The cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.

METHODS

The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

Economic Evaluation of a Personalized Nutrition Plan Based on Omic Sciences Versus a General Nutrition Plan in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Modeling Study Based on Trial Data in Denmark

BACKGROUND

Since there is no diet that is perfect for everyone, personalized nutrition approaches are gaining popularity to achieve goals such as the prevention of obesity-related diseases. However, appropriate choices about funding and encouraging personalized nutrition approaches should be based on sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. In this study, we assessed whether a newly developed personalized plan (PP) could be cost-effective relative to a non-personalized plan in Denmark.

METHODS

Results of a 10-week randomized controlled trial were combined with a validated obesity economic model to estimate lifetime cost-effectiveness. In the trial, the intervention group (PP) received personalized home-delivered meals based on metabolic biomarkers and personalized behavioral change messages. In the control group these meals and messages were not personalized. Effects were measured in body mass index (BMI) and quality of life (EQ-5D-5L). Costs [euros (€), 2020] were considered from a societal perspective. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was assessed using a multi-state Markov model. Univariate, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

In the trial, no significant differences were found in the effectiveness of PP compared with control, but wide confidence intervals (CIs) were seen [e.g., BMI (-0.07, 95% CI -0.51, 0.38)]. Lifetime estimates showed that PP increased costs (€520,102 versus €518,366, difference: €1736) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (15.117 versus 15.106, difference: 0.011); the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) was therefore high (€158,798 to gain one QALY). However, a 20% decrease in intervention costs would reduce the ICUR (€23,668 per QALY gained) below an unofficial gross domestic product (GDP)-based willingness-to-pay threshold (€47,817 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the willingness-to-pay threshold and the non-significant differences in short-term effectiveness, PP may not be cost-effective. However, scaling up the intervention would reduce the intervention costs. Future studies should be larger and/or longer to reduce uncertainty about short-term effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04590989).

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies of Newer Non-Insulin Antidiabetic Drugs: Trends in Decision-Analytical Models for Modelling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic overview of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing Non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) with other NIADs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using decision-analytical modelling (DAM), focusing on both the economic results and the underlying methodological choices.

METHODS

Eligible studies were CEAs using DAM to compare NIADs within the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitor classes with other NIADs within those classes for the treatment of T2DM. The PubMed, Embase and Econlit databases were searched from 1 January 2018 to 15 November 2022. Two reviewers screened the studies for relevance by titles and abstracts and then for eligibility via full-text screening, extracted the data from the full texts and appendices, and then stored the data in a spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The search yielded 890 records and 50 studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were mainly based on a European setting (60%). Industry sponsorship was found in 82% of studies. The CORE diabetes model was used in 48% of the studies. GLP1 and SGLT2 products were the main comparators in 31 and 16 studies, respectively, while one study had DPP4 and two had no easily discernible main comparator. Direct comparison between SGLT2 and GLP1 occurred in 19 studies. At a class level, SGLT2 dominated GLP1 in six studies and was cost effective against GLP1 once as part of a treatment pathway. GLP1 was cost effective in nine studies and not cost effective against SGLT2 in three studies. At a product level, oral and injectable semaglutide, and empagliflozin, were cost effective against other within-class products. Injectable and oral semaglutide were more frequently found cost effective in these comparisons, with some conflicting results. Most of the modelled cohorts and treatment effects were sourced from randomised controlled trials. The following model assumptions varied depending on the class of the main comparator: choice of and reasoning behind risk equations, the time until the treatment switch, and how often the comparators were discontinued. Diabetes-related complications were emphasised on par with quality-adjusted life-years as model outputs. The main quality issues were regarding the description of alternatives, the perspective of analysis, the measurement of costs and consequences, and patient subgroups.

CONCLUSION

The included CEAs using DAMs have limitations that hinder their ability to inform decision makers on the cost-effective choice: lack of updated reasoning behind the choice of key model assumptions, over-reliance on risk equations based on older treatment practices, and sponsorship bias. The question of which NIAD is cost effective for the treatment of which T2DM patient is a pressing one and the answer remains unclear.

Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide vs. Empagliflozin, Canagliflozin, and Sitagliptin for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Denmark: A Decision-Analytic Modelling Study

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral and subcutaneous semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs (i.e., empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and sitagliptin) for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Denmark using clinically relevant treatment intensification rules.

METHODS

A Markov-type cohort model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways for T2D was used to produce cost-effectiveness estimates based on four head-to-head trials. Evidence from PIONEER 2 and 3 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin and sitagliptin. Evidence from SUSTAIN 2 and 8 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin and canagliflozin. Base case analyses used trial product estimands of treatment efficacy to avoid the confounding effects of rescue medication use during trials. Deterministic scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates.

RESULTS

Semaglutide-based treatment regimens were consistently associated with higher lifetime diabetes treatment costs, lower costs of complications, and higher lifetime accumulated QALYs. The PIONEER 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin was DKK 150,618/QALY (€20,189). The PIONEER 3 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 95,093/QALY (€12,746). The SUSTAIN 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 79,982/QALY (€10,721). The SUSTAIN 8 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. canagliflozin was DKK 167,664/QALY (€22,474).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily oral and weekly subcutaneous semaglutide are likely to both increase cost and health benefits, but are likely to do so under commonly considered cost-effectiveness thresholds.

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered August 11, 2016); NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered November 18, 2015); NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2; registered August 28, 2013); NCT03136484 (SUSTAIN 8; registered May 2, 2017).

Parameters influencing renal response to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 receptor agonists in type 2 diabetes patients with preserved renal function: a comparative, prospective study

PURPOSE

SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and GLP1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RA) protect the kidney in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) subjects. The role of patient's phenotype years before starting the treatment in determining the kidney response to these drugs has never been evaluated.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Clinical and biochemical parameters were collected in 92 T2DM patients with preserved kidney function from year -4 (T-4) to year +3 (T+3) from the introduction of semaglutide or empagliflozin (T0). Glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) slopes were evaluated to identify eGFR changes (ΔGFR) and predictors of treatment response. Urinary markers of kidney impairment were measured at T0, including KIM-1, TNFR1 and L-FABP.

RESULTS

Characteristics of patients on semaglutide (n = 46) or empagliflozin (n = 37) were similar at T-4 and T0. ΔGFR from T0 to T+3 was -5.5 [-10.0; -0.7] vs -2.6 [-102.4] ml/min/1.73 m² for GLP1-RA and SGLT2i, respectively (p = ns). Compared with patients with a slower eGFR decline, those with ΔGFR > 5 ml/min/1.73 m² from T0 to T+3 (49%) or ΔGFR > 10 ml/min/1.73 m² from T-4 to T+3 (25%) had similar characteristics and urinary markers at T-4 and T0. The latter group showed greater eGFR decline from T-3 to T0, which tended to be delayed more by SGLT2i than GLP1-RA (p = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

In our cohort, subjects with T2DM and preserved renal function show similar eGFR response to treatment with GLP1-RA or SGLT2i. Baseline urinary biomarkers or prior phenotyping do not predict treatment response. An early eGFR decline identifies patients prone to lose more eGFR over time, who may benefit more from SGLT2i treatment.

Model-based predictions on health benefits and budget impact of implementing empagliflozin in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease

AIM

To perform a model-based analysis of the short- and long-term health benefits and costs of further increased implementation of empagliflozin for people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (eCVD) in Sweden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The validated Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was used to estimate health benefits and a 3-year budget impact, and lifetime costs per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained of increased implementation of adding empagliflozin to standard of care (SoC) for people with type 2 diabetes and eCVD in a Swedish setting. Scenarios with 100%/75%/50% implementation were explored. Analyses were based on 30 model cohorts with type 2 diabetes and eCVD (n = 131 412 at baseline) from national health data registers. Sensitivity analyses explored the robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over 3 years, SoC with empagliflozin (100% implementation) versus SoC before empagliflozin resulted in 7700 total life years gained and reductions in cumulative incidence of cardiovascular deaths by 30% and heart failures by 28%. Annual costs increased by 15% from higher treatment costs and increased survival. Half of these benefits and costs are not yet reached with current implementation below 50%. SoC with empagliflozin yielded 0.37 QALYs per person, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 16 000 EUR per QALY versus SoC before empagliflozin.

CONCLUSIONS

Model simulations using real-world data and trial treatment effects indicated that a broader implementation of empagliflozin, in line with current guidelines for treatment of people with type 2 diabetes and eCVD, would lead to further benefits even from a short-term 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.