The Cost-Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone in Denmark

Cost consequence analysis of adding semaglutide to treatment regimen for patients with Type II diabetes in Saudi Arabia

Introduction

Semaglutide, a Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist (GLP-1 RA), is often prescribed for managing type 2 diabetes, particularly in cases unresponsive to other hypoglycemic agents. Despite its popularity, the real-world efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Semaglutide relative to other treatments remain understudied.

Objective

This study aimed to examine the direct medical cost and consequences of adding Semaglutide to the treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes in Saudi Arabia.

Methods

We conducted a single-center, retrospective review of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) for adults with type 2 diabetes. Patients who had been on Semaglutide for at least three months were matched with those receiving alternative hypoglycemic therapies. Exclusions were made for patients with cancer, incomplete EMRs, or lacking prescription data. Investigated outcomes included changes in HbA1C levels and weight, and the direct costs comprised medications, clinic visits, and emergency care. Baseline adjustments were made through inverse probability treatment weighting, and uncertainty was assessed via bootstrapping with 10,000 replications.

Results

Out of 350 patients meeting the criteria, 116 were on Semaglutide. Predominantly females (62%), the cohort had an average age of 60 and a disease duration of 22 years. The difference in HbA1C (%) reductions between Semaglutide and non-Semaglutide users over 3,6, and 12 months were 0.154 (95% CI: -0.452-0.483), -0.031(95% CI: -0.754-0.239), -0.16(95% CI: -1.425-0.840), respectively. Semaglutide users did experience modest weight reductions ranging from 0.42 kg to 1.16 kg. The annual additional direct medical cost for Semaglutide was USD 4,086.82 (95% CI: $3,710.85 - $4,294.99).

Conclusion

Although Semaglutide induced modest weight reductions, it did not offer significant advantages in lowering HbA1C levels compared to other hypoglycemic treatments. These findings suggest the need for further research involving larger and more diverse cohorts to corroborate these findings.

Burden of Illness of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with huge clinical and economic burden in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) which can be curtailed by efficacious treatment. In order to achieve this, current treatment pathways for T2DM and associated costs need to be assessed.

METHODS

A longitudinal cohort review was conducted to collect country-specific and patient-specific clinical data, over a minimum observation period of 5 years in the KSA. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics and treatment patterns were recorded. The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) version 9.5 Plus was used to assess the burden of illness, which included long-term projections of clinical (life expectancy [LE], quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], event rates of diabetes-related complications) and direct medical cost (per-patient annual or lifelong [50 years]) outcomes of the most commonly used first-line (1st-line) regimens for T2DM from a payer perspective in the KSA.

RESULTS

Data were collected from a subpopulation of 638 patients from 15 participating centres. There was an equal gender representation with a majority of the patients belonging to Arabian/Saudi ethnicity (71.0%). Biguanides (81.5%), sulfonylureas (51.6%), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors (26.2%) and fast-acting insulins (17.2%) were the most prescribed 1st-line agents. The most frequently used 1st-line regimens resulted in an estimated LE of 25-28 years, QALYs of 18-21 years and lifelong total cost of illness of 201,377-437,371 Saudi Arabian riyal (53,700-116,632 US dollars).

CONCLUSION

Our study addresses gaps in the current research by providing a complete landscape of baseline demographic, clinical characteristics and treatment patterns from a heterogeneous group of patients with T2DM in the KSA. Additionally, the burden of illness analysis using CDM showed substantially higher cost of T2DM care from a payer perspective in the KSA.

Multinational cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin for heart failure patients with ejection fraction >40

AIMS

Heart failure is a chronic progressive condition, with considerable burden on patients' quality of life and economic burden for the healthcare systems. Before the approval of empagliflozin, there were no proven effective treatments for patients with heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction (HF LVEF) > 40%. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin + standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone for patients with HF LVEF > 40%, from the perspective of the healthcare systems of the United Kingdom (UK), Spain, and France, and to quantify the healthcare costs for these patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A lifetime Markov cohort state-transition model was developed based on discrete health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-Clinical Summary Score quartiles to track disease severity. Model inputs relied primarily on the EMPEROR-Preserved trial data or obtained from published literature or country-specific databases, as well as local guidelines for the requirements for the conduct of the economic evaluation of healthcare technologies. The total lifetime cost of receiving SoC per patient was £10 092, €15 765, and €14 958 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively, which increased by £1407, €1148, and €1485, respectively, with the addition of empagliflozin to the SoC. Empagliflozin + SoC was associated with significantly reduced number of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with SoC alone, which was a key driver offsetting its drug acquisition costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was consistently favourable at £14 851, €11 706, and €15 447 in the UK, Spain, and France, respectively. Scenario analysis using the New York Heart Association functional class showed similar results. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed more than 50% probability for cost-effectiveness for a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £/€20 000/QALY for the three countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Empagliflozin was found to be the first targeted treatment option that is clinically effective and cost-effective for patients with HF LVEF > 40%. Prescribing empagliflozin with SoC to patients with HF LVEF > 40% is expected to improve clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life and substantially below accepted WTP threshold for the healthcare systems in the UK, Spain, and France.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Antidiabetic Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Newer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.

Cardiovascular and Renal Benefits of Novel Diabetes Drugs by Baseline Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression

BACKGROUND

Eligibility for glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) has been expanded to patients with diabetes at lower cardiovascular risk, but whether treatment benefits differ by risk levels is not clear.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether patients with varying risks differ in cardiovascular and renal benefits from GLP-1RA and SGLT2i with use of meta-analysis and meta-regression.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic review using PubMed through 7 November 2022.

STUDY SELECTION

We included reports of GLP-1RA and SGLT2i confirmatory randomized trials in adult patients with safety or efficacy end point data.

DATA EXTRACTION

Hazard ratio (HR) and event rate data were extracted for mortality, cardiovascular, and renal outcomes.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We analyzed 9 GLP-1RA and 13 SGLT2i trials comprising 154,649 patients. Summary HRs were significant for cardiovascular mortality (GLP-1RA 0.87 and SGLT2i 0.86), major adverse cardiovascular events (0.87 and 0.88), heart failure (0.89 and 0.70), and renal (0.84 and 0.65) outcomes. For stroke, efficacy was significant for GLP-1RA (0.84) but not for SGLT2i (0.92). Associations between control arm cardiovascular mortality rates and HRs were nonsignificant. Five-year absolute risk reductions (0.80-4.25%) increased to 11.6% for heart failure in SGLT2i trials in patients with high risk (Pslope < 0.001). For GLP1-RAs, associations were nonsignificant.

LIMITATIONS

Analyses were limited by lack of patient-level data, consistency in end point definitions, and variation in cardiovascular mortality rates for GLP-1RA trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Relative effects of novel diabetes drugs are preserved across baseline cardiovascular risk, whereas absolute benefits increase at higher risks, particularly regarding heart failure. Our findings suggest a need for baseline risk assessment tools to identify variation in absolute treatment benefits and improve decision-making.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATIONS

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

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Costs for Empagliflozin Versus Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Routine Clinical Care in Denmark

INTRODUCTION

The sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) empagliflozin has shown reductions in major adverse cardiac events similar to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). However, evidence is limited about how these therapies compare regarding overall healthcare resource utilization and costs in routine clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative cohort study based on linked prospective healthcare databases for the entire population of Denmark during 2015-2018. We included 13,747 new users of empagliflozin and 13,249 new users of GLP-1RAs. Propensity scores were applied to balance potential confounders across the two treatment groups through inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW). We assessed directly referable costs per person-year associated with healthcare resource utilization (inpatient, emergency room, and outpatient clinic hospital care, primary care health services, and prescription medication costs at pharmacies) among drug initiators while on-treatment.

RESULTS

The two IPTW cohorts were well balanced at baseline (median age 61 years, 60% men, diabetes duration 6.7 years, 19% with pre-existing ischemic heart disease, 8% with pre-existing cerebrovascular disease), with similar healthcare costs in the previous year. During follow-up, average on-treatment costs per person-year were very similar among empagliflozin and GLP-1 RA initiators for the following services: inpatient hospitalizations (13,565 DKK versus 13,275 DKK), hospital outpatient clinic visits (12,007 DKK versus 12,152 DKK), emergency room visits (370 DKK versus 399 DKK), and primary care services (4108 DKK versus 4302 DKK). Total costs for any prescription drugs were clearly lower for empagliflozin initiators than for GLP-1 RA initiators (8946 DKK versus 14,029 DKK). In sum, overall healthcare costs on-treatment were lower for empagliflozin initiators (38,995 DKK per person-year) than for GLP-1RA initiators (44,157 DKK per person-year).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationwide population-based cohort study, average healthcare costs after drug initiation and while on treatment were lower for empagliflozin initiators than for GLP-1RAs initiators, driven by lower drug costs.

REGISTRATION

The study protocol and analysis plan have been registered on the website of the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCEPP) ( http://www.encepp.eu/encepp/viewResource.htm?id=37726 , first protocol registration 4 June 2019), and on clinicaltrials.gov ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03993132 , first posted 20 June 2019).