Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

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.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are widely used oral antidiabetic agents that exert antihyperglycemic effects in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without increased risk of weight gain or hypoglycemic events. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the latest evidence that was associated with the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic literature search of eligible articles published since inception up to March 2021 in Web of Science, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and ECONLIT. Fifty-four eligible articles were included in our review, in which DPP-4i were compared to metformin (4 studies), sulphonylurea (SU) (16 studies), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) (3 studies), thiazolidinediones (TZD) (4 studies), other DPP-4i (3 studies), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (10 studies), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (18 studies), insulin (5 studies), and other antidiabetic therapies (5 studies).

EXPERT OPINION

This study provided the updated evidence of systematic pharmacoeconomic evaluation associated with DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM. The evidence from the literature suggested that DPP-4i may be more cost-effective compared to SU and insulin as second-line therapy after metformin but not a cost-effective alternative compared to SGLPT-2i and GLP-1RA.

Meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies: data harmonisation and methodological issues

BACKGROUND

In the context of ever-growing health expenditure and limited resources, economic evaluations aid in making evidence-informed policy decisions. Cost-utility analysis (CUA) is often used, and CUA data synthesis is also desirable, but methodological issues are challenged. Hence, we aim to provide a step-by-step process to prepare the CUA data for meta-analysis.

METHODS

Data harmonisation methods were constructed specifically considering CUA methodology, including inconsistent reports, economic parameters, heterogeneity (i.e., country's income, time horizon, perspective, modelling approaches, currency, willingness to pay). An incremental net benefit (INB) and its variance were estimated and pooled across studies using a basic meta-analysis by COMER.

RESULTS

Five scenarios show how to obtain INB and variance with various reported data: Study reports the mean and variance (Scenario 1) or 95% confidence interval (Scenario 2) of ΔC, ΔE, and ICER for INB/variance calculations. Scenario 3: ΔC, ΔE, and variances are available, but not for the ICER; a Monte Carlo was used to simulate ΔC and ΔE data, variance and covariance can be then estimated leading INB calculation. Scenario-4: Only the CE plane was available, ΔC and ΔE data can be extracted; means of ΔC, ΔE, and variance/covariance can be estimated accordingly, leading to INB/variance estimates. Scenario-5: Only mean cost/outcomes and ICER are available but not for variance and the CE-plane. A variance INB can be borrowed from other studies which are similar characteristics, including country income, ICERs, intervention-comparator, time period, country region, and model type and inputs (i.e., discounting, time horizon).

CONCLUSION

Out data harmonisation and meta-analytic methods should be useful for researchers for the synthesis of economic evidence to aid policymakers in decision making.

A budget impact analysis of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide in type 2 diabetes from a private health insurance perspective in Egypt

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus causes a sizable burden globally from both health and economic points of view. This study aimed to assess the budget impact of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide versus other glucose-lowering drugs from the private health insurance perspective in Egypt over a 3-year time horizon.

Methods

Two budget impact models were compared with the standard of care (metformin, pioglitazone, gliclazide, insulin glargine, repaglinide, and empagliflozin) administered in addition to liraglutide or sitagliptin versus the standard of care with placebo. A gradual market introduction of liraglutide or sitagliptin was assumed, and the existing market shares for the other glucose-lowering drugs were provided and validated by the Expert Panel. The event rates were extracted from the LEADER and TECOS trials. Direct and mortality costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

The estimated target population of 120,574 type 2 diabetic adult patients was associated with cardio vascular risk. The budget impact per patient per month for liraglutide is EGP29 ($6.7), EGP39 ($9), and EGP49 ($11.3) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. The budget impact per patient per month for sitagliptin is EGP11 ($2.5), EGP14 ($3.2), and EGP18 ($4.1) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. Furthermore, adoption of liraglutide resulted in 203 fewer deaths and 550 avoided hospitalizations, while sitagliptin resulted in 43 increased deaths and 14 avoided hospitalizations. The treatment costs of liraglutide use are mostly offset by substantial savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related events, avoided mortality and avoided hospitalizations over 3 years.

Conclusion

Adding liraglutide resulted in a modest budget impact, suggesting that the upfront drug costs were offset by budget savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related complications and deaths avoided compared to the standard of care. Sitagliptin resulted in a small budget impact but was associated with increased deaths and fewer hospitalizations avoided.

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Background

The economic burden of diabetes from a societal perspective is well documented in the cost-of-illness literature. However, the effect of considering social costs in the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions remains unknown.

Objective

To investigate whether the inclusion of social costs (productivity losses and/or informal care) might change the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions.

Methods

A systematic review was designed and launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from the University of Tufts, from the year 2000 until 2018. Included studies had to fulfil the following criteria: i) being an original study published in a scientific journal, ii) being an economic evaluation of an intervention on diabetes, iii) including social costs, iv) being written in English, v) using quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and vi) separating the results according to the perspective applied.

Results

From the 691 records identified, 47 studies (6.8%) were selected. Productivity losses were included in 45 of the selected articles (73% used the human capital approach) whereas informal care costs in only 13 (when stated, the opportunity cost method was used in seven studies and the replacement cost in one). The 47 studies resulted in 110 economic evaluation estimations. The inclusion of social costs changed the conclusions in 8 estimations (17%), 6 of them switching from not cost-effective from the healthcare perspective to cost-effective or dominant from the societal perspective. Considering social costs altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in 9 estimations (19%).

Conclusion

When social costs are considered, the results and conclusions of economic evaluations performed in diabetes-related interventions can alter. Wide methodological variations have been observed, which limit the comparability of studies and advocate for the inclusion of a wider perspective via the consideration of social costs in economic evaluations and methodological guidelines relating to their estimation and valuation.

The validity of cost-effectiveness analyses of tight glycemic control. A systematic survey of economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility.

RESULTS

We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I²=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I²=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I²=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I²=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I²=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I²=0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25,000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies’ methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients’ clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.

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.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide to manage patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis

AIMS

The recent LIRA-SWITCH trial showed that switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg led to statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) and body mass index (BMI). Based on these findings, the aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model Version 8.5+ was used to project costs and clinical outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from the LIRA-SWITCH trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. Costs were accounted in pounds sterling (GBP) and expressed in 2016 values. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Model projections showed improved quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients with poorly controlled HbA1c upon switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide, compared with continuing sitagliptin treatment (9.18 vs 9.02 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Treatment switching was associated with increased overall costs (GBP 24737 vs GBP 22362). Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by reduced diabetes-related complication costs in patients who switched to liraglutide. Switching to liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 15423 per QALY gained vs continuing with sitagliptin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg in patients with poor glycaemic control was projected to improve clinical outcomes and is likely to be considered cost-effective in the UK setting and, therefore, a good use of limited NHS resources.

The Cost-effectiveness of Dulaglutide 1.5mg versus Exenatide QW for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in France

INTRODUCTION

Dulaglutide is a novel onceweekly administered glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide 1.5 mg versus exenatide QW for the management of T2DM in France.

METHODS

The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the expected lifetime direct medical costs and outcomes of T2DM from the perspective of the French National Health Service. In the absence of head-to-head data, relative efficacy was derived from a network meta-analysis. Patient cohort characteristics were derived from the AWARD-2 trial. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before escalating to insulin therapy. Costs included treatment costs and costs associated with long-term complications of T2DM. Utilities were estimated based on a recent systematic review. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were generated.

RESULTS

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg was associated with lower costs (lifetime costs €41,562 vs €43,021) and increased health benefits (lifetime quality-adjusted life years: QALYs 9.804 vs 9.757) versus exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust across a range of plausible input parameters. The CEAC indicated a 99.5% probability that dulaglutide would be considered cost-effective at a willingness to pay of €30,000.

CONCLUSION

Dulaglutide 1.5 mg reduced expected costs and increased expected QALYs when compared against exenatide QW for the treatment of T2DM in France. Compared with exenatide QW, dulaglutide 1.5 mg can provide additional health benefits for patients with T2DM and may result in cost savings for payers.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide vs lixisenatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK setting

AIMS

To compare the cost-effectiveness of 2 glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg, in the UK setting based on the LIRA-LIXI trial (NCT01973231).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Projections of costs (in 2015 pounds sterling [£]) and clinical outcomes were made over patient lifetimes using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (IMS Health, Basel, Switzerland). The baseline cohort and treatment effects applied after initiation of GLP-1 receptor agonists were taken from the LIRA-LIXI trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (8.87 vs 8.76 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) vs lixisenatide 20 µg. A greater reduction in glycated haemoglobin with liraglutide 1.8 mg led to fewer diabetes-related complications and delayed their time of onset. Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs (£37 153 vs £36 174), driven by higher acquisition costs, but this was partially offset by savings from diabetes-related complications avoided (£26 969 vs £27 912). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8901 per QALY gained vs lixisenatide 20 µg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections suggest that treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered highly cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg treatment in the UK setting.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.

METHODS

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

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.