1
|
Wei R, Wang W, Huang X, Qiao J, Huang J, Xing C, Pan Q, Guo L. 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. Diabetol Metab Syndr 2023; 15:173. [PMID: 37598203 PMCID: PMC10439551 DOI: 10.1186/s13098-023-01141-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/21/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ran Wei
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China
- Peking University Fifth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Weihao Wang
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China
| | - Xiusheng Huang
- Department of Orthopedics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou City, Henan Province, PR China
| | - Jingtao Qiao
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China
| | - Jinghe Huang
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China
| | - Chang Xing
- Novo Nordisk (China) Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd, Beijing, China
| | - Qi Pan
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
| | - Lixin Guo
- Department of Endocrinology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Institute of Geriatric Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, PR China.
- Peking University Fifth School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Barrera FJ, Toloza FJ, Ponce OJ, Zuñiga-Hernandez JA, Prokop LJ, Shah ND, Guyatt G, Rodriguez-Gutierrez R, Montori VM. 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. Endocrine 2021; 71:47-58. [PMID: 32959229 DOI: 10.1007/s12020-020-02489-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2020] [Accepted: 08/31/2020] [Indexed: 01/12/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francisco J Barrera
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Plataforma INVEST Medicina UANL-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico
| | - Freddy Jk Toloza
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA
| | - Oscar J Ponce
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Unidad de Conocimiento y Evidencia (CONEVID), Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
| | - Jorge A Zuñiga-Hernandez
- Plataforma INVEST Medicina UANL-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico
| | | | - Nilay D Shah
- Division of Health Care Policy & Research, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Rene Rodriguez-Gutierrez
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
- Plataforma INVEST Medicina UANL-KER Unit Mayo Clinic (KER Unit Mexico), School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Monterrey, Mexico
| | - Victor M Montori
- Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism and Nutrition, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bagepally BS, Chaikledkaew U, Gurav YK, Anothaisintawee T, Youngkong S, Chaiyakunapruk N, McEvoy M, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. 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. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2020; 8:8/1/e001020. [PMID: 32690574 PMCID: PMC7371226 DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2019-001020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2019] [Revised: 02/26/2020] [Accepted: 06/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bhavani Shankara Bagepally
- Non-Communicable Diseases, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Usa Chaikledkaew
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Yogesh Krishnarao Gurav
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Epidemiology Group, ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, India
| | - Thunyarat Anothaisintawee
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Sitaporn Youngkong
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Social and Administrative Pharmacy Division, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| | | | - Mark McEvoy
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John Attia
- Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hunter Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
- Division of Medicine, John Hunter Hospital, New Lambton, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Ammarin Thakkinstian
- Mahidol University Health Technology Assessment (MUHTA) Graduate Program, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Cannon AJ, Bargiota A, Billings L, Hunt B, Leiter LA, Malkin S, Mocarski M, Ranthe MF, Schiffman A, Doshi A. 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. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2020; 26:143-153. [PMID: 31856636 PMCID: PMC10391176 DOI: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.19035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alexandra Bargiota
- Department of Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases, University Hospital of Larissa, Larissa, Greece
| | - Liana Billings
- NorthShore University HealthSystem, Skokie, Illinois, and University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
| | - Barnaby Hunt
- Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Lawrence A. Leiter
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario
| | - Samuel Malkin
- Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Zozaya N, Capel M, Simón S, Soto-González A. A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. GLOBAL & REGIONAL HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 2019. [DOI: 10.1177/2284240319876574] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Néboa Zozaya
- Department of Health Economics, Weber Economía y Salud, Madrid, Spain
- University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas, Spain
| | | | | | - Alfonso Soto-González
- Department of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Gerencia de Gestión Integrada de A Coruña, A Coruña, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hong D, Si L, Jiang M, Shao H, Ming WK, Zhao Y, Li Y, Shi L. 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. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:777-818. [PMID: 30854589 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00774-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dongzhe Hong
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 1900, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA
| | - Lei Si
- The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, 2042, Australia
| | - Minghuan Jiang
- The Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
- The Center for Drug Safety and Policy Research, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China
| | - Hui Shao
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 1900, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA
| | - Wai-Kit Ming
- The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
| | - Yingnan Zhao
- College of Pharmacy, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, LA, 70125, USA
| | - Yan Li
- The New York Academy of Medicine, 1216 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA
- Department of Population Health Science and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 1425 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA
| | - Lizheng Shi
- Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, Tulane University, 1440 Canal Street, Suite 1900, New Orleans, LA, 70112, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Raya PM, Blasco FJA, Hunt B, Martin V, Thorsted BL, Basse A, Price H. 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. Diabetes Obes Metab 2019; 21:1349-1356. [PMID: 30740861 PMCID: PMC6594226 DOI: 10.1111/dom.13660] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2018] [Revised: 01/25/2019] [Accepted: 02/07/2019] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro Mezquita Raya
- Endocrinology and Nutrition Unit, Hospital Torrecardenas, Clinica San PedroAlmeriaSpain
| | | | - Barnaby Hunt
- Health Economics, Ossian Health Economics and CommunicationsBaselSwitzerland
| | | | | | - Amaury Basse
- Patient Access‐Region AAMEO, Novo Nordisk Pharma Gulf FZ‐LLCDubaiUnited Arab Emirates
| | - Hermione Price
- Diabetes and Endocrinology, Southern Health NHS Foundation TrustLyndhurstUK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Pöhlmann J, Russel-Szymczyk M, Holík P, Rychna K, Hunt B. Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled on Basal Insulin in the Czech Republic: Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus iGlarLixi. Diabetes Ther 2019; 10:493-508. [PMID: 30706364 PMCID: PMC6437226 DOI: 10.1007/s13300-019-0569-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2018] [Indexed: 01/12/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Barnaby Hunt
- Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Torre E, Bruno GM, Di Matteo S, Martinotti C, Oselin M, Valentino MC, Parodi A, Bottaro LC, Colombo GL. Cost-minimization analysis of degludec/liraglutide versus glargine/aspart: economic implications of the DUAL VII study outcomes. CLINICOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 10:413-421. [PMID: 30100746 PMCID: PMC6067612 DOI: 10.2147/ceor.s169045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/30/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Torre
- Endocrinology, Diabetology and Metabolic Diseases Unit, ASL3, Genoa, Italy
| | - Giacomo Matteo Bruno
- S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche S.r.l., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Sergio Di Matteo
- S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche S.r.l., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Chiara Martinotti
- S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche S.r.l., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Martina Oselin
- S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche S.r.l., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Maria Chiara Valentino
- S.A.V.E. Studi Analisi Valutazioni Economiche S.r.l., Health Economics & Outcomes Research, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessio Parodi
- General Direction International Evangelic Hospital, Genoa, Italy
| | | | | |
Collapse
|