Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study

Diabetes-Related Effectiveness and Cost of Liraglutide or Insulin in German Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 5-Year Retrospective Claims Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Liraglutide is a glucagon-like peptide-1 analogue used to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To date, limited long-term data (> 2 years) exist comparing real-world diabetes-related effectiveness and costs for liraglutide versus insulin treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective claims data analysis covered the period from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2017 and included continuously insured patients with T2DM who initiated insulin or liraglutide and had 3.5 or 5 years' follow-up data, identified using the German AOK PLUS dataset. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for patient characteristics.

RESULTS

After PSM, there were 825 and 436 patients in the liraglutide and insulin groups at 3.5 and 5 years' follow-up, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between compared cohorts. The respective change from baseline to follow-up in mean glycated haemoglobin for liraglutide and insulin patients was - 0.88% and - 0.81% (p > 0.100) after 3.5 years and - 1.15%/ - 1.02% (p > 0.100) after 5 years. Mean respective changes in body mass index (kg/m2) were - 1.21/+ 1.14 (p < 0.001) after 3.5 years and - 1.29/+ 1.13 after 5 years (p < 0.001). Liraglutide- versus insulin-treated patients were less likely to have an early T2DM-related hospitalisation (3.5-year hazard ratio [HR]: 0.414 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.263-0.651]; 5-year HR: 0.448 [95% CI 0.286-0.701]). At 5 years' follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in total direct costs between treatment groups (cost ratio: 1.069 [95% CI 0.98-1.13]; p > 0.100).

CONCLUSION

The clinical effectiveness of liraglutide is maintained long term (up to 5 years). Liraglutide treatment is not associated with higher total direct healthcare costs.

Glucose Control and Weight Change Associated with Treatment with Exenatide Compared with Basal Insulin: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the study was to compare glycemic and weight change outcomes for type 2 diabetes patients treated with either exenatide once-weekly (EQW) or exenatide twice-daily (EBID) with those patients treated with basal insulin (BI).

METHODS

Retrospective data (2010-2014) were extracted from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK primary care database. Patients previously naïve to injectable therapy initiating EQW, EBID, or BI were extracted and matched by propensity score within two analyses (EQW vs BI and EBID vs BI). Absolute and relative change in HbA1c and weight from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) combined with weight reduction targets of (1) any weight loss or (2) ≥ 5.0% from baseline were compared at 6 and 12-24 months.

RESULTS

A total of 485 patients initiated EQW, 3573 EBID, and 13,503 BI. In the propensity matched EQW versus BI analysis, mean HbA1c decreased with changes of - 1.33% (- 14.5 mmol/mol) and - 1.24% (- 13.5 mmol/mol) at 6 months and - 1.19% (- 13.0 mmol/mol) and - 1.17% (- 12.8 mmol/mol) at 12-24 months, respectively. Respective weight change was - 3.7 kg versus + 1.2 kg (p < 0.001) and - 3.2 kg versus + 2.5 kg (p < 0.001). Significantly more EQW patients achieved the combined HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and weight loss target (22.4% versus 9.9% at 6 months and 18.2% versus 8.0% at 12-24 months, respectively) and HbA1c ≤ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) and minimum 5% weight loss (11.8% versus 3.7% at 6 months, and 8.0% versus 0.0% at 12-24 months). For EBID versus BI, similar results were found.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world data analysis, exenatide QW and exenatide BID were associated with similar glycemic control and greater weight reduction compared with basal insulin.

Healthcare resource utilization and related financial costs associated with glucose lowering with either exenatide or basal insulin: A retrospective cohort study

AIMS

Type 2 diabetes is a major health problem placing increasing demands on healthcare systems. Our objective was to estimate healthcare resource use and related financial costs following treatment with exenatide-based regimens prescribed as once-weekly (EQW) or twice-daily (EBID) formulations, compared with regimens based on basal insulin (BI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Patients with type 2 diabetes who received exenatide or BI between 2009 and 2014 as their first recorded exposure to injectable therapy were selected. Costs were attributed to primary care contacts, diabetes-related prescriptions and inpatient admissions using standard UK healthcare costing methods (2014 prices). Frequency and costs were compared between cohorts before and after matching by propensity score using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Groups of 8723, 218 and 2180 patients receiving BI, EQW and EBID, respectively, were identified; 188 and 1486 patients receiving EQW and EBID, respectively, were matched 1:1 to patients receiving BI by propensity score. Among unmatched cohorts, total crude mean costs per patient-year were £2765 for EQW, £2549 for EBID and £4080 for BI. Compared with BI, the adjusted annual cost ratio (aACR) was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.92) for EQW and 0.82 (95% CI, 0.82-0.82) for EBID. Corresponding costs for the propensity-matched subgroups were £2646 vs £3283 (aACR, 0.80, 0.80-0.81) for EQW vs BI and £2532 vs £3070 (aACR, 0.84, 0.84-0.84) for EBID vs BI.

CONCLUSION

Overall, exenatide once-weekly and twice-daily-based regimens were associated with reduced healthcare resource use and costs compared with basal-insulin-based regimens.

Patient-reported outcomes among patients using exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice in six European countries: the CHOICE prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Improvements in the clinical condition of patients with type 2 diabetes are often accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs), but data assessing injectable treatment initiation from the patient's perspective in routine clinical practice are lacking. We examined PROs in patients initiating injectable treatment in the CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) study.

METHODS

CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective observational study conducted in six European countries. Patients initiated exenatide twice daily (BID) or insulin based on a physician's clinical judgement. Clinical and PRO data were collected at baseline (injectable therapy initiation) and after approximately 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The two treatment cohorts had different baseline characteristics; therefore, no statistical comparisons of endpoints between main cohorts were conducted.

RESULTS

There were 2388 patients eligible for analysis (exenatide BID cohort, n = 1114; insulin cohort, n = 1274). Mean positive changes in Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite) total score and EuroQoL5-Dimension (EQ-5D) index and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were observed in both cohorts with most changes observed during the first 6 months after injectable therapy initiation. Patients who experienced weight loss (≥ 1 kg) at 24 months appeared to have higher mean improvements in IWQOL-Lite total score than did patients with weight gain or no weight change. Patients who met the composite clinical endpoint of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, no weight gain (≤ 1 kg) and no hypoglycaemia generally experienced higher mean improvements in EQ-5D index and VAS scores (compared with patients who did not meet this endpoint) and Diabetes Health Profile-18 scores (versus the main cohorts). High levels of missing data were observed for all PRO measures in both cohorts compared with those for clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

These data from a clinical practice study support those from clinical trials, suggesting that PROs are not adversely affected, and may be improved, by injectable therapy initiation. PRO data may aid appropriate treatment selection for individual patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00635492.