A cost-utility analysis of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine as third-line therapy for Type 2 diabetes in Canada

Glycemic and Cost Outcomes among Hispanic/Latino People with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA Initiating Dulaglutide versus Basal Insulin: a Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

Optimal glycemic management after diabetes onset remains a challenge in Hispanic/Latino adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), often resulting in poor health outcomes and higher rates of diabetes-related complications. The aim of this study was to examine and compare demographic and clinical characteristics, glycemic outcomes, health care resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among injection-naïve Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D initiating dulaglutide or basal insulin.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study used administrative claims data from the Optum Research Database. Hispanic/Latino adults with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts on the basis of pharmacy claims and were propensity-score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Measures of glycemic management included 12 month follow-up glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and change in HbA1c from baseline. Follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related HCRU and costs, including costs per 1% change in HbA1c, were compared between cohorts.

RESULTS

The final propensity-score matched sample included 2872 patients: 1436 patients in each cohort. Mean (SD) reduction in HbA1c from baseline to 12 month follow-up was greater in the dulaglutide cohort compared with the basal insulin cohort [-1.40% (1.88) versus -0.92% (2.07); p < 0.001]. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower proportions of patients with ≥ 1 all-cause and diabetes-related outpatient visits, emergency room visits, and inpatient stays compared with the basal insulin cohort (p < 0.05). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause total costs per 1% HbA1c reduction than the basal insulin cohort ($13,768 versus $19,128; p < 0.001). Diabetes-related costs per 1% reduction were numerically lower for the dulaglutide cohort, but the difference was not statistically significant ($9737 versus $11,403; p = 0.081).

CONCLUSIONS

Dulaglutide demonstrated better glycemic outcomes and lower all-cause costs per 1% HbA1c reduction among Hispanic/Latino adults compared with those initiating basal insulin. Our real-world findings in the Hispanic/Latino population were consistent with results obtained from the overall population and confirm the glycemic benefits of dulaglutide observed in clinical settings.

GLP-1 RAs in Spain: A Short Narrative Review of Their Use in Real Clinical Practice

Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of drugs with potent glucose-lowering activity. Additionally, some GLP-1 RAs have demonstrated cardiovascular and renal benefits. Current guidelines recommend their use in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high risk of or with established cardiovascular disease (CVD), regardless of glycaemic control, with lifestyle modification and metformin. However, several studies have recently highlighted the limited number of patients with T2D benefiting from these medications worldwide. Given the huge burden of CVD among patients with T2D, efforts should be made to bring clinical practice closer to expert guidelines. This review describes the current situation of GLP-1 RA use in Spain and the reasons behind the gap between guidelines and real-world practice and suggests possible solutions. Administrative issues, lack of awareness of the cardiovascular benefits, clinical inertia, rejection of injectable medication and costs could be some of the reasons for the current situation. Possible strategies that could help to close the gap include encouraging a multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of diabetes which involves cardiologists, endocrinologists, nephrologists, primary care providers and pharmacists; improved awareness of comorbidities and earlier evaluation and treatment or risks; and better education of healthcare providers regarding the cardioprotective benefits of these drugs.

Value of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus long-acting insulins for type 2 diabetes patients with and without established cardiovascular or chronic kidney diseases: A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis using real-world data

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus long-acting insulins (LAIs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) using real-world data.

METHODS

A Markov model was utilized to estimate healthcare costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of receiving treatments over 10 years from the healthcare sector perspective. Model inputs were derived from the analyses of Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database or published literature on Taiwanese T2D populations. Base-case analysis was performed for the overall study cohort and subgroup analyses were stratified by the presence or absence of established cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) or chronic kidney diseases (CKDs).

RESULTS

Overall, using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs cost $6,053 per QALY gained. Results were robust across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Among patients with established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy saved $673 (cost-saving) and cost $1,675 per QALY gained, respectively. Among patients without established CVDs and CKDs, GLP-1RA versus LAI therapy cost $9,093 and $7,659 per QALY gained, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus LAIs for T2D patients represented good economic value in real-world practice. Pronounced economic benefits of GLP-1RA therapy among those with prior CVDs or CKDs support rational treatment decisions and optimal healthcare resource allocation for these patients.

Economic burden of diabetes-related hypoglycemia on patients, payors, and employers

The economic and psychological consequences of diabetes-related hypoglycemic events are multifold and shared across various parties, including patients and their family or caregivers, payors, and employers. Hypoglycemic events contribute to increased morbidity, mortality, and a substantial portion of diabetes economic burden. Both severe and non-severe hypoglycemic episodes contribute to economic and psychological burden, and can have short-term consequences, such as emergency services, hospitalization, clinic visits, and increased use of diabetes supplies. Severe hypoglycemic events also generate additional follow-up costs, and are likely to occur again. Left untreated, hypoglycemia can have long-term consequences including, death, cardiovascular events, and cognitive issues. Costs vary geographically based on the treatment protocols which focus on outpatient treatment versus increased in-patient hospitalization. Certain types of medications are also associated with increased hypoglycemia, which requires closer monitoring of the patient, such as with basal insulin initiation. Some individuals with diabetes may be more vulnerable to hypoglycemia, such as the elderly, postoperative bariatric patients, and adolescent females. Measures to mitigate hypoglycemia are essential to ease the economic burden of these events. Medication management, optimal glucose control, lifestyle modifications and frequent glucose monitoring are some interventions which may help prevent hypoglycemia.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Economic Evaluation of Dulaglutide vs Traditional Therapies: Implications of the Outcomes of the Rewind Study

Background

Diabetes represents a relevant public health problem worldwide due to its growing prevalence and socioeconomic burden, principally due to the development of macrovascular and microvascular complications as well as to the continuous launch of new and even more expensive drugs. The aim of our study is to evaluate the economic impact of dulaglutide, a weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist, on the treatment of diabetic patients as an alternative to both high dose sulphonylureas and insulin basalization at the failure of oral therapies alone. We carried out a cost-effectiveness analysis developed considering the economic implications of recent clinical studies regarding cardiovascular risk drug effects and especially of REWIND studies outcomes, focusing on the impact of weight changes on HRQoL.

Material and Method

In our analysis, we have applied the cost-utility technique to the above reported clinical outcomes and compared the global costs of dulaglutide versus sulfonylurea or basal insulin, all in add-on with metformin. We have chosen gliclazide, as a sulfonylurea and Abasaglar^®, the less expensive among basal insulin analogues. Abasaglar was titrated to 20 IU, corresponding to the mean dosage used in the treatment of type II diabetic patients. The model aims to estimate total direct costs related to the above-reported treatments and find out the real gap in costs between dulaglutide, the apparently cheaper gliclazide and basal insulin glargine (IGlargine) based on the Italian National Healthcare System (INHS).

Results

The total cost of dulaglutide has resulted in €859.66 higher than gliclazide (€1,579.73 vs €720.07) and basal insulin, although less significantly, reporting a difference of €396.54 (€1,579.73 vs 1,183.19). Except for the purchase cost, dulaglutide has reported reduced costs compared to insulin IGlargine and gliclazide. Dulaglutide showed lower self-monitoring blood glucose and hypoglycaemia costs, a significant reduction in costs related to cardiovascular complications, as well as savings in costs in other drugs. Dulaglutide can be considered a cost-effective antidiabetic therapy, due to the positive impact on the quality of life induced by weight reduction, despite the higher annual cost per patient, mainly influenced by drug purchase cost.

Discussion and Conclusion

In this cost-utility analysis, dulaglutide has shown to be a cost-effective treatment option from the Italian healthcare system perspective as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Study findings can provide stakeholders valuable evidence to support the adoption of this cost-effective second- or third-line therapy compared to gliclazide or basal insulin glargine. Dulaglutide cost-effectiveness has been particularly evident in the comparison with basal insulin glargine, indicating that, in patients who have treatment indication, this therapy may be preferred to basalization avoiding related complications and costs.