Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Italy, and Spain

Delphi-Based Consensus on Treatment Intensification in Type 2 Diabetes Subjects Failing Basal Insulin Supported Oral Treatment: Focus on Basal Insulin + GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Combination Therapies

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to elaborate a consensus on treatment intensification strategies in patients with type 2 diabetes failing basal insulin supported oral therapy (BOT). The panel focused on glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and basal insulin (BI) combinations.

METHODS

The authors developed a Delphi questionnaire organized into ten statements and 77 items that focused on: the definition of BOT and BOT failure, intensification strategies, fixed-dose combinations in general and the BI/GLP-1RA fixed combination. The survey was administered in two rounds to a panel of 80 Italian diabetes specialists, who rated their level of agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as > 66% of the panel agreeing/disagreeing on any given item.

RESULTS

Consensus was achieved for 71 of the 77 items. The panel agreed that the use of sulfonylureas in the BOT regimen is inappropriate. BOT failure was defined as individualized targets not being met for glycated hemoglobin, fasting plasma glucose and/or postprandial plasma glucose. There was agreement that postprandial hyperglycaemia and/or presence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia or weight gain define BOT failure. Addition of a GLP-1RA to BI therapy was considered to be the best option for BOT intensification. There was consensus for the use of BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations as valuable options to increase compliance and safely improve glycaemic control. The panel agreed in considering the fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to be preferable to the fixed-ratio combination insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in the control of glycaemia, body weight and cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSION

According to this Delphi consensus, the addition of a GLP-1RA may be the best option to intensify BOT. The BI/GLP-1RA fixed combinations may increase compliance and optimize the advantages of each of these molecules.

Cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray versus standard of care for treatment-resistant depression

Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK + oral AD) versus oral AD plus nasal placebo (oral AD + PBO) among patients with treatment-resistant depression. Patients & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD versus oral AD + PBO over 52 weeks from multiple US payer perspectives. Clinical end points and cost inputs were derived from clinical trials and the literature, respectively. Results: Under the base-case scenario, the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD and oral AD + PBO were as follows: Commercial: US$85,808 versus US$100,198; Medicaid: US$76,236 versus US$96,067; Veteran's Affairs: US$77,765 versus US$104,519; and Integrated Delivery Network: US$103,924 versus US$142,766. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK + oral AD is a cost-efficient alternative treatment for treatment-resistant depression compared with oral AD + PBO.

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.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec from other basal insulins in real-world clinical practice in Italy

Aims: The costs associated with insulin therapy and diabetes-related complications represent a significant and growing economic burden for healthcare systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching to insulin degludec (degludec) vs continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 (T2D) diabetes, using a long-term economic model.Materials and methods: Data were retrieved from a real-world population of patients from clinical practice in Italy. Clinical parameters included in the base-case model were change from baseline in HbA_1c, rates of hypoglycemia, and basal and bolus insulin dose, at 6 months following switch to degludec. Costs of treatments were taken from official Italian pharmaceutical list prices and costs of hypoglycemia were based on the literature. The data were used to populate a long-term (lifetime) IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) - cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The robustness of these results was tested with extensive sensitivity analyses by varying the time horizons and abolishing each of the treatment differences and previous basal insulins.Results: The total incremental cost for degludec vs previous basal insulin was €-6,310 and €-2,682 for patients with T1D and T2D, respectively; the switch to degludec resulted in a QALY gain of 0.781 and 0.628. The long-term ICER for degludec vs continuing the previous basal insulin regimen showed that degludec was dominant for both T1D and T2D, meaning that patient health was improved in terms of QALYs with lower healthcare costs. Sensitivity analyses showed that degludec remained dominant in most scenarios including after elimination of any benefit in non-severe hypoglycemia and insulin dose, in both T1D and T2D.Conclusions: Under routine care, switching to degludec is dominant, compared with continuing previous basal insulin, in Italian patients with T1D or T2D.

Lixisenatide versus insulin glulisine on top of insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cost-per-responder analysis in China

Objective: To compare the cost per responder of lixisenatide versus insulin glulisine once daily (basal-plus) and three times daily (basal-bolus) on top of basal insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled by basal insulin in China.Methods: The cost per responder was estimated based on clinical data obtained from the GetGoal Duo-2 clinical trial and direct medical costs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system over a 52-week time horizon. The response was assessed at week 26 in the clinical trial, which was extrapolated to 52 weeks to estimate the annual cost per responder. Responders were primarily defined using a composite endpoint that based on an HbA1c ≤ 7.0% threshold AND no weight gain With or Without no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia. Composite endpoints with varied HbA1c thresholds were defined in secondary analyses.Results: For the composite endpoint of HbA1c threshold ≤7.0% AND no weight gain, the annual cost per responder results were 96,722 CNY, 122,552 CNY and 135,926 CNY (14,616, 18,520 and 20,541 US dollars) for lixisenatide combined with basal insulin, basal-plus, and basal-bolus, respectively. For the composite endpoint of HbA1c threshold ≤7.0% AND no weight gain AND no documented symptomatic hypoglycemia, the annual cost per responder results were 136,290 CNY, 231,487 CNY and 222,424 CNY (20,596, 34,982 and 33,612 US dollars) for lixisenatide combined with basal insulin, basal-plus, and basal-bolus, respectively. The secondary analyses proved similar results.Conclusion: Lixisenatide combined with basal insulin is associated with a lower cost per responder compared with basal-plus and basal-bolus for T2DM patients inadequately controlled by basal insulin in China.

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin for type 1 diabetes: A population-based cohort followed over 10 years

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £).

RESULTS

The NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.

The Economic Burden of Insulin-Related Hypoglycemia in Adults with Diabetes: An Analysis from the Perspective of the Italian Healthcare System

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost of insulin-related hypoglycemia in adult patients with diabetes in Italy using the Local Impact of Hypoglycemia Tool (LIHT), and to explore the effect of different hypoglycemia rates on budget impact.

METHODS

Direct costs and healthcare resource utilization were estimated for severe and non-severe hypoglycemic episodes in Italy and applied to the population of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and their corresponding hypoglycemia episode rates (0.49 severe and 53.3 non-severe episodes per year for T1DM, and 0.09 severe and 9.3 non-severe episodes per year for T2DM). Uncertainty around model inputs was explored through sensitivity and scenario analyses.

RESULTS

The direct cost of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Italy is estimated at €144.7 million per year, with €65 million attributable to severe episodes and €79.6 million due to non-severe episodes. The total cost of hypoglycemia is approximately 1.7-fold higher for T2DM (€91.7 million) than for T1DM (€53 million). The cost of a hypoglycemic episode ranges from €4.59 for a non-severe event where additional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) testing is the only cost incurred, to €5790.59 for a severe event that also requires an ambulance, A&E, hospitalization, and a visit to a diabetes specialist. A reduction in hypoglycemia event rates could result in substantial cost savings; for example, a 20% reduction in severe and non-severe hypoglycemia rates could result in a saving of €47,769 per general population of 100,000 people.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIHT highlights the substantial economic burden of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Italy, particularly with regards to non-severe hypoglycemia, an aspect of hypoglycemia that is often overlooked. This analysis may aid healthcare decision-making by allowing the costs of insulin therapies or diabetes self-management programs to be balanced with the savings provided by reductions in hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk, UK.