Modeling the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Who are Failing To Meet Glycemic Targets on Basal Insulin Alone in The Netherlands

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The health and budget impact of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) increases both the patient risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and renal outcomes, such as chronic kidney disease (CKD). Recent clinical trials of the glucose-lowering drug-class of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) have shown benefits in preventing CVD events and progression of CKD, leading to an update of the Dutch T2DM treatment guideline for patients at risk. The aim of this study is to assess the health and economic impact of the guideline-recommended utilisation of SGLT2is in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The patient population at risk was determined by multiplying Dutch T2DM prevalence rates with the total numbers of inhabitants of the Netherlands in 2020. Subsequently, two analyses, comparing a treatment setting before and after implementation of the new guideline for SGLT2is, were conducted. Clinical and adverse event rates in both settings as well as direct healthcare costs were sourced from the literature. Total costs were calculated by multiplying disease prevalence, event rates and costs associated to outcomes. One-time disutilities per event were included to estimate the health impact. The potential health and economic impact of implementing the updated guideline was calculated.

RESULTS

Using a 5-year time horizon, the guideline-suggested utilisation of SGLT2is resulted in a health impact equal to 4,835 quality adjusted life years gained (0.0031 per patient per year) and €461 million cost-savings. The costs of treatment with SGLT2is were €813 million. Hence the net budget impact was €352 million for the total Dutch T2DM population, which translated to €0,57 per patient per day.

CONCLUSION

SGLT2is offer an option to reduce the number of CVD and CKD related events and associated healthcare costs and health losses in the Netherlands. Further research is needed to include the benefits of improved T2DM management options from a broader societal perspective.

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.

Fixed-Ratio Combinations of Basal Insulin and GLP-1RA in the Management of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Highlights from the Literature

New pieces of evidence suggest that combining basal insulin with glucagone-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) in patients with type 2 diabetes could promptly ameliorate glucose control and prevent both hypoglycemic events and unnecessary weight gain compared to more intensive insulin regimens. To review the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and GLP- 1RA (FRCs). Authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for freely available original articles, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), clinical reviews, and meta-analysis written in English until January 2020. FRCs provide significative reductions in HbA1c levels in both insulin-naïve (-1.4% to -2%) and insulin- experienced (-1.5% to -2%) type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glucose impairment. More patients achieved the recommended glycemic targets on FRCs compared to those on mono-therapy with basal insulin or GLP-1RAs. The intensification with FRCs results in better glycemic control compared to basal insulin at fasting as well as during the postprandial state. The frequency of hypoglycemia is similar or lower in patients treated with FRCs than in those on basal insulin alone at a similar dose. Weight trend can be variable, ranging from -2.7 to +2 Kg for iDegLira and -0.7 to -1.3 Kg for iGlar- Lixi. However, a lower weight gain is obtained with iDegLira compared to iDeg (-2.2 to -2.5 Kg), iGlar (-1.7 to -3.2 Kg), and basal-bolus (-3.6 Kg) as well as with iGlarLixi compared to iGlar (-1.4 Kg). FRCs should be considered to safely improve the metabolic control in type 2 diabetic patients with moderate glycemic impairment while on oral medications, basal oral regimen or GLP-1RAs. However, a few but significative pieces of evidence suggest that FRCs could be a safe and effective treatment instead of a low dose basal-bolus intensification for patients with mild or moderate glucose impairment in order to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and unnecessary weight gain, and for simplifying treatment regimen as well.

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.

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets

BACKGROUND

Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy.

METHODS

This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer.

RESULTS

More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy.

DISCLOSURES

This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

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.

Costs of clinical events in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in the Netherlands: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is an established risk factor for cardiovascular and nephropathic events. In the Netherlands, prevalence of T2DM is expected to be as high as 8% by 2025. This will result in significant clinical and economic impact, highlighting the need for well-informed reimbursement decisions for new treatments. However, availability and consistent use of costing methodologies is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review recent costing data for T2DM-related cardiovascular and nephropathic events in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A systematic literature review in PubMed and Embase was conducted to identify available Dutch cost data for T2DM-related events, published in the last decade. Information extracted included costs, source, study population, and costing perspective. Finally, papers were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).

RESULTS

Out of initially 570 papers, 36 agreed with the inclusion criteria. From these studies, 150 cost estimates for T2DM-related clinical events were identified. In total, 29 cost estimates were reported for myocardial infarction (range: €196-€27,038), 61 for stroke (€495-€54,678), fifteen for heart failure (€325-€16,561), 24 for renal failure (€2,438-€91,503), and seventeen for revascularisation (€3,000-€37,071). Only four estimates for transient ischaemic attack were available, ranging from €587 to €2,470. Adherence to CHEERS was generally high.

CONCLUSIONS

The most expensive clinical events were related to renal failure, while TIA was the least expensive event. Generally, there was substantial variation in reported cost estimates for T2DM-related events. Costing of clinical events should be improved and preferably standardised, as accurate and consistent results in economic models are desired.

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.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes in Spain based on real-world clinical evidence

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus comparator regimens for type 2 diabetes in Spain, based on real-world evidence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data were taken from the European Xultophy Treatment Retrospective Audit (EXTRA) real-world evidence study in which patients failing to meet glycaemic targets were switched to IDegLira. Baseline regimens (prior to IDegLira treatment) were categorized as: multiple daily insulin injections (MDI; 28%); glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in combination with insulin (24%); basal insulin (19%); GLP-1 receptor agonists (10%); and non-injectable medications (19%). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term outcomes for patients switching to IDegLira or continuing their baseline regimens (excluding non-injectable regimens). Costs were accounted from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually and sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy versus all four comparators. IDegLira reduced direct medical costs versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with insulin, and versus GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, and was therefore considered dominant (cost saving while improving outcomes). IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus MDI and basal insulin with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 3013 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and EUR 6890 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections based on real-world evidence indicated that IDegLira is likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs or be cost-effective compared with other injectable regimens in people with type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in the Czech Republic: Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus iGlarLixi

INTRODUCTION

Few patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieve recommended glycemic control targets in the Czech Republic. Novel therapies, such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, may contribute to better glycemic control. In the analysis presented here, the present analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of two fixed-ratio combinations, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide), for the treatment of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison as no head-to-head data for IDegLira versus iGlarLixi are currently available. IDegLira was compared with two iGlarLixi pens (100 U/mL insulin glargine + 33 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively). Direct medical costs associated with pharmaceutical interventions, screening and diabetes-related complications were captured. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with gains in life expectancy of 0.11 years and in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was also associated with higher projected costs due to higher acquisition costs; however, these were partially offset by cost savings from avoided complications. IDegLira was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Czech Koruna (CZK) 695,998 and CZK 348,323 per QALY gained versus iGlarLixi pens containing 33 and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively. These ratios were below the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of CZK 1,200,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis indicated that IDegLira was associated with clinical benefits relative to iGlarLixi over patient lifetimes and was likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk. Plain language summary is available for this article.

Cost-minimization analysis of degludec/liraglutide versus glargine/aspart: economic implications of the DUAL VII study outcomes

Background

Diabetes represents a relevant public health problem worldwide due to its increasing prevalence and socioeconomic burden. There is no doubt that tight glycemic control reduces the development of diabetic complications such as the long-term costs related to the disease. The aim of our model was to calculate total direct costs associated with the two treatments considered in DUAL VII study, and hence evaluate the potential economic benefits for the National Health System (NHS) deriving from the use of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) in a once-daily fixed combination.

Materials and methods

We applied the cost-minimization technique adopting the NHS point of view to the DUAL VII trial outcomes. In the model, developed in Microsoft Excel^®, we calculated and compared annual costs per patient of the two therapeutic options for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin and metformin described in the trial, including costs of therapy management and side effects, both negative and positive. Annual treatment costs were calculated based on IDegLira and basal bolus end-of-trial doses resulting in a 1:2 ratio (40.4 U vs 84.1 U). Therefore, maintaining the IDegLira/basal bolus at 1:2 dose ratio, we calculated the correlation between the dose reduction and costs compared to DUAL VII doses base case scenario.

Results

Total treatment costs were obtained by adding annual cost of drug, needles, glycemic self-monitoring, hypoglycemic events, and effect on consumption of other drugs. Total annual costs of IDegLira combination resulted in €434 higher than basal bolus in DUAL VII base case (40.4 U); the two treatments reported equal costs at 34% dose reduction (26.7 U), while below this value IDegLira treatment became less expensive, with about €215 gain at 50% dose reduction (20.2 U). It is also important to notice that above the break-even point, until an IDegLira dose of 30 U, the cost difference is negligible in view of the clinical benefit provided by the fixed combination highlighted in DUAL VII trial.

Conclusion

Adding the significant clinical findings derived from DUAL VII trial to our economic evaluation, IDegLira seems to offer an important alternative to basal-bolus therapy.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of IDegLira versus basal-bolus insulin for patients with type 2 diabetes in the Slovak health system

Aims

To investigate the cost-effectiveness of once-daily insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in Slovakia.

Methods

Long-term clinical and economic outcomes for patients receiving IDegLira and basal-bolus therapy were estimated using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model based on a published pooled analysis of patient-level data.

Results

IDegLira was associated with an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.29 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with basal-bolus therapy. The average lifetime cost per patient in the IDegLira arm was EUR 2,449 higher than in the basal-bolus therapy arm. Increased treatment costs with IDegLira were partially offset by cost savings from avoided diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was highly cost-effective versus basal-bolus therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 8,590 per QALY gained, which is well below the cost-effectiveness threshold set by the law in Slovakia.

Conclusion

IDegLira is cost-effective in Slovakia, providing a simple option for intensification of basal insulin therapy without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia or weight gain and with fewer daily injections than a basal-bolus regimen.

Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Insulin Intensification Regimens for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the insulin degludec/liraglutide combination (IDegLira) versus basal insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not optimally controlled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the QuintilesIMS Health CORE Diabetes model, an interactive internet-based model that simulates clinical outcomes and costs for cohorts of patients with diabetes. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Czech Republic public payer. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters.

RESULTS

The use of IDegLira was associated with an improvement in the quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.31 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), at an additional cost of Czech Koruna (CZK) 107,829 over a patient's lifetime compared with basal-bolus therapy, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CZK 345,052 per QALY gained. In a scenario analysis, IDegLira was associated with an ICER of CZK 693,763 per QALY gained compared to basal insulin + glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). The ICERs are below the generally accepted willingness-to-pay threshold (CZK 1,100,000/QALY gained at the time of this analysis).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this evaluation suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option compared with basal-bolus therapy and basal insulin + GLP-1 RA for patients with T2DM in the Czech Republic whose diabetes is not optimally controlled with basal insulin.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.