemic control with reductions in diabetes-related complications. The present study aimed to evaluate the health and economic burden of therapeutic inertia in people with type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (v.9.0) was used to evaluate outcomes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from Saudi-specific data, with baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) tested at 8.0%, 9.0%, and 10.0%. Modeled subjects were brought to an HbA1c target of 7.0% immediately or after delays of 1-5 years across time horizons of 3-50 years. Outcomes were discounted annually at 3.0%. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective and expressed in 2023 Saudi Arabian Riyals (SAR).

RESULTS

Immediate glycemic control was associated with improved or equal life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy and cost savings in all scenarios compared with delays in achieving target HbA1c. Combined cost savings ranged from SAR 411 (EUR 102) per person with a baseline HbA1c of 8.0% versus a 1-year delay over a 3-year time horizon, to SAR 21,422 (EUR 5291) per person with a baseline HbA1c of 10.0% versus a 5-year delay over a 50-year time horizon. Discounted life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy were projected to improve by up to 0.4 years and 0.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with immediate glycemic control.

CONCLUSION

Therapeutic inertia was associated with a substantial health and economic burden in Saudi Arabia. Interventions and initiatives that can help to reduce therapeutic inertia are likely to improve health outcomes and reduce healthcare expenditure.

Cost-utility analysis of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) with alert functionality compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium.

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. Input data for the simulated baseline cohort were sourced from the randomised ALERTT1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov.

REGISTRATION NO

NCT03772600). The age of the participants was 42.9 ± 14.1 years (mean ± SD), and the baseline HbA1c was 57.8 ± 9.5 mmol/mol (7.4 ± 0.9%). Participants using rtCGM showed a reduction in HbA1c of 3.6 mmol/mol (0.36 percentage points) based on the 6-month mean between-group difference. In the base case, both rtCGM and isCGM were priced at €3.92/day (excluding value-added tax [VAT]) according to the Belgian reimbursement system. The analysis was performed from a Belgian healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were used to account for parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, rtCGM dominated isCGM, resulting in lower diabetes-related complication costs and better health outcomes. The associated main drivers favouring rtCGM were lower HbA1c, fewer severe hypoglycaemic events and reduced fear of hypoglycaemia. The results were robust under a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses. In models where the price of rtCGM is €5.11/day (a price increase of 30.4%) or €12.34/day (a price increase of 214.8%), rtCGM was cost-neutral or reached an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €40,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

When priced similarly, Dexcom G6 rtCGM with alert functionality has both economic and clinical benefits compared with FreeStyle Libre 1 isCGM without alerts in adults with type 1 diabetes in Belgium, and appears to be a cost-effective glucose monitoring modality. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03772600.

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.

Burden of Illness of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with huge clinical and economic burden in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) which can be curtailed by efficacious treatment. In order to achieve this, current treatment pathways for T2DM and associated costs need to be assessed.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort review was conducted to collect country-specific and patient-specific clinical data, over a minimum observation period of 5 years in the KSA. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment patterns were recorded. The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) version 9.5 Plus was used to assess the burden of illness, which included long-term projections of clinical (life expectancy [LE], quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], event rates of diabetes-related complications) and direct medical cost (per-patient annual or lifelong [50 years]) outcomes of the most commonly used first-line (1st-line) regimens for T2DM from a payer perspective in the KSA.

RESULTS

Data were collected from a subpopulation of 638 patients from 15 participating centres. There was an equal gender representation with a majority of the patients belonging to Arabian/Saudi ethnicity (71.0%). Biguanides (81.5%), sulfonylureas (51.6%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (26.2%) and fast-acting insulins (17.2%) were the most prescribed 1st-line agents. The most frequently used 1st-line regimens resulted in an estimated LE of 25-28 years, QALYs of 18-21 years and lifelong total cost of illness of 201,377-437,371 Saudi Arabian riyal (53,700-116,632 US dollars).

CONCLUSION

Our study addresses gaps in the current research by providing a complete landscape of baseline demographic, clinical characteristics and treatment patterns from a heterogeneous group of patients with T2DM in the KSA. Additionally, the burden of illness analysis using CDM showed substantially higher cost of T2DM care from a payer perspective in the KSA.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02863419.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other treatment regimens in the chinese type 2 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.

METHODS

The clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSION

IDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.

Achieving Good Metabolic Control Without Weight Gain with the Systematic Use of GLP-1-RAs and SGLT-2 Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: A Machine-learning Projection Using Data from Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

Recently, the 2022 American Diabetes Association and European Association for the Study of Diabetes (ADA-EASD) consensus report stressed the importance of weight control in the management of patients with type 2 diabetes; weight control should be a primary target of therapy. This retrospective analysis evaluated, through an artificial-intelligence (AI) projection of data from the AMD Annals database-a huge collection of most Italian diabetology medical records covering 15 years (2005-2019)-the potential effects of the extended use of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2is) and of glucose-like peptide 1 receptor antagonists (GLP-1-RAs) on HbA1c and weight.

METHODS

Data from 4,927,548 visits in 558,097 patients were retrospectively extracted using these exclusion criteria: type 1 diabetes, pregnancy, age >75 years, dialysis, and lack of data on HbA1c or weight. The analysis revealed late prescribing of SGLT-2is and GLP-1-RAs (innovative drugs), and considering a time frame of 4 years (2014-2017), a paradoxic greater percentage of combined-goal (HbA1c <7% and weight gain <2%) achievement was found with older drugs than with innovative drugs, demonstrating aspects of therapeutic inertia. Through a machine-learning AI technique, a "what-if" analysis was performed, using query models of two outcomes: (1) achievement of the combined goal at the visit subsequent to a hypothetical initial prescribing of an SGLT-2i or a GLP-1-RA, with and without insulin, selected according to the 2018 ADA-EASD diabetes recommendations; and (2) persistence of the combined goal for 18 months. The precision values of the two models were, respectively, sensitivity, 71.1 % and 69.8%, and specificity, 67% and 76%.

FINDINGS

The first query of the AI analysis showed a great improvement in achievement of the combined goal: 38.8% with prescribing in clinical practice versus 66.5% with prescribing in the "what-if" simulation. Addressing persistence at 18 months after the initial achievement of the combined goal, the simulation showed a potential better performance of SGLT-2is and GLP-1-RAs with respect to each antidiabetic pharmacologic class or combination considered.

IMPLICATIONS

AI appears potentially useful in the analysis of a great amount of data, such as that derived from the AMD Annals. In the present study, an LLM analysis revealed a great potential improvement in achieving metabolic targets with SGLT-2i and GLP-1-RA utilization. These results underscore the importance of early, timely, and extended use of these new drugs.

CELESTIA: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin Versus Sitagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Greece

Purpose

Globally, the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise, with the number of affected individuals predicted to cross 700 million by 2045. In Greece, in 2015, almost 700,000 people received prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes. The CELESTIA study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared to branded sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients both with and without established cardiovascular disease in Greece from a third payer perspective.

Methods

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used and analyses were conducted from the Greek healthcare payer perspective. Patients received either empagliflozin or sitagliptin until HbA1c threshold of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) was exceeded. Subsequently, patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from clinical trial data. Literature data were used for input (utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications costs). A lifetime time horizon (50 years) was applied, and costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, for empagliflozin, the estimated ICER was of €6,587 and €966 per quality-adjusted life years gained versus sitagliptin, in patients without established cardiovascular disease and in patients with established cardiovascular disease, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the analysis.

Conclusion

The analysis demonstrated that for type 2 diabetes patients, empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option versus branded sitagliptin in Greece.

Evaluating the Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Poor Glycemic Control in People with Type 1 Diabetes in the Netherlands

Introduction

Achieving and maintaining glycemic control is the cornerstone of type 1 diabetes management, with the aim of reducing the incidence of diabetes-related complications over the long term. However, many individuals fail to reach glycemic targets. The present study evaluated the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands, and the improvements in outcomes that can be achieved by improving treatment.

Methods

Immediate glycemic control, defined as achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target of 7.0% at the start of the analysis, was compared with delays in achieving control of 1, 3 and 7 years, with outcomes projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and direct and indirect costs (expressed in 2021 euros [EUR]) were made at a patient level and extrapolated to the population level.

Results

Improving HbA1c from 8.0% to 7.0% and 9.0% to 7.0% resulted in gains of up to 0.66 and 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient over a lifetime, respectively. At a population level, achieving immediate glycemic control was associated with gains of 9438, 27,171 and 72,717 QALYs and cost savings of up to EUR 224 million, EUR 556 million and EUR 1.3 billion compared with remaining in poor control for 1, 3 and 7 years, respectively.

Conclusion

The clinical and economic burden of poor glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands was projected to be substantial, but considerable gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy and cost savings could be achieved through early and effective treatment.

Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus insulin aspart in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (vers 9.0). SUSTAIN 11 was used to inform baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects. Patients were modelled to receive once-weekly semaglutide plus basal insulin for 3 years before intensifying to basal-bolus insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin for lifetimes in the aspart arm. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK, expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP).

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin aspart, due to a reduced incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 800 higher with semaglutide, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4457 per QALY gained versus insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20 000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be highly cost-effective versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 2 Diabetes on Insulin Therapy in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) involves the measurement and display of glucose concentrations, potentially improving glucose control among insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The present analysis aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of rt-CGM versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) based on a USA retrospective cohort study in insulin-treated people with T2D adapted to the UK.

METHODS

Long-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model, with clinical input data sourced from a retrospective cohort study. Patients were assumed to have a baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) of 8.3%. Patients using rt-CGM were assumed to have a 0.56% reduction in HbA1c based on the mean difference between groups after 12 months of follow-up. Reduced fingerstick testing when using rt-CGM was associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, including only direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Projections showed that rt-CGM was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.731 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and increased mean total lifetime costs of Great British pounds (GBP) 2694, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 3684 per QALY compared with SMBG. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA1c reduction and reduced fingerstick testing QoL benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Over patient lifetimes, rt-CGM was associated with improved clinical outcomes and is highly likely to be cost effective versus SMBG in people with T2D on insulin therapy in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Objective

To evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China.

Methods

The CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results.

Results

Compared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Compared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

Population-Level Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Technologies for Adults With Type 1 Diabetes in Canada: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVE

Maintaining healthy glucose levels is critical for the management of type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the most efficacious and cost-effective approach (capillary self-monitoring of blood glucose [SMBG] or continuous [CGM] or intermittently scanned [isCGM] glucose monitoring) is not clear. We modeled the population-level impact of these three glucose monitoring systems on diabetes-related complications, mortality, and cost-effectiveness in adults with T1D in Canada.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We used a Markov cost-effectiveness model based on nine complication states for adults aged 18-64 years with T1D. We performed the cost-effectiveness analysis from a single-payer health care system perspective over a 20-year horizon, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD 50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Primary outcomes were the number of complications and deaths and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CGM and isCGM relative to SMBG.

RESULTS

An initial cohort of 180,000 with baseline HbA1c of 8.1% was used to represent all Canadians aged 18-64 years with T1D. Universal SMBG use was associated with ∼11,200 people (6.2%) living without complications and ∼89,400 (49.7%) deaths after 20 years. Universal CGM use was associated with an additional ∼7,400 (4.1%) people living complications free and ∼11,500 (6.4%) fewer deaths compared with SMBG, while universal isCGM use was associated with ∼3,400 (1.9%) more people living complications free and ∼4,600 (2.6%) fewer deaths. Relative to SMBG, CGM and isCGM had ICERs of CAD 35,017/QALY and 17,488/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Universal use of CGM or isCGM in the Canadian T1D population is anticipated to reduce diabetes-related complications and mortality at an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) allows patients with diabetes to adjust insulin dosing, potentially improving glucose control. This study aimed to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 rt-CGM device versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in Australia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Long-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data for the analysis of rt-CGM versus SMBG and FGM were sourced from the DIAMOND study and a network meta-analysis, respectively. Rt-CGM and FGM were associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits due to reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (FoH) and fingerstick testing. Analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon from an Australian healthcare payer perspective, including direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum.

RESULTS

Rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.199 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 21,596 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 18,020 per QALY gained compared with SMBG. Compared with FGM, rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.569 QALYs, increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 11,064 and an ICER of AUD 19,455 per QALY gained. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA_1c benefits and QoL benefits associated with reduced FoH and fingerstick testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to improved clinical outcomes and QoL gains rt-CGM is highly cost-effective compared with SMBG and FGM in people with T1D in Australia.

The transferability and validity of a population-level simulation model for the economic evaluation of interventions in diabetes: the MICADO model

AIMS

Valid health economic models are essential to inform the adoption and reimbursement of therapies for diabetes mellitus. Often existing health economic models are applied in other countries and settings than those where they were developed. This practice requires assessing the transferability of a model developed from one setting to another. We evaluate the transferability of the MICADO model, developed for the Dutch 2007 setting, in two different settings using a range of adjustment steps. MICADO predicts micro- and macrovascular events at the population level.

METHODS

MICADO simulation results were compared to observed events in an Italian 2000-2015 cohort (Casale Monferrato Survey [CMS]) and in a Dutch 2008-2019 (Hoorn Diabetes Care Center [DCS]) cohort after adjusting the demographic characteristics. Additional adjustments were performed to: (1) risk factors prevalence at baseline, (2) prevalence of complications, and (3) all-cause mortality risks by age and sex. Model validity was assessed by mean average percentage error (MAPE) of cumulative incidences over 10 years of follow-up, where lower values mean better accuracy.

RESULTS

For mortality, MAPE was lower for CMS compared to DCS (0.38 vs. 0.70 following demographic adjustment) and adjustment step 3 improved it to 0.20 in CMS, whereas step 2 showed best results in DCS (0.65). MAPE for heart failure and stroke in DCS were 0.11 and 0.22, respectively, while for CMS was 0.42 and 0.41.

CONCLUSIONS

The transferability of the MICADO model varied by event and per cohort. Additional adjustments improved prediction of events for MICADO. To ensure a valid model in a new setting it is imperative to assess the impact of adjustments in terms of model accuracy, even when this involves the same country, but a new time period.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting, Long-Acting, Ultralong-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion versus multiple daily insulin for treatment of children with type 1 diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the health economics of using continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) therapy versus multiple daily injections (MDI) therapy in children and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Qingdao, China.

METHODS

A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM). The baseline characteristics of the simulated cohorts were obtained from 213 pediatric T1D patients who received care with CSII(104 cases) or MDI(109 cases) in Qingdao from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2019. In the essential case, the expenditure of the complications and treatment of the disease with both therapies were evaluated in Chinese currency from the perspective of healthcare system. In a secondary analysis, the model used a 70-year time horizon, and a discount rate of 5% was applied to all future health outcomes and costs. A one-way sensitivity analysis was conducted on delta HbA1c, different prices of insulin pump, price of each upgrade cycle rates and different discount rates. Uncertainty was also evaluated by the probability sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

RESULTS

In the base-case analysis, the lifetime total costs were lower for CSII group at ¥630,871 per patient compared with ¥672,672 for MDI group. The quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 11.612 and 11.197 for patients treated with CSII group and MDI group, respectively. The CSII group was cost-saving compared to MDI group. The feasibility of CSII group being cost-effective was 100% under the threshold of 3 times per capita GDP of China in 2019 (¥212,676) which was indicated from the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Regarding scenario analysis, the ICER of the CSII group compared to MDI was between -151,583 and 153,366 RMB/QALYs, which is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

This economic evaluation compared CSII therapy versus MDI therapy for T1D children and adolescent patients in China and findings indicate that CSII should be considered a preferred treatment modality to MDI.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Greece

AbstractIntroduction: Usage of automated insulin delivery systems is increasing for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study compared long-term cost-effectiveness of the Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop MiniMed 780G (AHCL) system versus sensor augmented pump (SAP) system with predictive low glucose management (PLGM) or multiple daily injections (MDI) plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in people with T1D in Greece. Methods: Analyses were performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, with clinical input data sourced from various studies. In the AHCL versus SAP plus PLGM analysis, patients were assumed to have 7.5% baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing AHCL with MDI plus isCGM baseline HbA1c was assumed to be 7.8%. HbA1c was reduced to 7.0% following AHCL treatment initiation but remained at baseline levels in the comparator arms. Analyses were performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per annum. Results: AHCL was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR 10,173 lower mean total lifetime costs with SAP plus PLGM. Compared with MDI plus isCGM, AHCL was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 2.708 QALYs, EUR 76,396 higher mean total lifetime costs, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 29,869 per QALY. Extensive sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results. Conclusions: Over patient lifetime, the MiniMed 780G system is likely to be cost saving compared with the SAP plus PLGM system and cost-effective compared with MDI plus isCGM in people with T1D in Greece.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections Plus Intermittently Scanned Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION

Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin pump systems and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (IS-CGM) are increasingly used by individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The aim of the analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 670G HCL system versus IS-CGM plus multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in adults with T1D in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model with clinical input data sourced from observational studies. Simulated patients were assumed to have a baseline HbA1c of 7.8%. Use of the MiniMed 670G system was assumed to reduce HbA1c by 0.4% and confer a quality-of-life (QoL) benefit through reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH). The analysis was performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes pertaining to the Netherlands were used and discounted at 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively.

RESULTS

Use of the MiniMed 670G HCL system was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.231 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus IS-CGM. Total mean lifetime costs were EUR 13,683 higher with the MiniMed 670G system resulting in an ICER of EUR 6133 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed findings to be sensitive to changes in assumptions around severe hypoglycemic event rates and the (QoL) benefit associated with reduced FoH.

CONCLUSIONS

Over patient lifetimes, for adults with long-standing T1D in the Netherlands, use of the MiniMed 670G system is projected to be cost-effective versus IS-CGM plus MDI or CSII.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

International and Danish guidelines recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors already in second line in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (CE) of subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide (GLP-1 RA) versus empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor) in individuals with T2D uncontrolled on metformin alone from a Danish payer's perspective.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were conducted from a Danish payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model (CDM 9.5), with a time horizon of 50 years and an annual discount of 4% on costs and effects. Patients received either SC semaglutide or empagliflozin, in addition to metformin, until HbA1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was reached, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or SC semaglutide plus metformin was considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published CEA. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were also obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from Danish official sources. Scenario analyses were also performed to test the accuracy of the base case results.

RESULTS

Individuals with T2D on SC semaglutide plus metformin gained 0.065 life-years (LYs) and 0.130 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), respectively, at an incremental cost of DKK 96,923 (€ 13,031) compared to empagliflozin plus metformin, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DKK 745,561(€ 100,239) per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results showed that the SC semaglutide plus metformin was cost-effective in 19% of simulations assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of DKK 357,100 (€ 48,011)/QALY gained. Duration of therapy with SC semaglutide seems the key driver of results.

CONCLUSION

The current analyses suggest that SC semaglutide plus metformin is not cost-effective compared to empagliflozin plus metformin from a Danish payer's perspective.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Self-Efficacy-Focused Structured Education Program for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Mainland China Setting

Objective: To assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy-focused structured education program (SSEP) as opposed to routine education among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in mainland China from a healthcare service perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis method was used. The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0) was adopted to estimate the outcomes. The baseline cohort characteristics, variations of physiological parameters, costs of intervention and other treatments, and management-related diabetes were derived from a randomized controlled trial. Moreover, the complications costs and utilities were extracted from published sources. Furthermore, the univariate sensitivity analysis and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. Results: As compared with the control group, the life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-year in the intervention group were increased. Besides, the intervention group achieved lower cumulative incidences of complications and saved more direct medical costs compared with the control group. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the SSEP had 100% probability to be cost-effective. Conclusion: The SSEP is recognized as a highly cost-effective option for managing patients with T2DM, which are projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: a Health Economic Analysis in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Swedish National Diabetes Registry data show a correlation of improved glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with increased use of diabetes technologies over the past 25 years. However, novel technologies are often associated with a high initial outlay. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) MiniMed 780G system versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) plus self-injection of multiple daily insulin (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with T1D in Sweden.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0). Clinical data, including changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and hypoglycemia rates, were sourced from observational studies and a randomized crossover trial. Modeled patients were assumed to receive the treatments for their lifetimes, with HbA1c kept constant following the application of treatment effects. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective and expressed in Swedish krona (SEK). Utilities and days off work estimates were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an improvement in life expectancy of 0.16 years and an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.95 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII. These clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Combined costs were estimated to be SEK 727,408 (EUR 72,741) higher with MiniMed 780G, with treatment costs partially offset by direct cost savings from the avoidance of diabetes-related complications and indirect cost savings from the avoidance of lost workplace productivity. The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 373,700 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 500,000 per QALY gained, the MiniMed 780G system was projected to be cost-effective versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII for the treatment of T1D in Sweden.

Development and validation of the risk engine for an Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis

The Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO) has shown good face, internal and cross validities, and can be used to assist healthcare decision-making in Australia.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to document and validate the risk engine of the Australian Health Economics Model of Osteoporosis (AusHEMO).

METHODS

AusHEMO is a state-transition microsimulation model. The fracture risks were simulated using fracture incidence rates from the Dubbo Osteoporosis Epidemiology Study. The AusHEMO was validated regarding its face, internal and cross validities. Goodness-of-fit analysis was conducted and Lin's coefficient of agreement and mean absolute difference with 95% limits of agreement were reported.

RESULTS

The development of AusHEMO followed general and osteoporosis-specific health economics guidelines. AusHEMO showed good face validity regarding the model's structure, evidence, problem formulation and results. In addition, the model has been proven good internal and cross validities in goodness-of-fit test. Lin's coefficient was 0.99, 1 and 0.94 for validation against the fracture incidence rates, Australian life expectancies and residual lifetime fracture risks, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, the development of the risk engine of AusHEMO followed the best practice for osteoporosis disease modelling and the model has been shown to have good face, internal and cross validities. The AusHEMO can be confidently used to predict long-term fracture-related outcomes and health economic evaluations when costs data are included. Health policy-makers in Australia can use the AusHEMO to select which osteoporosis interventions such as medications and public health interventions represent good value for money.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Canada

BACKGROUND

The Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system is one of the most sophisticated RT-CGM systems developed to date and became available in Canada in 2019. A health economic analysis was performed to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 RT-CGM system versus SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Canada.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Based on clinical trial data, patients with mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6% were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% with RT-CGM versus 0.4% reduction with SMBG. RT-CGM was also associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit owing to reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of fingerstick testing. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature, and inflated to 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD).

RESULTS

Dexcom G6 RT-CGM was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to SMBG (15.52 versus 13.43 QALYs) but mean total lifetime cots were CAD 35,353 higher with RT-CGM (CAD 227,357 versus CAD 192,004) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 16,931 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that assumptions relating to the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and the elimination of fingerstick testing with RT-CGM as well as SMBG usage and change in HbA1c were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

For adults with T1D in Canada, RT-CGM is associated with improved glycemic control and QoL benefits owing to a reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing and over a lifetime time horizon is cost-effective relative to SMBG.

Flash glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre 2 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: the FLASH-UK randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Optimising glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Flash glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) is a novel alternative to the current standard of care self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). No randomised controlled trials to date have explored the potential benefits of FSL2 in T1D. We aim to assess the impact of FSL2 in people with suboptimal glycaemic control T1D in comparison with SMBG.

METHODS

This open-label, multicentre, randomised (via stochastic minimisation), parallel design study conducted at eight UK secondary and primary care centres will aim to recruit 180 people age ≥16 years with T1D for >1 year and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5%-11%. Eligible participants will be randomised to 24 weeks of FSL2 (intervention) or SMBG (control) periods, after 2-week of blinded sensor wear. Participants will be assessed virtually or in-person owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. HbA1c will be measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks (primary outcome). Participants will be contacted at 4 and 12 weeks for glucose optimisation. Control participants will wear a blinded sensor during the last 2 weeks. Psychosocial outcomes will be measured at baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include sensor-based metrics, insulin doses, adverse events and self-report psychosocial measures. Utility, acceptability, expectations and experience of using FSL2 will be explored. Data on health service resource utilisation will be collected.

ANALYSIS

Efficacy analyses will follow intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline value of the corresponding outcome, minimisation factors and other known prognostic factors. Both within-trial and life-time economic evaluations, informed by modelling from the perspective of the National Health Service setting, will be performed.

ETHICS

The study was approved by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference 19/NW/0081). Informed consent will be sought from all participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03815006.

PROTOCOL VERSION

4.0 dated 29 June 2020.

The burden of poor glycaemic control in people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes in Sweden: A health economic modelling analysis based on nationwide data

AIM

To evaluate the economic and clinical burden associated with poor glycaemic control in Sweden, in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Population data were obtained from Swedish national registers. Immediate glycaemic control was compared with delays in achieving control of 1 and 3 years, with outcomes projected over 3, 10 and 50 years in the validated IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Glycaemic control was defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets of 52, 48 and 42 mmol/mol, as recommended in Swedish guidelines, according to age and disease duration. Costs (expressed in 2019 Swedish krona [SEK]) were accounted from a Swedish societal perspective.

RESULTS

Immediate glycaemic control was associated with population-level cost savings of up to SEK 279 million and SEK 673 million versus delays of 1 and 3 years, respectively, as well as small population-level life expectancy benefits of up to 1305 and 2590 life years gained. Reduced levels of burden were a result of lower incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in people with T2D initiating first-line glucose-lowering therapy, the economic burden of poor glycaemic control in Sweden is substantial, but could be reduced by early and effective treatment to achieve glycaemic targets.

Macrovascular Risk Equations Based on the CANVAS Program

BACKGROUND

Widely used risk equations for cardiovascular outcomes for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been incapable of predicting cardioprotective effects observed in recent cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs) involving individuals with T2DM at high risk for or with established cardiovascular disease (CVD).

OBJECTIVE

We developed cardiovascular and mortality risk equations using patient-level data from the CANVAS (CANagliflozin cardioVascular Assessment Study) Program to address this shortcoming.

METHODS

Data from 10,142 patients with T2DM at high risk for or with established CVD, randomized to canagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) or SoC alone and followed for a mean duration of 3.6 years in the CANVAS Program were used to derive parametric risk equations for myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and death. Accumulated knowledge from the widely used UKPDS-OM2 (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2) was leveraged, and any departures in parameterization were limited to those necessary to provide adequate goodness of fit. Candidate explanatory covariates were selected using only the placebo arm to minimize confounding effects. Internal validation was performed separately by study treatment arm.

RESULTS

UKPDS-OM2 predicted CANVAS Program outcomes poorly. Recalibrating UKPDS-OM2 intercepts improved calibration in some cases. Refitting the coefficients but otherwise preserving the UKPDS-OM2 structure improved the fit substantially, which was sufficient for stroke and death. For MI, reselecting UKPDS-OM2 covariates and functional form proved sufficient. For HHF, selection from a broad set of candidate covariates and inclusion of a canagliflozin indicator was required.

CONCLUSION

These risk equations address some of the limitations of widely used risk equations, such as the UKPDS-OM2, for modeling cardioprotective treatments for individuals with T2DM and high cardiovascular risk, including derivation from overly healthy patients treated with agents that lack cardioprotection and have been described as reflecting a different therapeutic era. Future work is needed to examine external validity.

Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin

BACKGROUND

Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin.

METHODS

This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events.

RESULTS

In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pharmacists' considerations on non-medical switching at the hospital: a systematic review of the economic outcomes of cost-saving therapeutic drug classes

OBJECTIVES

Non-medical switching (NMS) strategies have the capacity to reduce overall costs in hospitals while maintaining a high level of care. However, the most appropriate diseases and/or medicines for NMS strategies are still vague. The aim of this review was to give a state-of-the-art summary regarding the economic outcomes resulting from the use of NMS strategies and to discuss whether they would be implementable in a hospital inpatient setting.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and ScienceDirect. Studies published between 1988 and 2018 were included if they evaluated the economic impact of NMS strategies or if they performed an economic evaluation between two drugs. Studies regarding antineoplastic agents, endocrine therapies, and immunostimulants, or immunosuppressants, and biosimilars were excluded.

RESULTS

Fifty (69%) studies assessing an NMS strategy and 22 (31%) studies comparing two medicines were allocated to four categories: prospective studies (n=8, 11%); retrospective chart reviews (n=29, 40%); retrospective claims analysis (n=13, 18%); and retrospective data analysis (n=22, 31%). Hypercholesterolemia, peptic ulcer, and gastro-oesophageal reflux diseases, diabetes mellitus, and venous thromboembolism were the most prevalent diseases in studies evaluating an NMS strategy. Sixty-eight per cent of the included papers reported a reduction in costs with no significant changes in health outcomes and 8 per cent reported a deterioration in health outcomes and/or increased costs.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the exclusion of studies regarding biologics or medicines used in oncology, the review highlights that NMS strategies with medicines whose management do not require a thorough clinical assessment were associated with reduced costs and no significant changes in patients' health outcomes, in the inpatient setting. NMS strategies targeting medicines that require an extensive clinical assessment should be evaluated using hospital-specific effectiveness and/or utility data prior to their implementation.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness the Dexcom G6 Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Compared with Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in France

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model and utilized clinical input data from the DIAMOND clinical trial in adults with T1D. Simulated patients were assumed to have a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, and those in the RT-CGM arm were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% compared with 0.4% in the SMBG arm. A quality of life (QoL) benefit associated with a reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing in the RT-CGM arm was also applied.

RESULTS

The G6 RT-CGM system was associated with an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.38 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SMBG (10.64 QALYs versus 9.23 QALYs). Total mean lifetime costs were 21,087 euros higher with RT-CGM (148,077 euros versus 126,990 euros), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,285 euros per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In France, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 euros per QALY gained, the use of the G6 RT-CGM system is cost-effective relative to SMBG for adults with long-standing T1D, driven primarily by improved glycemic control and the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel hybrid closed-loop system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK

AIMS

The MiniMed 670 G insulin pump system is the first commercially available hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery system and clinical studies have shown that this device is associated with incremental benefits in glycemic control relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with or without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The aim was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 670 G system versus CSII alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from a clinical trial of the MiniMed 670 G system in 124 adults and adolescents with T1D. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon and both future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. The analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective.

RESULTS

The use of the MiniMed 670 G system led to an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.73 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), relative to CSII. Total lifetime direct costs were GBP 35,425 higher with the MiniMed 670 G system than with CSII resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 20,421 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was sensitive to assumptions around glycemic control and assumptions relating to the quality-of-life benefit associated with a reduction in fear of hypoglycemia.

LIMITATIONS

Long-term projections from short-term data are inherently associated with uncertainty but represent arguably the best available evidence in lieu of long-term clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK, over patient lifetimes, the incremental clinical benefits associated with the use of MiniMed 670 G system means that it is likely to be cost-effective relative to the continued use of CSII in people with T1D, particularly for those with a fear of hypoglycemia or poor baseline glycemic control.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from a Swedish 1-year and long-term perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ReFLeCT study demonstrated that switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reductions in glycated hemoglobin and hypoglycemic events in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and reductions in insulin doses in T1D. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec in Sweden.

METHODS

Short-term outcomes were evaluated over 1 year in a Microsoft Excel model, while long-term outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the ReFLeCT study. Costs (in 2018 Swedish krona [SEK]) encompassed direct medical expenditure and indirect costs from loss of workplace productivity. In the long-term analyses, patients were assumed to receive insulin degludec or continue prior insulin therapy (primarily insulin glargine U100) for 5 years, before all patients intensified to once-daily degludec and mealtime aspart.

RESULTS

Switching to insulin degludec was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and 0.16 and 0.08 QALYs over patient lifetimes, in T1D and T2D. Combined costs in T1D and T2D were estimated to be SEK 1,249 lower and SEK 1,181 higher over the short-term, and SEK 157,258 and SEK 2,114 lower over the long-term. Benefits were due to lower insulin doses in T1D, reduced rates of hypoglycemia, and lower incidences of diabetes-related complications. Insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 64,298 per QALY gained for T2D over 1 year and considered dominant for T1D and T2D in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec was projected to be cost-effective or dominant versus other basal insulins for the treatment of T1D and T2D in Sweden.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Sitagliptin in the Spanish Setting

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population, but must work within constrained budgets. Therefore, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus once daily sitagliptin 100 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes from a healthcare payer perspective in the Spanish setting.

METHODS

Cost and clinical outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects on initiation of semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg were based on the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 7 and 2). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.0% annually.

RESULTS

Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.02 and 0.11 years, respectively, and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.17 and 0.24 years, respectively and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg from a healthcare payer perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were considered dominant (more effective and less costly) versus sitagliptin 100 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Empagliflozin Versus Oral Semaglutide, in Addition to Metformin, for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION

International guidelines recommend treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist for treatment intensification in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with progression on metformin. In the randomised, controlled, Peptide Innovation for Early Diabetes Treatment (PIONEER) 2 trial, the SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin was compared with the GLP-1 receptor agonist oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin. The aim of the current study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin 25 mg versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, in addition to metformin, for T2DM patients in the UK.

METHODS

Analyses were conducted from the UK healthcare payer perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model, with a time horizon of 50 years. Patients received either empagliflozin or oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin, until Hba1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was exceeded, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or oral semaglutide plus metformin was assumed. Baseline cohort characteristics and 52-week treatment effects were derived from the PIONEER 2 trial. Treatment effects of empagliflozin and GLP-1 receptor agonists on hospitalisation for heart failure (hHF) were based on the Empagliflozin Comparative Effectiveness and Safety (EMPRISE) real-world study. Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Direct costs for empagliflozin plus metformin were considerably lower than those for oral semaglutide plus metformin (by more than GBP 6000). Compared with oral semaglutide plus metformin, empagliflozin plus metformin was a cost-effective treatment for T2DM patients in all scenarios tested. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed cost-effectiveness in > 95% of the iterations using a threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY.

CONCLUSION

Empagliflozin 25 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus oral semaglutide 14 mg, when used in addition to metformin, for the treatment of T2DM patients in the UK.

Lixisenatide for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Inadequately Controlled on Oral Antidiabetic Drugs: A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Meta-analysis and Cost-Utility Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-utility (from the Chinese health insurance perspective) of lixisenatide and insulin regimens in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of English (PubMed and Cochrane Library) and Chinese (CNKI and WanFang) language databases was performed, and head-to-head relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were retrieved and analyzed by performing a mixed-treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis for efficacy and safety endpoints. A cost-utility analysis was then conducted using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to compare the lifetime pharmacoeconomic profiles among the treatment groups.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs were included in this MTC meta-analysis. Regarding glycated hemoglobin targets, lixisenatide was similar to both basal insulin (mean difference [MD] 0.27%; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.02%, 0.57%) and premixed insulin (MD 0.32%; 95% CrI - 0.01%, 0.66%), respectively. Statistically significant differences were found for changes in body weight in favor of lixisenatide compared with basal insulin (MD - 3.22 kg; 95% CrI - 5.51 kg, - 0.94 kg) and premixed insulin (MD - 2.68 kg; 95% CrI - 5.16 kg, - 0.20 kg). The relative risk (RR) of symptomatic hypoglycemia associated with lixisenatide was also significantly lower than that associated with basal insulin (RR 0.22; 95% CrI 0.09, 0.52) and premixed insulin (RR 0.17; 95% CrI 0.07, 0.41). The cost-utility analysis yielded results of ¥61,072 ($8565, vs. basal insulin) and ¥127,169 ($17,836, vs. premixed insulin) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with both values falling within the willingness-to-pay threshold in China.

CONCLUSIONS

For T2DM patients inadequately controlled on OADs, lixisenatide was shown to be comparable to basal insulin and premixed insulin in terms of HbA1c and better than both of the latter in terms of both body weight loss and hypoglycemia. Lixisenatide was also a cost-effective treatment option from the perspective of Chinese health insurance.

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

Introduction

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

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

Establishment and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model for Early Diabetic Kidney Disease Based on a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 20 Cohorts

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients at high risk of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) helps improve clinical outcome.

PURPOSE

To establish a model for predicting DKD.

DATA SOURCES

The derivation cohort was from a meta-analysis. The validation cohort was from a Chinese cohort.

STUDY SELECTION

Cohort studies that reported risk factors of DKD with their corresponding risk ratios (RRs) in patients with type 2 diabetes were selected. All patients had estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m² and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) <30 mg/g at baseline.

DATA EXTRACTION

Risk factors and their corresponding RRs were extracted. Only risk factors with statistical significance were included in our DKD risk prediction model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty cohorts including 41,271 patients with type 2 diabetes were included in our meta-analysis. Age, BMI, smoking, diabetic retinopathy, hemoglobin A_1c, systolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, UACR, and eGFR were statistically significant. All these risk factors were included in the model except eGFR because of the significant heterogeneity among studies. All risk factors were scored according to their weightings, and the highest score was 37.0. The model was validated in an external cohort with a median follow-up of 2.9 years. A cutoff value of 16 was selected with a sensitivity of 0.847 and a specificity of 0.677.

LIMITATIONS

There was huge heterogeneity among studies involving eGFR. More evidence is needed to power it as a risk factor of DKD.

CONCLUSIONS

The DKD risk prediction model consisting of nine risk factors established in this study is a simple tool for detecting patients at high risk of DKD.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly GLP-1 analogue versus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the Spanish setting: Once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin

Aims: Controlling costs while maximizing healthcare gains is the predominant challenge for healthcare providers, and therefore cost-effectiveness analysis is playing an ever-increasing role in healthcare decision making. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg and 1 mg) versus empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) in the Spanish setting for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications.Material and methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes over patient lifetimes with once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin, with treatment effects based on a network meta-analysis. The analysis captured treatment costs, costs of diabetes-related complications, and the impact of complications on quality of life, based on published sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per annum.Results: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 and 0.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg and improvements of 0.11 and 0.14 QALYs, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Treatment costs were higher with once-weekly semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, but this was partially offset by cost savings due to avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 2,285 and EUR 161 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg, and EUR 3,090 and EUR 625 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg.Conclusions: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were projected to be cost-effective versus empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg for the treatment of patients with T2D with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications in the Spanish setting, irrespective of patients' BMI at baseline.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden of Poor Glycemic Control Associated with Therapeutic Inertia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

Introduction

Therapeutic inertia refers to the failure to initiate or intensify treatment in a timely manner and is widespread in type 2 diabetes (T2D) despite the well-established importance of maintaining good glycemic control. The aim of this analysis was to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control due to therapeutic inertia in patients with T2D in the USA.

Methods

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate life expectancy, costs associated with diabetes-related complications, and lost workplace productivity in US patients. Baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), 11.0% (97 mmol/mol) 13.0% (119 mmol/mol), or 15.0% (140 mmol/mol), with targets of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), or 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) depending on baseline HbA1c, across several delayed intensification scenarios (values above target were defined as poor control). The burden associated with intensification delays of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 years was estimated over time horizons of 1–30 years. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results

In a population of 13.4 million patients with T2D and baseline HbA1c of 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), delaying intensification of therapy by 1 year was associated with a loss of approximately 13,390 life-years and increased total costs of US dollars (USD) 7.3 billion (1-year time horizon). Longer delays in intensification were associated with a greater economic burden. Delaying intensification by 7 years was projected to cost approximately 3 million life-years and USD 223 billion over a 30-year time horizon.

Conclusion

Therapeutic inertia is common in routine clinical practice and makes a substantial contribution to the burden associated with type 2 diabetes in the USA. Initiatives and interventions aimed at preventing therapeutic inertia are needed to improve clinical outcomes and avoid excess costs.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01199-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Evaluating the burden of poor glycemic control associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Background and aims: Effective glycemic control is the cornerstone of successful type 2 diabetes management. However, many patients fail to reach glycemic control targets, and therapeutic inertia (failure to intensify therapy to address poor glycemic control in a timely manner) has been widely reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the economic burden associated with diabetes-related complications due to poor glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.Methods: A validated long-term model of type 2 diabetes (IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model) was used to project cost outcomes for a UK population with type 2 diabetes, based on data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, at different levels of glycemic control. Costs associated with diabetes-related complications were accounted in 2017 Pounds Sterling (GBP). Complication costs were estimated for populations achieving different glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets, in a number of delayed treatment intensification scenarios, and across a range of time horizons.Results: For patients with an HbA1c level of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), 7 years in poor control could increase mean costs associated with diabetes-related complications by over GBP 690 per patient and lead to costs of over GBP 1,500 in lost workplace productivity compared with achieving good glycemic control (HbA1c 7.0%, 53 mmol/mol) over a 10-year time horizon. Based on published estimates of the proportion of type 2 diabetes patients failing to meet glycemic targets in the UK, this corresponds to an additional economic burden of ∼GBP 2,600 million (complication costs plus lost productivity costs).Conclusions: The economic burden of poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes in the UK is substantial. Efforts to avoid therapeutic inertia could substantially reduce diabetes-related complication costs even in the short-term.

Comparison of lixisenatide in combination with basal insulin vs other insulin regimens for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by basal insulin: Systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of lixisenatide combined with basal insulin (BI) vs intensive premix insulin (premix), BI plus prandial insulin with the main meal (basal-plus) or progressively covering all meals (basal-bolus) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by BI, and the long-term cost-effectiveness of lixisenatide from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1998 and 2018 were systematically searched. The clinical efficacy and safety of each treatment were compared by network meta-analysis (NMA). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients treated with different strategies.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were finally included. Lixisenatide plus BI showed a similar reduction in HbA1c from baseline compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus. There were significant differences in the change of body weight in favour of lixisenatide plus BI compared with the three insulin regimens. The risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia of lixisenatide plus BI was significantly lower compared with premix and basal-bolus. Lixisenatide plus BI was cost-effective compared with premix, basal-plus and basal-bolus with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Chinese yuan (CNY) 87 219, 48 173 and 48 670 per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSIONS

Lixisenatide plus BI shows a similar HbA1c reduction compared with insulin regimens, accompanied by lower risk of hypoglycaemia and greater body weight reduction. It is a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by BI in China.

Cost-Effectiveness of Sensor-Augmented Insulin Pump Therapy Versus Continuous Insulin Infusion in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes in Turkey

Background and Aims: Sensor-augmented pump therapy (SAP) combines continuous glucose monitoring with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII). SAP is costlier than CSII but provides additional clinical benefits relative to CSII alone. A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to determine whether SAP is cost-effective relative to CSII in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Turkey. Methods: Analyses were performed in two different patient cohorts, one with poor glycemic control at baseline (mean glycated hemoglobin 9.0% [75 mmol/mol]) and a second cohort considered to be at increased risk of hypoglycemic events. Clinical input data and direct medical costs were sourced from published literature. The analysis was performed from a third-party payer perspective over patient lifetimes and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. Results: In both patient cohorts, SAP was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy but higher costs relative to CSII (incremental gain of 1.40 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs] in patients with poor baseline glycemic control and 1.73 QALYs in patients at increased risk of hypoglycemic events). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for SAP versus CSII were TRY 76,971 (EUR 11,612) per QALY gained for patients with poor baseline glycemic control and TRY 69,534 (EUR 10,490) per QALY gained for patients at increased risk for hypoglycemia. Conclusions: SAP is associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes versus CSII, and in Turkey, SAP is likely to represent good value for money compared with CSII in T1D patients with poor glycemic control and/or with frequent severe hypoglycemic events.