Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16)

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 .

Cost-utility analysis and drug pricing for tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market compared with semaglutide

AIM

To investigate the most matchable price of tirzepatide (TIRZ) compared with semaglutide (SEMA) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in China.

METHODS

The patient cohort and clinical efficacy data were derived from the SURPASS-2 trial. Cost-utility analysis and a binary search were performed to identify the most matchable price of TIRZ from a Chinese healthcare provider's perspective.

RESULTS

After lifetime simulation, the quality-adjusted life years of TIRZ 5, 10, 15 mg and SEMA 1 mg were 11.17, 11.21, 11.27 and 11.12 years, respectively. Despite an initial assumption that the annual cost of TIRZ equals that of SEMA, our analysis revealed that TIRZ is probably more cost-effective than SEMA. A thorough evaluation of pricing showed that the cost ranges for TIRZ at doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1628.61-$1846.23, $1738.40-$2140.95 and $1800.30-$2430.81, respectively. After adjustment in the univariate sensitivity analysis, the cost ranges for TIRZ 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1542.68-$1757.57, $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively. These cost intervals were validated through robust probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, except for the cost range for TIRZ 5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that, using SEMA as a reference, the annual costs for TIRZ 10 and 15 mg are $1573.00-$1967.16 and $1576.54-$2133.96, respectively, for patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

Basal Insulinotherapy in Patients Living with Diabetes in France: The EF-BI Study

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation basal insulins like glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) have a longer duration of action and less daily fluctuation and interday variability than first-generation ones, such as glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). The EF-BI study, a nationwide observational, retrospective study, was designed to compare persistence, acute care complications, and healthcare costs associated with the initiation of such basal insulins (BI) in a real-life setting in France.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the French healthcare claims database (SNDS). Adult patients living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM) initiating Gla-300 or Gla-100 ± other hypoglycemic medications between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, and without any insulin therapy over the previous 6 months were included. Persistence was defined as remaining on the same insulin therapy until discontinuation defined by a 6 month period without insulin reimbursement. Hospitalized acute complications were identified using ICD-10 codes. Total collective costs were established for patients treated continuously with each basal insulin over 1-3 years. All comparisons were adjusted using a propensity score based on initial patient/treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 235,894 patients with T2DM and 6672 patients with T1DM were included. Patients treated with Gla-300 were 83% (T1DM) and 44% (T2DM) less likely to discontinue their treatment than those treated with Gla-100 after 24 months (p < 0.0001). The annual incidence of acute hospitalized events in patients with T2DM treated with Gla-300 was 12% lower than with Gla-100 (p < 0.0001) but similar in patients with T1DM. Comparison of overall costs showed moderate but statistically significant differences in favor of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 for all patients over the first year, and in T2DM only over a 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Use of Gla-300 resulted in a better persistence, less acute hospitalized events at least in T2DM, and reduced healthcare expenditure. These real-life results confirmed the potential interest of using Gla-300 rather than Gla-100.

A Systematic Review of Methodologies Used in Models of the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic and complex disease, increasing in prevalence and consequent health expenditure. Cost-effectiveness models with long time horizons are commonly used to perform economic evaluations of diabetes' treatments. As such, prediction accuracy and structural uncertainty are important features in cost-effectiveness models of chronic conditions.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review is to identify and review published cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatments developed between 2011 and 2022 regarding their methodological characteristics. Further, it also appraises the quality of the methods used, and discusses opportunities for further methodological research.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase to identify peer-reviewed papers reporting cost-effectiveness models of diabetes treatments, with time horizons of more than 5 years, published in English between 1 January 2011 and 31 of December 2022. Screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, quality assessment and data synthesis using narrative synthesis were performed. The Philips checklist was used for quality assessment of the included studies. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021248999).

RESULTS

The literature search identified 30 studies presenting 29 unique cost-effectiveness models of type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes treatments. The review identified 26 type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) models, 3 type 1 DM (T1DM) models and one model for both types of diabetes. Fifteen models were patient-level models, whereas 14 were at cohort level. Parameter uncertainty was assessed thoroughly in most of the models, whereas structural uncertainty was seldom addressed. All the models where validation was conducted performed well. The methodological quality of the models with respect to structure was high, whereas with respect to data modelling it was moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Models developed in the past 12 years for health economic evaluations of diabetes treatments are of high-quality and make use of advanced methods. However, further developments are needed to improve the statistical modelling component of cost-effectiveness models and to provide better assessment of structural uncertainty.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Insulin for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Diabetes is a chronic, metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia, which occurs as a result of inadequate production or utilization of insulin. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common type of diabetes with estimates projecting a prevalence of more than 1 billion people living with T2DM by 2050. Hence, it was decided to conduct a systematic literature review of health economic evaluations of insulin, the most common medication used for the treatment of the disease, to inform policy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, written in English and published after 2016, were considered for inclusion. PubMed/Medline, Global Health, Embase and Health Management Consortium were searched separately between 5 July 2023 and 17 July 2023. Grey literature articles were searched on ISPOR and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry during the same period. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 21 studies were included. Using the BMJ checklist, a quality appraisal was performed on all included studies. Data extraction was performed manually. Regarding evidence synthesis, data were heterogenous and are presented based on study type. The results showed a variety of treatment combinations being available for the treatment of diabetes, with insulin degludec/DegLira and semaglutide being cost-effective despite their high cost, due to the effectiveness of managing the disease. Research around the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of insulin has potential to progress further, to ensure informed policy-making in the future.

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.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide, Dulaglutide, and Exenatide for Type 2 Diabetes Patients Receiving Metformin-Based Background Therapy in China

Introduction: The substantial financial burden associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) over a lifetime cannot be neglected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of three once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, namely subcutaneous semaglutide (sc. SEMA), dulaglutide (DULA), and extended-release exenatide (e-r EXEN), in treating patients with T2D that cannot be controlled with metformin-based background therapy, and to find a suitable price reduction for non-cost-effective medications, to provide reasonable recommendations to the administration for adjusting drug prices.

Methods: The baseline characteristics of the simulation patient cohort were sourced from a comprehensive meta-analysis synthesizing 453 trials evaluating 21 hypoglycemic agents from nine categories of drugs. The UKPDS OM2 was applied to project the long-term effectiveness and costs from a Chinese health care provider’s perspective. After cost-utility analysis, the reasonable price adjustment of non-cost-effective options was explored via binary search. Uncertainty was measured by means of sensitivity analysis.

Results: After a 40-year simulation, the sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN groups yielded 9.6315, 9.5968, and 9.5895 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. In terms of expenditure, the total costs for the sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN groups were $42012.47, $24931.27, and $40264.80, respectively. DULA was dominant over e-r EXEN due to the higher QALYs and lower total costs. The ICURs of sc. SEMA vs. DULA and sc. SEMA vs. e-r EXEN were $492994.72/QALY and $41622.69/QALY (ICUR > λ), respectively, indicating that sc. SEMA was not more cost-effective than DULA or e-r EXEN. The INMB and absolute NMB yielded the same conclusions which were robust to one-way, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. After several assumptions in the binary search, sc. SEMA and e-r EXEN appear to become cost-effective when their annual costs are decreased by 57.67% and 70.34%, respectively, with DULA as a counterpart.

Conclusion: From the cost-utility analysis, DULA appears to be the most cost-effective option among sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN for the treatment of patients with T2D receiving metformin-based background therapy. With a 57.67% or 70.34% reduction in cost, sc. SEMA or e-r EXEN, respectively, would become as cost-effective as DULA in China.

Exploring the Appropriate Price of Semaglutide for Type 2 Diabetes Patients Based on Cost-Utility Analysis in China

Introduction: Semaglutide is the first and only oral version of a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue approved by the FDA for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This research was designed to explore the appropriate price of once-weekly (OW) semaglutide for T2D patients in China based on cost-utility analysis.

Methods: The baseline patient cohorts of OW semaglutide and once-daily (OD) empagliflozin were sourced from a patient-level meta-analysis integrating the SUSTAIN 2, SUSTAIN 3, SUSTAIN 8 and PIONEER 2 trials. The long-term health and economic outcomes were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 from the Chinese healthcare provider’s perspective. The appropriate price of semaglutide was explored by binary search. One-way sensitivity analysis (one-way SA), probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were applied to solve the uncertainty.

Results: Under the assumption that the annual cost of semaglutide is equal to that of OD empagliflozin, OW semaglutide was superior to OD empagliflozin due to its higher quality adjusted life years and lower total costs. After binary search, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately equal to 3λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $1,007.18 and approximately equal to λ with an annual cost of semaglutide of $708.11. Subsequently, the incremental cost-utility ratio of OW semaglutide vs. OD empagliflozin was approximately 3λ and λ, with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04, respectively, adjusted by one-way SA. Ultimately, the cost-utility results with annual costs of semaglutide of $877.43 and $667.04 were robust to probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the annual cost of semaglutide appears to be appropriate between $667.04 and $877.43 for T2D patients in China.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Dapagliflozin Versus Saxagliptin Treatment as Monotherapy or Combination Therapy as Add-on to Metformin for Treating Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term cost effectiveness of dapagliflozin (DAPA) and saxagliptin (SAXA) separately or together in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by metformin (MET).

METHODS

Five head-to-head randomised controlled trials of the efficacy of DAPA and SAXA in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients were found by searching PubMed, Embase and Cochrane from inception to October 2019. The lifetime disease progression and long-term effectiveness of therapy in patients were projected by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcome Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) in three T2DM therapeutic groups: DAPA + SAXA, DAPA and SAXA. Each group used DAPA and/or SAXA as an add-on therapy to MET. The study took the perspective of Chinese healthcare service providers. Univariate, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

The quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) value of the DAPA + SAXA, SAXA and DAPA groups were 11.28, 11.26 and 11.45 years, respectively. The total costs were US$27,954.84, US$23,254.46 and US$25,608.49, respectively. DAPA was dominant over DAPA + SAXA. The DAPA + SAXA group presented an estimated QALY gain of 0.02 and a total cost increase of US$4700.39 over the SAXA group, with an incremental cost of US$217,530.10 per QALY. Compared with the SAXA group, the DAPA group had a QALY gain of 0.19 years and a total cost increase of US$2354.04, for an incremental cost of US$12,191.97 per QALY. The pharmacoeconomic results were robust to univariate, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with DAPA + SAXA or SAXA, DAPA appears to be a cost-effective therapy as add-on to MET for Chinese patients whose T2DM is insufficiently controlled by MET.

Hospitalization costs with degludec versus glargine U100 for patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: Canadian costs applied to SAEs from a randomized outcomes trial

OBJECTIVES

The present cost-consequence analysis compared estimated hospitalization costs in a Canadian setting with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk.

METHODS

Medical terms were mapped across the different vocabularies, in order to assign unit costs from eligible hospital abstracts in Canadian Institute for Health Information data (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10^th Revision, Canada) to serious adverse events (SAEs; Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) from the randomized DEVOTE trial comparing the two insulins degludec and glargine. Mean annual costs of SAE-related hospitalizations were estimated by treatment, the cost difference (degludec - glargine U100) was bootstrapped to compute confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values, and the cost ratio (degludec/glargine U100) was estimated using a Tweedie distribution.

RESULTS

The mean annual cost per patient for SAE-related hospitalizations was 4,074 CAD with degludec and 4,569 CAD with glargine U100 (cost difference: -495, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -966; -24, p = .039), for a cost ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81; 0.98, p = .016). Overall, cost ratios from sensitivity analyses varying individual methodological assumptions were consistent with the main analysis. Of the system organ classes from DEVOTE SAEs, cardiac disorders were the largest contributor to the costs savings with degludec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D at high CV risk, our findings suggest that there are likely to be lower hospitalization costs with degludec versus glargine U100 based on the SAEs observed in DEVOTE and in a Canadian setting.

Real-world cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus from a Swedish 1-year and long-term perspective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ReFLeCT study demonstrated that switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins was associated with reductions in glycated hemoglobin and hypoglycemic events in type 1 (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D), and reductions in insulin doses in T1D. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short- and long-term cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec in Sweden.

METHODS

Short-term outcomes were evaluated over 1 year in a Microsoft Excel model, while long-term outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the ReFLeCT study. Costs (in 2018 Swedish krona [SEK]) encompassed direct medical expenditure and indirect costs from loss of workplace productivity. In the long-term analyses, patients were assumed to receive insulin degludec or continue prior insulin therapy (primarily insulin glargine U100) for 5 years, before all patients intensified to once-daily degludec and mealtime aspart.

RESULTS

Switching to insulin degludec was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 1 year, and 0.16 and 0.08 QALYs over patient lifetimes, in T1D and T2D. Combined costs in T1D and T2D were estimated to be SEK 1,249 lower and SEK 1,181 higher over the short-term, and SEK 157,258 and SEK 2,114 lower over the long-term. Benefits were due to lower insulin doses in T1D, reduced rates of hypoglycemia, and lower incidences of diabetes-related complications. Insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 64,298 per QALY gained for T2D over 1 year and considered dominant for T1D and T2D in all other comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin degludec was projected to be cost-effective or dominant versus other basal insulins for the treatment of T1D and T2D in Sweden.