The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a real-world study and systematic review

BACKGROUND

To conduct a real-word-study-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) versus insulin among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy and a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses incorporating real-world effectiveness and cost data were conducted for a cohort of 1022 propensity-score-matched pairs of GLP-1RA and insulin users from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2007-2016. Study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events, healthcare costs, and cost per case of event prevented. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were performed from a third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. Structured systematic review procedures were conducted to synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, the NNT using a GLP-1RA versus insulin to prevent one case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia was 57 and 30, respectively. Using GLP-1RAs instead of insulin cost US$54,851 and US$29,115 per case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia prevented, respectively, from the payer perspective, and saved US$19,391 and US$10,293, respectively, from the healthcare sector perspective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin being cost-effective for preventing one case of all-cause mortality or hospitalized hypoglycemia ranged from 60 to 100%. The systematic review revealed a cost-effective profile of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus insulin for type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy in clinical practice is cost-effective.

The validity of cost-effectiveness analyses of tight glycemic control. A systematic survey of economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility.

RESULTS

We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I²=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I²=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I²=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I²=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I²=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I²=0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25,000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies’ methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients’ clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.

Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies of newer antidiabetic medications.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Health Technology Assessment Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Wiley), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases (from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2018) were searched. The search strategies included the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term 'economics', and the MeSH entry terms 'cost', 'cost effectiveness', 'value', and 'cost utility', as well as all names for GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors. Inclusion criteria included (1) cost-effectiveness studies of the newer antidiabetic medications, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; and (2) full-text publications in English. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to select studies for data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of reporting cost-effectiveness analyses was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guideline.

RESULTS

Among 85 studies selected, 82 clearly stated the types of diabetes model used (e.g. CORE model), and 70 studied used validated diabetes models. Seventy-four (87%) studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 72 (85%) studies were conducted from a payer's perspective. Seventy-six (89%) studies presented were of good quality (20-24 CHEERS items), and nine were of moderate quality (14-19 items). Thirty studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with insulin, 3 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with thiazolidinediones (TZDs), 15 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with sulfonylureas, 40 studies compared new antidiabetic medications with alternative newer antidiabetic medication, and 9 studies compared other antidiabetic agents that were not included above. Newer antidiabetic medications were reported to be cost-effective in 26 of 30 (87%) studies compared with insulin, and 13 of 15 (87%) studies compared with sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

Most economic evaluations of antidiabetic medications have good reporting quality and use validated diabetes models. The newer antidiabetic medications in most of the reviewed studies were found to be cost effective, compared with insulin, TZDs, and sulfonylureas.

Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China

AIMS

To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM).

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effects of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. Patient profiles and treatment effects required for the model were obtained from literature reviews (English and Chinese databases) and from a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials comparing exenatide twice daily with insulin glargine once daily add-on to OADs for T2DM in China. Medical expenditure data were collected from 639 patients with T2DM (aged ≥18 years) with and without complications incurred between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 from claims databases in Shandong, China. Costs (2014 Chinese Yuan [¥]) and benefits were estimated, from the payers' perspective, over 40 years at a discount rate of 3%. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Patients on exenatide twice daily + OAD had a lower predicted incidence of most cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events and lower total costs compared with those on insulin glargine once daily + OAD. A greater number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 1.94) at a cost saving of ¥117 706 gained was associated with exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. (i.e. cost saving of ¥60 764/QALY) per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by OADs, exenatide twice daily is a cost-effective add-on therapy alternative to insulin glargine once daily, and may address the problem of an excess of medical needs resulting from weight gain and hypoglycaemia in T2DM treatment.