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

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.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Exenatide versus GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of exenatide 2 mg/week compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week, liraglutide 1.2 mg/day, liraglutide 1.8 mg/day and lixisenatide 20 μg/day) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin alone from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS).

METHODS

Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and total costs of each assessed drug combined with metformin (2 g/day) were estimated over a 40-year time horizon using the Cardiff Diabetes Model (based on UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] 68 equations), which simulates disease progression considering the T2DM-related micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia, nausea, body mass index (BMI) changes and treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects (AEs). Drug efficacy derived from an indirect comparison performed in a network meta-analysis. Patient characteristics were obtained from the literature. The baseline utility value (0.80) was derived from the PANORAMA study, applying utility decrements to micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia episodes and changes in BMI. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs or poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c > 7.5%) involved switching to second-line (basal insulin) or third-line (basal-bolus insulin) treatment. Total cost (€, 2018) included the costs of drug acquisition, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, micro- and macrovascular complications, nausea and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed.

RESULTS

In base-case, exenatide 2 mg/week resulted in more QALYs (8.26) than dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week (8.19 QALYs), liraglutide 1.2 mg/day (8.10 QALYs), liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (8.20 QALYs) and lixisenatide 20 μg/day (8.13 QALYs). Total cost/patient was €20,423.27 (exenatide 2 mg/week), €22,611.94 (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week), €21,065.97 (liraglutide 1.2 mg/day), €24,865.69 (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day) and €21,334.58 (lixisenatide 20 μg/day). Deterministic SA confirmed the robustness of the model. In the probabilistic SA, 95-99% of the 1000 Monte Carlo iterations performed were under a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Exenatide 2 mg/week would be a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) versus the other GLP-1 receptor agonists assessed for the treatment of T2DM patients who are not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Canada

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of semaglutide versus dulaglutide, as an add-on to metformin monotherapy, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), from a Canadian societal perspective.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Cohort Model of T2D was used to assess the cost effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) versus once-weekly dulaglutide (0.75 or 1.5 mg) over a 40-year time horizon. Using data from the SUSTAIN 7 trial, which demonstrated comparatively greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index and systolic blood pressure with semaglutide, compared with dulaglutide, a deterministic base-case and scenario simulation were conducted. The robustness of the results was evaluated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses and 15 deterministic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis indicated that semaglutide is a dominant treatment option, compared with dulaglutide. Semaglutide was associated with lower total costs (Canadian dollars [CAN$]) versus dulaglutide for both low-dose (CAN$113,287 vs. CAN$113,690; cost-saving: CAN$403) and high-dose (CAN$112,983 vs. CAN$113,695; cost-saving: CAN$711) comparisons. Semaglutide resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and QALY gains, compared with dulaglutide, for both low-dose (11.10 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.04 QALYs) and high-dose (11.12 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.05 QALYs) comparisons. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for 66-73% of iterations, semaglutide was either dominant or was considered cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000.

CONCLUSIONS

From a Canadian societal perspective, semaglutide may be a cost-effective treatment option versus dulaglutide in patients with T2D who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

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.

The Management of Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide: A Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Slovakia

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent a class of treatments for type 2 diabetes that offer multifactorial benefits, including glycemic control, weight loss and low hypoglycemia risk. Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel GLP-1 analog that has been associated with improved glycemic control and reduced body mass index (BMI) versus once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in SUSTAIN 7, which is reimbursed in patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m² in Slovakia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg in Slovakia.

METHODS

Clinical and cost outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on the sub-group of patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m² in SUSTAIN 7. Patients were modeled to receive once-weekly semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Treatment effects associated with once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide were maintained for the first 3 years before HbA1c increased to 7.0% and BMI reverted to baseline. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in Slovakia and expressed in euros (EUR). Utilities relating to quality of life were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Lifetime medical costs were similar, with cost savings of EUR 20 and EUR 140 per patient with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were therefore considered dominant versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg.

CONCLUSION

Both doses of once-weekly semaglutide represent cost-saving treatment options versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg for obese patients with type 2 diabetes in Slovakia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

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.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK

AIMS

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

Once-weekly semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Choosing therapies for type 2 diabetes that are both effective and cost-effective is vital as healthcare systems worldwide aim to maximize health of the population. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (the most commonly used basal insulin) and versus dulaglutide (an alternative once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist), from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus insulin glargine U100, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical data were taken from the SUSTAIN 4 and SUSTAIN 7 clinical trials. The analysis captured direct and indirect costs, mortality, and the impact of diabetes-related complications on quality of life.

RESULTS

Projections of outcomes suggested that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin glargine U100 and 0.07 QALYs versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.27 QALYs versus insulin glargine U100 and 0.13 QALYs versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Improvements came at an increased cost versus insulin glargine U100, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective of €4988 and €495 per QALY gained for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, respectively, falling below Netherlands-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Improvements versus dulaglutide came at a reduced cost from a societal perspective for both doses of once-weekly semaglutide.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly semaglutide is cost-effective versus insulin glargine U100, and dominant versus dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and represents a good use of healthcare resources in the Netherlands.