The short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide versus once-weekly exenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States

Short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel once-a-week dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist that is used as an addition to diet and exercise to improve blood glucose in adults with type 2 diabetes. It is the first dual glucagon-like peptide-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. The SURPASS-2 clinical trial demonstrated superiority of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg over semaglutide 1 mg in glycated hemoglobin A1c reduction and weight loss from baseline to week 40. Economic analyses to support coverage and access decision-making for tirzepatide are limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg vs semaglutide 1 mg injection over 52 weeks of treatment regarding A1c reduction and weight loss from the perspective of the US health care payer. METHODS: A decision tree model over a 52-week time horizon was developed to identify incremental treatment-related costs of once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg vs semaglutide 1 mg injection. Costs were divided by mean reduction in A1c and change in body weight from baseline to week 52 observed in the SURPASS-2 clinical trial. In addition to efficacy, probabilities of adverse events, discontinuation, and need for rescue therapy were derived from the SURPASS-2 study. Drug costs in 2022 US dollars were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Costs associated with adverse events were sourced from the published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Treatment with once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg injection was associated with a higher cost and larger reduction in A1c and body weight after 52 weeks, compared with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg injection. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for tirzepatide vs semaglutide was $2,247 per 1% reduction in A1c and $237 per 1 kg weight loss. One-way sensitivity analysis suggested that incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were most sensitive to the drug costs and treatment effect on A1c and weight. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly tirzepatide 10 mg was associated with higher cost and greater reduction in A1c and weight vs semaglutide. Tirzepatide 10 mg is cost-effective compared with semaglutide 1 mg if payers' willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $2,247 for 1% reduction in A1c level and $237 for 1 kg weight loss.

Lifetime cost-effectiveness simulation of once-weekly exenatide in type 2 diabetes: A cost-utility analysis based on the EXSCEL trial

AIMS

The Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL) trial assessed once-weekly exenatide (EQW) vs. placebo, added to usual care in 14,752 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01144338). We assessed the lifetime cost-effectiveness of adding EQW vs. usual care alone from a healthcare perspective.

METHODS

Medical resource use and EQ-5D utilities were collected throughout the study. Within-trial results were extrapolated to a lifetime horizon using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model version 2 (UKPDS-OM2), predicting predict cardiovascular and microvascular events. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated separately for US and UK settings, with outcomes measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

EQW plus usual care gained 0.162 QALYs at an additional cost of $41,545/patient, compared with usual care in a US setting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $259,223/QALY. In a UK setting, the QALY gain was 0.151 at an additional cost of £6357: an ICER of £42,589/QALY. Sensitivity analyses ranged between $34,369-$269,571 and £3430-£46,560 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In a lifetime extrapolation, adding EQW to usual care increased QALYs and costs compared with usual care alone. The base-case ICERs exceeded the commonly-cited cost-effectiveness thresholds of $100,000/QALY and £20,000/QALY. However, ICERs were considerably lower in some subgroups, and in sensitivity analyses.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 receptor agonists in type 2 Diabetes: a systematic literature review

Introduction: As a novel glucagon-like peptide-1receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment, the economic value of once-weekly semaglutide had been assessed in several country settings. The authors' objective was to systematically review the existing pharmacoeconomic literature evaluating the cost-effectiveness associated with once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs and provide implications for further researches.Areas covered: We conducted a systematic literature review of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) published up to 25 July 2020 in PubMed, web of science, and the ISPOR presentation database, compared once-weekly semaglutide with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D. Nineteen studies were identified, including 8 short-term and 11 long-term studies. General characteristics and main results of the included studies were summarized.Expert opinion: This review provided references for other countries to overview the value of once-weekly semaglutide compared with other GLP-1 RAs in T2D in the healthcare decision-making process and to conduct their CEA studies associated with once-weekly semaglutide. The authors found that the cardiovascular (CV) benefit of once-weekly semaglutide was under-estimated in current studies and suggested that the methods of economic evaluations for novel anti-diabetic drugs with CV benefit should be improved in future researches.

Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies of newer antidiabetic medications.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Health Technology Assessment Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Wiley), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases (from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2018) were searched. The search strategies included the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term 'economics', and the MeSH entry terms 'cost', 'cost effectiveness', 'value', and 'cost utility', as well as all names for GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors. Inclusion criteria included (1) cost-effectiveness studies of the newer antidiabetic medications, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; and (2) full-text publications in English. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to select studies for data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of reporting cost-effectiveness analyses was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guideline.

RESULTS

Among 85 studies selected, 82 clearly stated the types of diabetes model used (e.g. CORE model), and 70 studied used validated diabetes models. Seventy-four (87%) studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 72 (85%) studies were conducted from a payer's perspective. Seventy-six (89%) studies presented were of good quality (20-24 CHEERS items), and nine were of moderate quality (14-19 items). Thirty studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with insulin, 3 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with thiazolidinediones (TZDs), 15 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with sulfonylureas, 40 studies compared new antidiabetic medications with alternative newer antidiabetic medication, and 9 studies compared other antidiabetic agents that were not included above. Newer antidiabetic medications were reported to be cost-effective in 26 of 30 (87%) studies compared with insulin, and 13 of 15 (87%) studies compared with sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

Most economic evaluations of antidiabetic medications have good reporting quality and use validated diabetes models. The newer antidiabetic medications in most of the reviewed studies were found to be cost effective, compared with insulin, TZDs, and sulfonylureas.

Systematic Design of Trypsin Cleavage Site Mutated Exendin4-Cysteine 1, an Orally Bioavailable Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist

Exendin-4 is a strong therapeutic candidate for the treatment of metabolic syndrome. Related receptor agonist drugs have been on the market since 2005. However, technical limitations and the pain caused by subcutaneous injection have severely limited patient compliance. The goal of the study is to investigate a biologically active exendin-4 analog could be administered orally. Using intraperitoneal glucose tolerance tests, we discovered that exendin4-cysteine administered by oral gavage had a distinct hypoglycemic effect in C57BL/6J mice. Using Rosetta Design and Amber, we designed and screened a series of exendin4-cysteine analogs to identify those that retained biological activity while resisting trypsin digestion. Trypsin Cleavage Site Mutated Exendin4-cysteine 1 (TSME-1), an analog whose bioactivity was similar to exendin-4 and was almost completely resistant to trypsin, was screened out. In addition, TSME-1 significantly normalized the blood glucose levels and the availability of TSME-1 was significantly higher than that of exendin-4 and exendin4-cysteine. Collectively orally administered TSME-1, a trypsin-resistant exendin-4 analog obtained by the system, is a strong candidate for future treatments of type 2 diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide once-weekly versus dulaglutide, liraglutide, and lixisenatide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: an analysis from the UK NHS perspective

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of exenatide 2 mg once-weekly (EQW) compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg once-daily (QD), and lixisenatide 20 μg QD for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin.

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model was applied to evaluate cost-effectiveness, with treatment effects sourced from a network meta-analysis. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated with health-state utilities applied to T2DM-related complications, weight changes, hypoglycemia, and nausea. Costs (GBP £) included drug treatment, T2DM-related complications, severe hypoglycemia, nausea, and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. A 40-year time horizon was used.

RESULTS

In all base-case comparisons, EQW was associated with a QALY gain per patient; 0.046 vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg; 0.102 vs liraglutide 1.2 mg; 0.043 vs liraglutide 1.8 mg; and 0.074 vs lixisenatide 20 μg. Cost per patient was lower for EQW than for liraglutide 1.8 mg (-£2,085); therefore, EQW dominated liraglutide 1.8 mg. The cost difference per patient between EQW and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW and liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW and lixisenatide 20 μg was £27, £103, and £738, respectively. Cost per QALY gained with EQW vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg, EQW vs liraglutide 1.2 mg, and EQW vs lixisenatide 20 μg was £596, £1,004, and £10,002, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that EQW is cost-effective ranged from 76-99%.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that exenatide 2 mg once-weekly is cost-effective over a lifetime horizon compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg QW, liraglutide 1.2 mg QD, liraglutide 1.8 mg QD, and lixisenatide 20 μg QD for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

Long-Term Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Metformin Combined with Liraglutide or Exenatide for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Based on the CORE Diabetes Model Study

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with β cell impairment. Agonists of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor (such as liraglutide and exenatide) can increase the number of pancreatic β cells and improve cell function. These drugs contribute to the long-term control of T2DM.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of metformin combined with liraglutide or exenatide in Chinese patient with T2DM.

METHODS

Patients with T2DM from the Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University were treated with oral metformin combined with liraglutide (0.6 mg/day, could be increased by 0.6 mg weekly until 1.2 or 1.8 mg) or exenatide (5 μg bid for four weeks, increased to 10 μg bid). The computer simulation model CORE was used to calculate the 30-year expected life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), direct costs, HbA1c levels, body mass index (BMI), and the incidence of cardiovascular, renal, and ocular complications of T2DM. Patients were followed up for 52 weeks. Medication costs were calculated according to retail prices in China. A 3% annual discount was adopted in this study.

RESULTS

The 30-year simulation showed that the total direct medical costs were lower using liraglutide compared to exenatide by 2130 RMB/QALY yearly, while the expected life expectancy and QALY were increased by 0.471 years and 0.388, respectively, using liraglutide with an incremental cost-effectiveness of -11,550 RMB/QALYs.

CONCLUSION

Liraglutide 1.2 mg/day was superior to exenatide 10 μg bid with respect to cost-effectiveness in Chinese patients with T2DM.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Pregabalin Versus Gabapentin for Peripheral Neuropathic Pain (pNeP) and Postherpetic Neuralgia (PHN) in China

INTRODUCTION

Postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), a type of peripheral neuropathic pain (pNeP), is the most common complication of herpes zoster. The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin compared with gabapentin in pNeP and PHN in China.

METHODS

We developed a China-localized 12-week simulation model to determine the cost-effectiveness of pregabalin compared to gabapentin in 1000 patients with pNeP and PHN. We utilized a questionnaire of Chinese key opinion leaders to estimate the pre-treatment distribution of pain scores for pNeP and PHN. Treatment outcomes for pregabalin and gabapentin were acquired from the published literature.

RESULTS

Treatment with pregabalin lead to 12-week decreases in pain scores of 0.6 (pNeP) and 0.7 (PHN) when compared to patients receiving gabapentin, at an incremental cost per additional day of mild/no pain of $45. The difference in mean days of no or mild pain, moderate pain, and severe pain was 8.8, -5.7, and -3.1, when comparing pregabalin and gabapentin, respectively. Pregabalin had more mean days with a >30% (7.71 days), 40% (8.97 days), and 50% reduction (9.97 days) in pain when compared with gabapentin. In the pNeP scenario, pregabalin was associated with a lower average pain score compared with gabapentin (3.91 vs. 4.55). The difference in mean days of no or mild pain, moderate pain, and severe pain was 9.39, -5.56, and -3.82, when comparing pregabalin and gabapentin, respectively. Pregabalin had more mean days with a >30% (8.77 days), 40% (9.81 days), and 50% reduction (10.55 days) in pain when compared with gabapentin.

CONCLUSION

Pregabalin is an effective treatment for PHN and even for pNeP extensively, but at increased cost. It leads to improved outcomes including lower pain scores and more days with no or mild pain.

FUNDING

Pfizer, China.

Exenatide once-weekly injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Chinese patients: current perspectives

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogs, such as exenatide, have played an important role as antidiabetic medications in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Like most other hypoglycemic agents, exenatide has a number of actions, including lowering blood glucose, promoting weight loss, improving insulin resistance, and protecting islet β-cells. Although GLP-1 analogs, combined with other antidiabetic medications, have excellent performance in T2DM, some side effects and imperfections limit its use in clinical practice. Since 2012, a new generation GLP-1 agent, exenatide once weekly (QW), has been available for patients with T2DM in the USA, but not as yet in the People’s Republic of China. Previous data indicate that exenatide QW achieves better fasting glucose reductions than sitagliptin or exenatide twice daily, whilst appearing non-inferior to pioglitazone and achieving less reductions than insulin glargine. Exenatide QW was better at improving average postprandial glucose than sitagliptin or titrated insulin glargine, but was inferior to exenatide twice daily. Additionally exenatide QW has a better effect in terms of weight loss than other glycemic medications. Exenatide QW can also reduce blood lipids and lower blood pressure. Accordingly, exenatide QW is cost-effective, achieves good clinical outcomes, and has acceptable side effects, indicating that it has promising prospects for future use in the People’s Republic of China.