Health-related quality of life associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycaemic events: a time trade-off survey in five countries

Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature

INTRODUCTION

Utility values are used in health economic modeling analyses of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to quantify the effect of acute and long-term complications on quality of life (QoL). For accurate modeling projections, it is important that the utility values used are up to date, accurate and representative of the simulated model cohort.

METHODS

A literature review was performed to identify utility values for health states representing acute and chronic T2D-related complications including cardiovascular complications, stroke, renal disease, ophthalmic complications, neuropathy, diabetic foot, amputation and hypoglycemia. Searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and limited to articles published since 2010. Supplementary searches were performed to identify data published at congresses in 2019-2023.

RESULTS

A total of 54 articles were identified that reported utility values for T2D-related complications. The most frequently used elicitation method/instrument was the EQ-5D (n = 42 studies) followed by the Short Form-6 dimensions (n = 6), time tradeoff (n = 5), the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 or Mark 3 (n = 2), 15D (n = 1), visual analog scale (n = 1) and standard gamble (n = 1). Stroke and amputation were consistently associated with the largest decrements in QoL. There is a lack of published data that distinguishes between severity of several complications including renal disease, retinopathy and neuropathy.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes-related complications can have a profound impact on QoL; therefore, it is important that these are captured accurately and appropriately in health economic models. Recently published utility values for diabetes-related complications that can be used to inform health economic models are summarized here.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

BACKGROUND

Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective.

METHODS

The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

RESULTS

Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Burden and Coping Strategies of Hypoglycemia in People with Diabetes

Hypoglycemia is a limiting adverse effect of glucose-lowering medications and particularly insulin replacement therapy. This review provides insights into the burden of hypoglycemia in the management of diabetes and outlines strategies available to reduce the risk of hypoglycemia and improve patients' well-being. People with type 1 diabetes are primarily affected by hypoglycemic episodes which are associated with direct physical harms like injuries and cardiac events as well as indirect psychosocial consequences including constant anxiety, absenteeism, increased healthcare costs and overall poorer quality of life. These complications are more prominent amongst individuals with hypoglycemia unawareness or overnight hypoglycemia and could even extend to caregivers such as parents of children with diabetes. Patients experiencing frequent or severe hypoglycemic events might also develop a pathological fear of hypoglycemia and adopt aberrant behaviors intending to maintain higher blood glucose levels. Modern pharmaceutical options with a safer profile in terms of hypoglycemia are available including novel basal insulins with lower rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia along with ultra-rapid-acting insulin analogs with a shorter duration of action that might avert late post-meal hypoglycemia. Continuous glucose monitoring and sensor-augmented insulin pump therapy with low glucose suspend technology can also prevent hypoglycemia, although concerns about cost and patient satisfaction remain. Advancements in insulin therapy and technological modalities should be coupled with ongoing education and support for patients to become co-managers of their disease and reduce the risk of hypoglycemia.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of linagliptin add-on to insulin treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease in Iran

Purpose

With the high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), determining optimal treatment strategies has become a major concern. Linagliptin is aDPP-4 inhibitor that does not require dose adjustment in patients with renal impairment. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of adding linagliptin to insulin therapy in patients with T2DM and mild (stage 2) or moderate (stage 3) CKD from a health system perspective in Iran.

Methods

We developed a cost-utility model using a decision tree and ran it separately for T2DM patients with mild or moderate CKD. Clinical outcomes and health-state utility values were extracted from published studies. Direct medical costs were obtained from national tariffs in Iran in 2021. We adopted an annual time horizon and calculated the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) to obtain the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). To capture parameter uncertainties, one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

Results

In T2DM patients with mild CKD, the linagliptin add-on strategy was associated with an additional $23.69 cost and 0.0148 QALYs per patient, resulting in an ICER of 1600.37 USD/QALY. In moderate CKD, the strategy was associated with $22.59 more costs and 0.0191 more QALYs, and the ICER was estimated at 1182.72 USD/QALY. In both populations, the ICER was mainly driven by the impact of HbA1c on utility, cost of linagliptin, and the reduction in insulin usage by adding linagliptin to the treatment.

Conclusion

With a cost-effectiveness threshold of $1550 USD/QALY in Iran, adding linagliptin to insulin is cost-effective in patients with T2DM and moderate CKD. However, for those with mild CKD, it seems that the associated costs outweigh the expected benefits.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40200-023-01243-z.

Cost-effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre® in Brazilian insulin-treated patients with types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is a barrier to optimal glucose control in the treatment of both type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Blood glucose monitoring is essential in diabetes management. Inappropriate glucose management is associated with high mortality and morbidity. FreeStyle Libre® (FSL) is a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system that provides effective, safe, and convenient glucose monitoring, without routine finger pricking. This study aims to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the FSL system in comparison to conventional Self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in T1DM and T2DM patients that require intensive insulin therapy.

METHODS

A decision-tree model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness ratio between FSL and conventional SMBG from the perspective of the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (SUS). The model captures the cumulative rates of acute complications such as severe hypoglicemia and diabetic ketoacidosis, per-event costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained over a 1-year time horizon in adult and pediatric patients (≥ 4 years old) with T1DM or T2DM. Inputs from the Brazilian health databases, clinical trials, and real-world data were used in the study.

RESULTS

The results demonstrated that, regarding solely severe hypoglicemia and diabetic ketoacidosis events, T1DM have a QALY difference of 0.276, a cost difference of R$ 7.255, and an ICER of R$ 26,267.69 per QALY gained for CGM with FSL, when compared to conventional SMBG. T2DM results demonstrated equally a QALY difference of 0.184, a cost difference of R$ 7290, and an ICER of R$ 39,692.67 per QALY gained, in favour of CGM with FSL.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that FSL is cost-effective in T1DM and T2DM for acute diabetic complications, from a SUS perspective. CGM with FSL can promote safe, convenient, and cost-effective glucose monitoring, therefore contributing to the improvement of the incidence of complications and quality of life.

Allo Beta Cell transplantation: specific features, unanswered questions, and immunological challenge

Type 1 diabetes (T1D) presents a persistent medical challenge, demanding innovative strategies for sustained glycemic control and enhanced patient well-being. Beta cells are specialized cells in the pancreas that produce insulin, a hormone that regulates blood sugar levels. When beta cells are damaged or destroyed, insulin production decreases, which leads to T1D. Allo Beta Cell Transplantation has emerged as a promising therapeutic avenue, with the goal of reinstating glucose regulation and insulin production in T1D patients. However, the path to success in this approach is fraught with complex immunological hurdles that demand rigorous exploration and resolution for enduring therapeutic efficacy. This exploration focuses on the distinct immunological characteristics inherent to Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. An understanding of these unique challenges is pivotal for the development of effective therapeutic interventions. The critical role of glucose regulation and insulin in immune activation is emphasized, with an emphasis on the intricate interplay between beta cells and immune cells. The transplantation site, particularly the liver, is examined in depth, highlighting its relevance in the context of complex immunological issues. Scrutiny extends to recipient and donor matching, including the utilization of multiple islet donors, while also considering the potential risk of autoimmune recurrence. Moreover, unanswered questions and persistent gaps in knowledge within the field are identified. These include the absence of robust evidence supporting immunosuppression treatments, the need for reliable methods to assess rejection and treatment protocols, the lack of validated biomarkers for monitoring beta cell loss, and the imperative need for improved beta cell imaging techniques. In addition, attention is drawn to emerging directions and transformative strategies in the field. This encompasses alternative immunosuppressive regimens and calcineurin-free immunoprotocols, as well as a reevaluation of induction therapy and recipient preconditioning methods. Innovative approaches targeting autoimmune recurrence, such as CAR Tregs and TCR Tregs, are explored, along with the potential of stem stealth cells, tissue engineering, and encapsulation to overcome the risk of graft rejection. In summary, this review provides a comprehensive overview of the inherent immunological obstacles associated with Allo Beta Cell Transplantation. It offers valuable insights into emerging strategies and directions that hold great promise for advancing the field and ultimately improving outcomes for individuals living with diabetes.

Hypoglycemia and Cardiovascular Disease: Exploring the Connections

It has long been known that administering insulin or insulin secretagogues to treat diabetes has the unfavorable side effect of hypoglycemia. Because hypoglycemia can disrupt normal brain function, it can have a profound impact on people's lives. Studies have shown a connection between hypoglycemia and a higher risk of death and cardiovascular disease. Through experimental studies, numerous potential reasons for the start of cardiovascular events have been discovered. In addition, studies on people have demonstrated that hypoglycemia can result in ventricular arrhythmias. According to recent studies, a number of factors may affect the relationship between hypoglycemia, cardiovascular events, and mortality. Confounding factors may explain the apparent correlation, at least in part. People with comorbidities may experience more hypoglycemia, increasing their risk of mortality. Those who have type 1 or type 2 diabetes, however, seem to be more susceptible to the negative effects of hypoglycemia on the cardiovascular system. When choosing appropriate glucose-lowering treatments and setting glycemic objectives with patients, clinicians should be aware of this risk.

Cost-utility of real-time continuous glucose monitoring versus self-monitoring of blood glucose in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada

Aim: Clinical trials and real-world data for Type 2 diabetes have shown that real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) lowers glycated hemoglobin (A1c) and reduces hypoglycemia relative to self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). This analysis examined the long-term health and economic outcomes associated with using rt-CGM versus SMBG in people with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes in Canada. Materials & methods: Clinical data were sourced from a real-world study, in which rt-CGM reduced A1C by 0.56% versus continued SMBG. The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model, from a Canadian payer perspective over a lifetime horizon for a cohort aged 65 years with an A1C of 8.3% at baseline. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Results: Projected total mean lifetime costs were CAD 207,466 for rt-CGM versus CAD 189,863 for SMBG (difference: CAD 17,602) and projected mean quality-adjusted life expectancy was 9.97 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for rt-CGM versus 9.02 QALYs for SMBG (difference: 0.95 QALYs), resulting in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 18,523 per QALY gained for rt-CGM versus SMBG. Findings were sensitive to changes in the A1C treatment effect, annual cost and quality of life benefit associated with using rt-CGM, SMBG frequency, and baseline age, but ICURs remained below CAD 50,000 per QALY in all analyses. Conclusion: For people in Canada with insulin-treated Type 2 diabetes and poor glycemic control, use of rt-CGM is likely to be cost-effective relative to SMBG.

Early use of oral semaglutide in the UK: A cost-effectiveness analysis versus continuing metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVES

Many people with type 2 diabetes experience clinical inertia, remaining in poor glycaemic control on oral glucose-lowering medications rather than intensifying treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, despite an efficacious, orally administered option, oral semaglutide, being available. The present study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating oral semaglutide versus continuing metformin plus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor therapy in the UK.

DESIGN

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (V.9.0). Clinical data were taken from the oral semaglutide and placebo arms of the patient subgroup receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in PIONEER 4. Costs, expressed in 2021 Pounds sterling (GBP), were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective.

INTERVENTIONS

Modelled patients received oral semaglutide immediately (in the first year of the analysis) or after a 2-year delay, after which all physiological parameters were brought to values observed in the immediate therapy arm. During the simulation, patients intensified with the addition of basal insulin and, subsequently, by switching to basal-bolus insulin.

RESULTS

Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.17 (95% CIs 0.16 to 0.19) years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15 (0.14 to 0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus a 2-year delay. Benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 1423 (1349 to 1496) higher with immediate oral semaglutide therapy versus a 2-year delay, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 9404 (8380 to 10 538) per QALY gained versus a 2-year delay.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate oral semaglutide is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment in people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02863419.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other treatment regimens in the chinese type 2 diabetes patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.

METHODS

The clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.

CONCLUSION

IDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of insulin aspart and glargine in type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus in Iran

Purpose

The higher costs of insulin analogs including short-acting insulin aspart (IAsp) and long-acting insulin glargine (IGla) have restricted their widespread uptake despite having improved pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and patient convenience. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IAsp versus Regular Insulin (RI) and IGla versus NPH Insulin in type 1 and 2 diabetes from the perspective of the Iranian healthcare system.

Methods

Clinical data including HbA1c levels, hypoglycemia, weight gain, and health-related quality of life were derived from the included systematic review and meta-analysis studies. Different methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation were used for an annual time horizon. Utility decrements for diabetes-related complications were extracted from the literature. Direct medical costs were calculated in 2022 prices. A one-way sensitivity analysis was also performed.

Results

In type 1 diabetes, IAsp was associated with more costs and effects in terms of reducing HbA1c compared with RI. An incremental cost of $83 was estimated to obtain an additional 1% reduction in HbA1c per patient per year. Similarly, an incremental cost of $16 was estimated for IGla compared with NPH. In type 2 diabetes, IAsp and RI were associated with equal efficacy and safety. For IGla versus NPH, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated at $1975 per quality-adjusted life-year. The robustness of the result was confirmed through sensitivity analysis.

Conclusion

Insulin analogs, IAsp and IGla, are cost-effective for type 1 diabetes versus human insulins, RI and NPH. For type 2 diabetes, IAsp is not cost-effective when compared with RI. For IGla versus NPH, however, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio seems to be within the accepted thresholds.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Liraglutide 1.8 mg: A Health Economic Analysis in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide was amongst the first authorised for use in 2010, but once-weekly semaglutide represents the most efficacious GLP-1 analogue currently available for type 2 diabetes. The aim of the present analysis was therefore to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus liraglutide 1.8 mg with a lowered acquisition cost in the UK, as potentially lower cost liraglutide formulations may soon be developed.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (v9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 2, with changes in HbA1c, blood pressure and body mass index applied from a network meta-analysis, in which SUSTAIN 2 was used to inform the semaglutide arm. Modelled patients received semaglutide or liraglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective and expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP). The acquisition cost of liraglutide was reduced by 33% compared with the currently marketed formulation.

RESULTS

Life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy were projected to improve with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, by 0.05 years and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. Clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 280 lower with semaglutide, entirely because of avoidance of diabetes-related complications versus liraglutide. Semaglutide 1 mg was therefore considered dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is likely to represent a dominant treatment option versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%.

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).

Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11

AIM

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus insulin aspart in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Long-term outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (vers 9.0). SUSTAIN 11 was used to inform baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects. Patients were modelled to receive once-weekly semaglutide plus basal insulin for 3 years before intensifying to basal-bolus insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin for lifetimes in the aspart arm. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK, expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP).

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin aspart, due to a reduced incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 800 higher with semaglutide, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4457 per QALY gained versus insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20 000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be highly cost-effective versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Calibration of the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model to the stroke outcomes from the SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial of once-weekly semaglutide

AIMS

In the SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial, once-weekly semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo. To date, no studies have assessed how accurately existing diabetes models predict the outcomes observed in SUSTAIN 6. The aims of this analysis were to investigate the performance of the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model when used to predict the SUSTAIN 6 trial outcomes, to calibrate the model such that projected outcomes reflected observed outcomes, and to examine the impact of calibration on the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was calibrated to ensure that the projected non-fatal stroke event rates reflected the non-fatal stroke event rates observed in SUSTAIN 6 over a two-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness analyses of once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo plus standard of care were conducted over a lifetime horizon using the uncalibrated and calibrated models to assess the impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes.

RESULTS

To replicate the non-fatal stroke event rate in SUSTAIN 6, calibration of the model through the application of relative risks for stroke of 1.07 and 1.65 with once-weekly semaglutide and placebo, respectively, was required. In the long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, the uncalibrated model projected an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo plus standard of care of GBP 22,262 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which fell to GBP 17,594 per QALY gained when the calibrated model was used.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement for calibration to replicate the outcomes observed in SUSTAIN 6 suggests that the reductions in risk of cardiovascular complications observed with once-weekly semaglutide cannot be solely explained by differences in conventional risk factors. Accurate estimation of the risk of diabetes-related complications using methods such as calibration is important to ensure accurate cost-effectiveness analyses are conducted.

Model-based economic evaluation of the effectiveness of "'Hypos' can strike twice", a leaflet-based ambulance clinician referral intervention to prevent recurrent hypoglycaemia

"'Hypos' can strike twice" (HS2) is a pragmatic, leaflet-based referral intervention designed for administration by clinicians of the emergency medical services (EMS) to people they have attended and successfully treated for hypoglycaemia. Its main purpose is to encourage the recipient to engage with their general practitioner or diabetic nurse in order that improvements in medical management of their diabetes may be made, thereby reducing their risk of recurrent hypoglycaemia. Herein we build a de novo economic model for purposes of incremental analyses to compare, in 2018-19 prices, HS2 against standard care for recurrent hypoglycaemia in the fortnight following the initial attack from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). We found that per patient NHS costs incurred by people receiving the HS2 intervention over the fortnight following an initial hypoglycaemia average £49.79, and under standard care costs average £40.50. Target patient benefit assessed over that same period finds the probability of no recurrence of hypoglycaemia averaging 42.4% under HS2 and 39.4% under standard care, a 7.6% reduction in relative risk. We find that implementing HS2 will cost the NHS an additional £309.36 per episode of recurrent hypoglycaemia avoided. Contrary to the favourable support offered in Botan et al., we conclude that in its current form the HS2 intervention is not a cost-effective use of NHS resources when compared to standard NHS care in reducing the risk of hypoglycaemia recurring within a fortnight of an initial attack that was resolved at-scene by EMS ambulance clinicians.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Flash Glucose Monitoring System for People with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Intensive Insulin Treatment

AIMS

For people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on intensive insulin therapy, the use of flash continuous glucose monitoring ("flash monitoring") is associated with improved average glucose control and/or reduced hypoglycemic exposure. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of flash monitoring versus traditional blood glucose monitoring (BGM) in people with T2D using intensive insulin in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (IQVIA CDM; v9.0) was used to analyze the impact of flash monitoring versus BGM over a 40-year time horizon from the UK payer perspective. Model inputs included baseline characteristics, intervention effects, resource utilization, costs, and utilities, based on recently published literature and national databases. UK National Health Service reimbursed costs of flash monitoring and BGM were used. An intervention-related health utility was obtained from a time trade-off study. Alternative scenarios were explored to assess the impact of key assumptions on base case results.

RESULTS

In base-case analysis, flash monitoring compared with BGM resulted in an incremental cost of £5781 and an additional 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). This provides an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £12,309/QALY. HbA1c and the intervention-related health utility were the key drivers of differentiation. All scenario analyses, including different discount rates, time horizons, effects on HbA1c and on the intervention-related health utility, as well as glycemic emergencies, generated ICERs of less than £20,000 per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

The consistent results across base case and a range of scenario analyses indicate that long-term flash glucose monitoring use is cost-effective compared with BGM in a UK population of T2D on intensive insulin therapy based on updated clinical effects and a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000-30,000 per QALY.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK

AIMS

Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective.

RESULTS

Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring system in people with type 1 diabetes in Australia

INTRODUCTION

Real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) allows patients with diabetes to adjust insulin dosing, potentially improving glucose control. This study aimed to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 rt-CGM device versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) and flash glucose monitoring (FGM) in Australia in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

Long-term costs and clinical outcomes were estimated using the CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data for the analysis of rt-CGM versus SMBG and FGM were sourced from the DIAMOND study and a network meta-analysis, respectively. Rt-CGM and FGM were associated with quality of life (QoL) benefits due to reduced fear of hypoglycaemia (FoH) and fingerstick testing. Analyses were performed over a lifetime time horizon from an Australian healthcare payer perspective, including direct costs from published data. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum.

RESULTS

Rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.199 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 21,596 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AUD 18,020 per QALY gained compared with SMBG. Compared with FGM, rt-CGM was associated with an increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.569 QALYs, increased mean total lifetime costs of AUD 11,064 and an ICER of AUD 19,455 per QALY gained. Key drivers of outcomes included HbA_1c benefits and QoL benefits associated with reduced FoH and fingerstick testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to improved clinical outcomes and QoL gains rt-CGM is highly cost-effective compared with SMBG and FGM in people with T1D in Australia.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide in Spain: A Long-Term Health Economic Analysis Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trials

INTRODUCTION

Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist oral semaglutide has demonstrated greater improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus oral medications empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide, in the PIONEER clinical trial program. Based on these data, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide in Spain.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 3.0% annually. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from PIONEER 2 and 4 for the comparisons of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, and PIONEER 3 for oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in 2020 euros (EUR). Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5% and then treatment-intensified to basal insulin.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13, 0.19 and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with direct costs EUR 168 higher versus empagliflozin and EUR 236 and 1415 lower versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 1339 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and was considered dominant (clinically superior and cost saving) versus sitagliptin and liraglutide. Additional analyses demonstrated that oral semaglutide 7 mg was associated with improvements of 0.11 QALYs and increased costs of EUR 226 versus sitagliptin and was therefore associated with an ICER of EUR 2011 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was dominant versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, and cost-effective versus empagliflozin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg versus Canagliflozin 300 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Canadian Setting

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled with metformin from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in Canada.

METHODS

Head-to-head data from the SUSTAIN 8 randomised trial (NCT03136484) were extrapolated over 40 years using economic simulation modelling. The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus canagliflozin 300 mg for treating T2DM was estimated using the Swedish Institute for Health Economics-Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) and the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM). Unit costs and disutility weights capturing treatments and key macro- and microvascular complications were sourced from the literature to best match the Canadian setting. A probabilistic base-case simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with reductions in macro- and microvascular complications, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of (Canadian dollars [CAD]) CAD16,392 and 18,098 per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus canagliflozin 300 mg for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a healthcare payer perspective. Accounting for productivity loss as well, ICERs were CAD14,127 and 13,188 per QALY gained for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base-case results were robust to changes in input parameters and assumptions used.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD50,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was cost-effective over 40 years versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg for the treatment of T2DM in patients failing to maintain glycemic control with metformin alone.

Cost Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin Added to Standard of Care for the Management of Diabetic Nephropathy in the USA

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been used as the standard of care for the treatment of diabetic nephropathy. Recently, dapagliflozin has been shown to reduce diabetic nephropathy when added to the standard of care.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of dapagliflozin added to the standard of care in diabetic nephropathy in the United States of America (USA).

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness outcomes from the Medicare/Medicaid health coverage perspective. Model inputs were derived from the literature. The primary outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of our results. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY was applied, which is based on previous studies.

RESULTS

Dapagliflozin yielded a lifetime QALY of 2.8. The discounted QALY associated with the standard of care was 2.6. The standard of care was the less costly treatment with a lifetime cost of $106,150.25 as compared with dapagliflozin, which costs $110,689.25. Dapagliflozin demonstrated an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $21,141.51 per additional QALY. The most influential parameters of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were the adverse drug reaction-related cost of the standard of care and dapagliflozin, the acquisition cost, and the adverse drug reaction-related cost of dapagliflozin. The effects and costs of the interventions were consistent between base-case analyses and the probabilistic model (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $19,023.35 [$13,637.8-$27,483.1]).

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin added to the standard of care was cost effective relative to the standard of care alone in the USA for patients with diabetic nephropathy.

Long-Term Cost Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin and Sitagliptin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the Swedish Setting

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.

METHODS

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Diabetes Cohort Model was used to assess the cost effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg, using data from the head-to-head PIONEER 2 and 3 trials, respectively, in which these treatments were added to metformin (± sulphonylurea). Base-case and scenario analyses were conducted. Robustness was evaluated with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In the base-case analyses, greater initial lowering of glycated haemoglobin levels with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and oral semaglutide versus sitagliptin, respectively, resulted in reduced incidences of micro- and macrovascular complications and was associated with lower costs of complications and indirect costs. Treatment costs were higher for oral semaglutide, resulting in higher total lifetime costs than with empagliflozin (Swedish Krona [SEK] 1,245,570 vs. 1,210,172) and sitagliptin (SEK1,405,789 vs. 1,377,381). Oral semaglutide was shown to be cost effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of SEK239,001 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with empagliflozin and SEK120,848 per QALY compared with sitagliptin, from a payer perspective. ICERs were lower at SEK191,721 per QALY compared with empagliflozin and SEK95,234 per QALY compared with sitagliptin from a societal perspective. Results were similar in scenario analyses that incorporated cardiovascular effects, and also in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In a Swedish setting, oral semaglutide was cost effective compared with empagliflozin and sitagliptin for patients with T2D inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered 11 August 2016) and NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered 18 November 2015).

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery System in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Greece

AbstractIntroduction: Usage of automated insulin delivery systems is increasing for the treatment of people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). This study compared long-term cost-effectiveness of the Advanced Hybrid Closed Loop MiniMed 780G (AHCL) system versus sensor augmented pump (SAP) system with predictive low glucose management (PLGM) or multiple daily injections (MDI) plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) in people with T1D in Greece. Methods: Analyses were performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, with clinical input data sourced from various studies. In the AHCL versus SAP plus PLGM analysis, patients were assumed to have 7.5% baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), when comparing AHCL with MDI plus isCGM baseline HbA1c was assumed to be 7.8%. HbA1c was reduced to 7.0% following AHCL treatment initiation but remained at baseline levels in the comparator arms. Analyses were performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 1.5% per annum. Results: AHCL was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.284 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and EUR 10,173 lower mean total lifetime costs with SAP plus PLGM. Compared with MDI plus isCGM, AHCL was associated with increased quality-adjusted life expectancy of 2.708 QALYs, EUR 76,396 higher mean total lifetime costs, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 29,869 per QALY. Extensive sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of results. Conclusions: Over patient lifetime, the MiniMed 780G system is likely to be cost saving compared with the SAP plus PLGM system and cost-effective compared with MDI plus isCGM in people with T1D in Greece.

Safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec U100 versus insulin glargine U300 in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and indirect treatment comparison

BACKGROUND

Clinical differences between degludec U100 (Deg-100) and glargine U300 (Gla-300) in type 1 diabetes (T1D) were unknown.

AIM

To indirectly compare the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness between Deg-100 and Gla-300 in T1D adults via systematic review.

METHOD

Medline, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar were searched (October 2021). Randomized controlled trials comparing Deg-100 or Gla-300 vs. glargine U100 in T1D adults (follow-up ≥ 12 weeks) were selected and analyzed using a frequentist network meta-analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted over a 1-year time horizon from societal perspectives.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Efficacy analysis suggested that Deg-100 was non-inferior to Gla-300 in reducing HbA_1c (MD 0.03 [95% CI - 0.09 to 0.15]; P = 0.60), FPG (MD - 1.12 [- 2.19 to - 0.04]; P = 0.04), and pre-breakfast SMBG (MD - 0.71 [- 1.46 to 0.03]; P = 0.06). Safety analysis suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have lower rates of both severe (HR 0.44 [0.25-0.78]; P = 0.005) and nocturnal severe (HR 0.19 [0.08-0.44]; P < 0.001) hypoglycemia, with lower total (MD - 0.07 [- 0.13 to - 0.01]; P = 0.02) and basal (MD - 0.08 [- 0.12 to - 0.04]; P < 0.001) insulin doses compared with Gla-300. No significant differences were observed for other hypoglycemia outcomes, adverse events, serious adverse events, bolus insulin dose, and body weight. The CEA showed that Deg-100 appeared to be a dominant treatment in Japan (+ 0.0283 QALYs, ¥26,266 [$228] per patient) and the United States (+ 0.0267 QALYs, $986 per patient).

CONCLUSION

Low-certainty indirect evidence suggested that Deg-100 appeared to have a favorable reduction in rates of severe hypoglycemia and more cost-effective compared with Gla-300 in T1D adults.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide in Portugal

BACKGROUND

Oral semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog that has been associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in the PIONEER 2 clinical trial and in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA), respectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in Portugal.

METHODS

In two separate analyses, outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 4% per annum. Clinical data were sourced from the PIONEER 2 trial and the NMA for the comparisons versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, respectively. Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to solely basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a National Healthcare Service perspective in Portugal and expressed in 2021 euros (EUR). Utilities were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.10 and 0.03 years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.03 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. Improved clinical outcomes were due to a reduced cumulative incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications with oral semaglutide. Total costs were projected to be EUR 2548 and EUR 814 higher with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, with higher acquisition costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 23,571 and EUR 23,927 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Portugal.

Evaluation of the cost and medical resource use outcomes associated with nasal glucagon versus injectable glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes in Canada: a modeling analysis

OBJECTIVES

Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions.

METHODS

A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD).

RESULTS

Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations.

CONCLUSIONS

When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Self-Efficacy-Focused Structured Education Program for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Mainland China Setting

Objective: To assess the long-term (50 years) cost-effectiveness of the self-efficacy-focused structured education program (SSEP) as opposed to routine education among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in mainland China from a healthcare service perspective. Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis method was used. The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0) was adopted to estimate the outcomes. The baseline cohort characteristics, variations of physiological parameters, costs of intervention and other treatments, and management-related diabetes were derived from a randomized controlled trial. Moreover, the complications costs and utilities were extracted from published sources. Furthermore, the univariate sensitivity analysis and the probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted. Results: As compared with the control group, the life expectancy and quality-adjusted life-year in the intervention group were increased. Besides, the intervention group achieved lower cumulative incidences of complications and saved more direct medical costs compared with the control group. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the SSEP had 100% probability to be cost-effective. Conclusion: The SSEP is recognized as a highly cost-effective option for managing patients with T2DM, which are projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

The Impact of Hypoglycemia on Productivity Loss and Utility in Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated with Insulin in Real-World Canadian Practice: Protocol for a Prospective Study (Preprint)

Background

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) imposes a substantial burden owing to its increasing prevalence and life-threatening complications. In patients who do not achieve glycemic targets with oral antidiabetic drugs, the initiation of insulin is recommended. However, a serious concern regarding insulin is drug-induced hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia is known to affect quality of life and the use of health care resources. However, health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) data for economic modelling are limited, particularly regarding utility values and productivity losses.

Objective

This real-world prospective study aims to assess the impact of hypoglycemia on productivity and utility in insulin-treated adults with T2DM from Ontario and Quebec, Canada.

Methods

This noninterventional, multicenter, 3-month prospective study will recruit patients from 4 medical clinics and 2 endocrinology or diabetes clinics. Patients will be identified using appointment lists and enrolled through consecutive sampling during routinely scheduled consultations. To be eligible, patients must be aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with T2DM, and treated with insulin. Utility and productivity will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Productivity Cost Questionnaire, respectively. Questionnaires will be completed 4, 8, and 12 weeks after recruitment. Generalized estimating equation models will be used to investigate productivity losses and utility decrements associated with incident hypoglycemic events while controlling for individual patient characteristics. A total of 500 patients will be enrolled to ensure the precision of HEOR estimates.

Results

This study is designed to fill a gap in the Canadian evidence on the impact of hypoglycemia on HEOR outcomes. More specifically, it will generate productivity and utility inputs for the economic modeling of T2DM.

Conclusions

Insulin therapy is expensive, and hypoglycemia is a significant component of economic evaluation. Robust HEOR data may help health technology assessment agencies in future reimbursement decision-making.

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/35461

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System in People with Type 1 Diabetes: a Health Economic Analysis in Sweden

INTRODUCTION

Swedish National Diabetes Registry data show a correlation of improved glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) with increased use of diabetes technologies over the past 25 years. However, novel technologies are often associated with a high initial outlay. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) MiniMed 780G system versus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM) plus self-injection of multiple daily insulin (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in people with T1D in Sweden.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0). Clinical data, including changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and hypoglycemia rates, were sourced from observational studies and a randomized crossover trial. Modeled patients were assumed to receive the treatments for their lifetimes, with HbA1c kept constant following the application of treatment effects. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective and expressed in Swedish krona (SEK). Utilities and days off work estimates were taken from published sources.

RESULTS

The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an improvement in life expectancy of 0.16 years and an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.95 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII. These clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Combined costs were estimated to be SEK 727,408 (EUR 72,741) higher with MiniMed 780G, with treatment costs partially offset by direct cost savings from the avoidance of diabetes-related complications and indirect cost savings from the avoidance of lost workplace productivity. The MiniMed 780G system was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SEK 373,700 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of SEK 500,000 per QALY gained, the MiniMed 780G system was projected to be cost-effective versus isCGM plus MDI or CSII for the treatment of T1D in Sweden.

Felix dies natalis, insulin… ceterum autem censeo "beta is better"

One hundred years after its discovery, insulin remains the life-saving therapy for many patients with diabetes. It has been a 100-years-old success story thanks to the fact that insulin therapy has continuously integrated the knowledge developed over a century. In 1982, insulin becomes the first therapeutic protein to be produced using recombinant DNA technology. The first "mini" insulin pump and the first insulin pen become available in 1983 and 1985, respectively. In 1996, the first generation of insulin analogues were produced. In 1999, the first continuous glucose-monitoring device for reading interstitial glucose was approved by the FDA. In 2010s, the ultra-long action insulins were introduced. An equally exciting story developed in parallel. In 1966. Kelly et al. performed the first clinical pancreas transplant at the University of Minnesota, and now it is a well-established clinical option. First successful islet transplantations in humans were obtained in the late 1980s and 1990s. Their ability to consistently re-establish the endogenous insulin secretion was obtained in 2000s. More recently, the possibility to generate large numbers of functional human β cells from pluripotent stem cells was demonstrated, and the first clinical trial using stem cell-derived insulin producing cell was started in 2014. This year, the discovery of this life-saving hormone turns 100 years. This provides a unique opportunity not only to celebrate this extraordinary success story, but also to reflect on the limits of insulin therapy and renew the commitment of the scientific community to an insulin free world for our patients.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in Canada

BACKGROUND

The Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system is one of the most sophisticated RT-CGM systems developed to date and became available in Canada in 2019. A health economic analysis was performed to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 RT-CGM system versus SMBG in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in Canada.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model. Based on clinical trial data, patients with mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6% were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% with RT-CGM versus 0.4% reduction with SMBG. RT-CGM was also associated with a quality of life (QoL) benefit owing to reduced incidence of hypoglycemia, reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of fingerstick testing. Direct medical costs were sourced from published literature, and inflated to 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD).

RESULTS

Dexcom G6 RT-CGM was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to SMBG (15.52 versus 13.43 QALYs) but mean total lifetime cots were CAD 35,353 higher with RT-CGM (CAD 227,357 versus CAD 192,004) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD 16,931 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that assumptions relating to the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and the elimination of fingerstick testing with RT-CGM as well as SMBG usage and change in HbA1c were the key drivers of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

For adults with T1D in Canada, RT-CGM is associated with improved glycemic control and QoL benefits owing to a reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing and over a lifetime time horizon is cost-effective relative to SMBG.

Developing a health economic model for Asians with type 2 diabetes based on the Japan Diabetes Complications Study and the Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial

INTRODUCTION

Cost-effectiveness analyses are becoming increasingly important in Japan following the introduction of a health technology assessment scheme. The study objective was to develop an economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two interventions for type 2 diabetes in a Japanese population.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The Japan Diabetes Complications Study/Japanese Elderly Diabetes Intervention Trial risk engine (JJRE) Cost-Effectiveness Model (JJCEM) was developed, incorporating validated risk equations in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes from the JJRE. Weibull regression models were developed for progression of the model outcomes, and a targeted literature review was performed to inform default values for utilities and costs. To illustrate outcomes, two simulated analyses were performed in younger (aged 40 years) and older (aged 80 years) Japanese populations, comparing a hypothetical treatment with placebo.

RESULTS

The model considers a population based on user-defined values for 11 baseline characteristic parameters and simulates rates of diabetic complications over a defined time horizon. Costs, quality-adjusted life years, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio are estimated. The model provides disaggregated results for two competing interventions, allowing visualization of the key drivers of cost and utility. A scatterplot of simulations and cost-effectiveness acceptability curve are generated for each analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first cost-effectiveness model for East Asian patients with type 2 diabetes, developed using Japan-specific risk equations. This population constitutes the largest share of the global population with diabetes, making this model highly relevant. The model can be used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-diabetic interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan and other East Asian populations.

Review and estimation of disutility for joint health states of severe and nonsevere hypoglycemic events in diabetes

Aim: Many economic evaluations used linear or log-transformed additive methods to estimate the disutility of hypoglycemic events in diabetes, both nonsevere (NSHEs) and severe (SHEs). Methods: We conducted a literature search for studies of disutility for hypoglycemia. We used additive, minimum and multiplicative methods, and the adjusted decrement estimator to estimate the disutilities of joint health states with both NSHEs and SHEs in six scenarios. Results: Twenty-four studies reported disutilities for hypoglycemia in diabetes. Based on construct validity, the adjusted decrement estimator method likely provides less biased estimates, predicting that when SHEs occur, the additional impact from NSHEs is marginal. Conclusion: Our proposed new method provides a different perspective on the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years in economic evaluations of hypoglycemic treatments.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide in the Netherlands based on the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide in the Netherlands, based on the results of the PIONEER clinical trials.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical data were derived from PIONEER 2, 3 and 4. Patients were assumed to receive initial treatments until glycated hemoglobin exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective in 2019 euros (EUR).

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15, 0.22 and 0.09quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with combined costs EUR1,032 higher, EUR115 higher and EUR1,267 lower. Oral semaglutide was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR7,061 and EUR516 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on long-term projections, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands.

Effects of continuous glucose monitor-recorded nocturnal hypoglycaemia on quality of life and mood during daily life in type 1 diabetes

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this work was to assess the effect of spontaneous nocturnal hypoglycaemia on quality of life and mood during subsequent days in type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

A total of 153 people with type 1 diabetes participated in 6 days of blinded continuous glucose monitoring while documenting hypoglycaemic symptoms, quality of life and mood, daily. Hypoglycaemia was defined by interstitial glucose ≤3.9 mmol/l (IG_3.9) and ≤ 3.0 mmol/l (IG_3.0) for ≥15 min and was classified as asymptomatic if no hypoglycaemic symptoms were reported.

RESULTS

Self-estimated quality of life assessed by the EQ-5D VAS (but not by the WHO Well-Being Index) was higher the day after asymptomatic (but not after symptomatic) hypoglycaemic nights, as compared with non-hypoglycaemic nights (IG_3.9, p = 0.021; IG_3.0, p = 0.048). The effect increased with lower glucose nadir and longer duration of nocturnal hypoglycaemia (IG_3.9, p = 0.03). The finding was confined to participants with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness. There was no effect of nocturnal hypoglycaemia on mood or self-estimated effectiveness at work the following day.

CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION

Individuals with type 1 diabetes and impaired hypoglycaemia awareness reported higher quality of life on days preceded by nights with asymptomatic (but not symptomatic) hypoglycaemia. The effect was amplified by lower glucose nadir and longer duration of the episodes and may help explain resistance to implementation of interventions to reduce hypoglycaemia in many people with impaired hypoglycaemia awareness.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Empagliflozin 25 mg for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Setting

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes represents a continuing healthcare challenge, and choosing cost-effective treatments is crucial to ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

METHODS

Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of initiation of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg were based on an indirect comparison conducted using patient-level data, as there is currently no head-to-head clinical trial comparing these therapies. Modelled patients received treatments until glycated haemoglobin exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), at which point patients initiated basal insulin. The analysis captured pharmacy costs and costs of diabetes-related complications, expressed in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP). Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Scenario analyses were prepared to assess uncertainty around projected outcomes.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with increases in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 years and 0.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, compared with empagliflozin 25 mg. Projected improvements in quality and duration of life resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with increased pharmacy costs, but this was partially offset by avoided costs of treating complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with an increase in costs of GBP 1017 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4439 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be a cost-effective treatment option from a healthcare payer perspective compared with empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness the Dexcom G6 Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring System Compared with Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in People with Type 1 Diabetes in France

INTRODUCTION

The aim was to determine the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Dexcom G6 real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) system versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in France.

METHODS

The analysis was performed using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model and utilized clinical input data from the DIAMOND clinical trial in adults with T1D. Simulated patients were assumed to have a mean baseline HbA1c of 8.6%, and those in the RT-CGM arm were assumed to have a HbA1c reduction of 1.0% compared with 0.4% in the SMBG arm. A quality of life (QoL) benefit associated with a reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH) and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing in the RT-CGM arm was also applied.

RESULTS

The G6 RT-CGM system was associated with an incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.38 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with SMBG (10.64 QALYs versus 9.23 QALYs). Total mean lifetime costs were 21,087 euros higher with RT-CGM (148,077 euros versus 126,990 euros), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 15,285 euros per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

In France, based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000 euros per QALY gained, the use of the G6 RT-CGM system is cost-effective relative to SMBG for adults with long-standing T1D, driven primarily by improved glycemic control and the QoL benefit associated with reduced FoH and elimination of the requirement for fingerstick testing.

Cost-effectiveness of a novel hybrid closed-loop system compared with continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion in people with type 1 diabetes in the UK

AIMS

The MiniMed 670 G insulin pump system is the first commercially available hybrid closed-loop (HCL) insulin delivery system and clinical studies have shown that this device is associated with incremental benefits in glycemic control relative to continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with or without continuous glucose monitoring (CGM). The aim was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 670 G system versus CSII alone in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from a clinical trial of the MiniMed 670 G system in 124 adults and adolescents with T1D. The analysis was performed over a lifetime time horizon and both future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. The analysis was performed from a healthcare payer perspective.

RESULTS

The use of the MiniMed 670 G system led to an improvement in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.73 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), relative to CSII. Total lifetime direct costs were GBP 35,425 higher with the MiniMed 670 G system than with CSII resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 20,421 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the ICER was sensitive to assumptions around glycemic control and assumptions relating to the quality-of-life benefit associated with a reduction in fear of hypoglycemia.

LIMITATIONS

Long-term projections from short-term data are inherently associated with uncertainty but represent arguably the best available evidence in lieu of long-term clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

In the UK, over patient lifetimes, the incremental clinical benefits associated with the use of MiniMed 670 G system means that it is likely to be cost-effective relative to the continued use of CSII in people with T1D, particularly for those with a fear of hypoglycemia or poor baseline glycemic control.

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.

Long-term Cost-Effectiveness of Dexcom G6 Real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes in the U.K

OBJECTIVE

A long-term health economic analysis was performed to establish the cost-effectiveness of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) (Dexcom G6) versus self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) alone in U.K.-based patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The analysis used the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical input data were sourced from the DIAMOND trial in adults with T1D. Simulations were performed separately in the overall population of patients with baseline HbA_1c ≥7.5% (58 mmol/mol), and a secondary analysis was performed in patients with baseline HbA_1c ≥8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The analysis was performed from the National Health Service health care payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon.

RESULTS

In the overall population, G6 RT-CGM was associated with a mean incremental gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 1.49 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus SMBG (mean [SD] 11.47 [2.04] QALYs versus 9.99 [1.84] QALYs). Total mean (SD) lifetime costs were also pounds sterling (GBP) 14,234 higher with RT-CGM (GBP 102,468 [35,681] versus GBP 88,234 [39,027]) resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 9,558 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed that the findings were sensitive to changes in the quality-of-life benefit associated with reduced fear of hypoglycemia and avoidance of fingerstick testing as well as the HbA_1c benefit associated with RT-CGM use.

CONCLUSIONS

For U.K.-based T1D patients, the G6 RT-CGM device is associated with significant improvements in clinical outcomes and, over patient lifetimes, is a cost-effective disease management option relative to SMBG on the basis of a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20,000 per QALY gained.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Sitagliptin in the Spanish Setting

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population, but must work within constrained budgets. Therefore, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus once daily sitagliptin 100 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes from a healthcare payer perspective in the Spanish setting.

METHODS

Cost and clinical outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects on initiation of semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg were based on the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 7 and 2). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.0% annually.

RESULTS

Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.02 and 0.11 years, respectively, and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.17 and 0.24 years, respectively and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg from a healthcare payer perspective.

CONCLUSIONS

Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were considered dominant (more effective and less costly) versus sitagliptin 100 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Glargine and Insulin Detemir in the Basal Regimen for Naïve Insulin Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in Malaysia

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogue (LAIA) (insulin Detemir and insulin Glargine) versus NPH insulin in the basal insulin regime for naïve insulin T2DM Malaysian patients.

Methods

The UKPDS-Outcome Model version 2.0 (UKPDS-OM2) was used to evaluate the cost and consequence of diabetes-related complication. The effectiveness of the insulin was derived from the literature review, and the patients’ epidemiology characteristics were retrieved from the Malaysian Diabetes Registry. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Another simple mathematical model was used to compare the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia events between LAIA and NPH insulin. The outputs of the models were combined to obtain the final result. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainties.

Results

The net cost difference (without accounting for hypoglycemia) was RM4868 for insulin Glargine and RM6026 for insulin Detemir. The saving from preventing severe hypoglycemia was RM4377 for insulin Glargine and RM12,753 for insulin Detemir. The total additional QALY gained from insulin Glargine was 0.1317 and from insulin Detemir was 0.8376. The sensitivity analysis shows the discount rate, and drug acquisition cost may affect the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value.

Conclusion

Both insulin Detemir and Glargine are cost-effective compared to NPH insulin for T2DM patients, especially when the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia event rate is taken into account.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective.

METHODS

A previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

Introduction

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Methods

Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources.

Results

In the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis.

Conclusions

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01337-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prediction of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes under Multiple Daily Injections Using Continuous Glucose Monitoring and Physical Activity Monitor

(1) Background: nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) is one of the most challenging side effects of multiple doses of insulin (MDI) therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D). This work aimed to investigate the feasibility of a machine-learning-based prediction model to anticipate NH in T1D patients on MDI. (2) Methods: ten T1D adults were studied during 12 weeks. Information regarding T1D management, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), and from a physical activity tracker were obtained under free-living conditions at home. Supervised machine-learning algorithms were applied to the data, and prediction models were created to forecast the occurrence of NH. Individualized prediction models were generated using multilayer perceptron (MLP) and a support vector machine (SVM). (3) Results: population outcomes indicated that more than 70% of the NH may be avoided with the proposed methodology. The predictions performed by the SVM achieved the best population outcomes, with a sensitivity and specificity of 78.75% and 82.15%, respectively. (4) Conclusions: our study supports the feasibility of using ML techniques to address the prediction of nocturnal hypoglycemia in the daily life of patients with T1D on MDI, using CGM and a physical activity tracker.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly GLP-1 analogue versus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the Spanish setting: Once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin

Aims: Controlling costs while maximizing healthcare gains is the predominant challenge for healthcare providers, and therefore cost-effectiveness analysis is playing an ever-increasing role in healthcare decision making. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg and 1 mg) versus empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) in the Spanish setting for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications.Material and methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes over patient lifetimes with once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin, with treatment effects based on a network meta-analysis. The analysis captured treatment costs, costs of diabetes-related complications, and the impact of complications on quality of life, based on published sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per annum.Results: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 and 0.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg and improvements of 0.11 and 0.14 QALYs, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Treatment costs were higher with once-weekly semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, but this was partially offset by cost savings due to avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 2,285 and EUR 161 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg, and EUR 3,090 and EUR 625 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg.Conclusions: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were projected to be cost-effective versus empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg for the treatment of patients with T2D with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications in the Spanish setting, irrespective of patients' BMI at baseline.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme

INTRODUCTION

The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting.

METHODS

Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide.

RESULTS

Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg.

CONCLUSION

Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.