Cost-Effectiveness of iGlarLixi Versus Premix BIAsp 30 in People with Type 2 Diabetes Suboptimally Controlled by Basal Insulin in the US

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.

METHODS

The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Finnish-language version of the abstract of this review is available: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A68 .

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.

Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown.

METHODS

A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters.

RESULTS

Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of iGlarLixi Versus IDegAsp and Appropriate Price Exploration of iGlarLixi for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients in China

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of iGlarLixi, a fixed-ratio combination (FRC) of basal insulin glargine plus lixisenatide, have been demonstrated in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. However, no relevant economic analysis of iGlarLixi has been done in China. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp in Chinese T2DM patients, and then back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi to support its pricing after listing in China.

METHODS

The United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) was applied to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes from the Chinese health-care system perspective. As no head-to-head comparison data are currently available, the baseline cohort characteristics and the initial clinical data for iGlarLixi were derived from the randomized LixiLan-L-China trial. The relative treatment effects for IDegAsp were based on an indirect treatment comparison. Due to the unavailability of iGlarLixi pricing data, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was assumed to be equal to that of IDegAsp at the beginning of the study. Afterwards, a break-even analysis using comparator drug price and the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was performed to back-calculate the appropriate drug price of iGlarLixi. One-way sensitivity analysis, scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Based on the initial assumption of equal annual medication cost of iGlarLixi and IDegAsp, iGlarLixi was cost effective compared to IDegAsp with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) far below the WTP threshold in Chinese T2DM patients. From the back calculation for the price of iGlarLixi, the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi was $656.96 and $1075.96 to obtain an ICER of iGlarLixi versus IDegAsp close to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP, respectively. When the discount rate was changed from the base value to 8% (the most sensitive parameter to the model results in one-way sensitivity analysis), the ICER was nearly equal to 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP with the annual medication cost of iGlarLixi decreasing to $590.41 and $865.03, respectively. Thus, iGlarLixi was dominant over IDegAsp with an annual medication cost of $590.41 to $865.03. The findings were robust to one-way sensitivity analysis, PSA and scenario analysis.

CONCLUSION

This long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in Chinese T2DM patients indicates that iGlarLixi, assuming equal price to IDegAsp, is cost-effective versus IDegAsp with an ICER far below the WTP threshold. With 1 × GDP and 3 × GDP threshold set we back-calculate the appropriate annual medication cost of iGlarLixi to be $590.41 to $865.03, respectively.

Real-world safety and effectiveness of iGlarLixi in people with type 2 diabetes who fast during Ramadan: The SoliRam observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of iGlarLixi in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) fasting during Ramadan.

METHODS

SoliRam was a multinational, prospective, single-arm, real-world observational study conducted during Ramadan 2020 and 2021 in adults with T2D treated with iGlarLixi ≥3 months at study entry. The primary endpoint was the percentage of participants experiencing ≥1 episode of severe and/or symptomatic documented hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL [<3.9 mmol/L]).

RESULTS

Among the 409 eligible participants followed during Ramadan, 96.8% fasted for ≥25 days and 92.4% did not break fasting during Ramadan. Four participants broke their fast due to hypoglycemia. Minimal adjustments were seen in antihyperglycemic therapies from pre to during Ramadan. Documented symptomatic hypoglycemia was experienced by 1.0%, 2.3%, and 0.3% of participants, respectively, during the last month of pre-Ramadan, Ramadan, and first month post-Ramadan. Mean change in HbA_1c from pre-to post-Ramadan periods was -0.75% (-8.2 mmol/mol), and participants with HbA_1c <7% (<53 mmol/mol) increased from 7.9% pre-Ramadan to 28.6% post-Ramadan.

CONCLUSIONS

iGlarLixi is an effective and well-tolerated therapy for people with T2D, including those who intend to fast during Ramadan, and is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia; benefits were observed both during and after Ramadan.