Dataset Information

Incretin therapy for type 2 diabetes in Spain: a cost-effectiveness analysis of liraglutide versus sitagliptin.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, which target the incretin axis, has the potential to improve glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients without the weight gain associated with traditional therapies. To evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of incretin therapies, the present study aimed to compare the long-term clinical and cost implications associated with liraglutide and sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients in Spain.

Methods

Data were taken from a randomized, controlled trial (NCT00700817) in which adults with type 2 diabetes failing metformin monotherapy were randomly allocated to receive either liraglutide 1.2 mg or sitagliptin 100 mg daily in addition to metformin. Long-term projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2012 EUR) based on observed treatment effects were made using a published and validated type 2 diabetes model. Costs were taken from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

Liraglutide was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (14.05 versus 13.91 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.04 versus 8.87 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] compared to sitagliptin. Improved clinical outcomes were driven by improved glycemic control, leading to reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications, including renal disease, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmic and diabetic foot complications. Liraglutide was associated with increased direct costs of EUR 2,297, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 13,266 per QALY gained versus sitagliptin.

Conclusions

Liraglutide was projected to improve life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduce incidence of diabetes-related complication. Liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective versus sitagliptin from a healthcare payer perspective in Spain.

SUBMITTER: Mezquita Raya P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889333 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMetformin is the first-line therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes, but the majority require treatment intensification at some stage due to the progressive nature of the disease. The 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial showed that liraglutide exhibited greater improvements compared with sitagliptin in glycated hemoglobin and body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy. As a follow-up to a previously published cost-effectiveness analysis of 1.2 mg liraglutide versus sitagliptin in Spain, the aim of this analysis was to compare long-term projections of the clinical and cost implications associated with 1.8 mg liraglutide and sitagliptin.MethodsFor the modeling analysis, 52-week treatment effect data (as opposed to 26-week data in the previous analysis) were taken from the 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 trial, for adults with type 2 diabetes receiving 1.8 mg liraglutide or 100 mg sitagliptin daily in addition to metformin. Long-term (patient lifetime) projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs (2012 EUR) were made using a published and validated model of type 2 diabetes, with modeling assumptions as per the 1.2 mg liraglutide analysis.ResultsLiraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy (14.24 versus 13.87 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.24 versus 8.84 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] over sitagliptin. Improved clinical outcomes were attributable to the improvement in glycemic control, leading to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications, including renal disease, cardiovascular disease, ophthalmic and diabetic foot complications. Liraglutide was associated with increased direct costs (EUR 56,628 versus EUR 52,450), driven by increased pharmacy costs. Based on these estimates, liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 10,436 per QALY gained versus sitagliptin.ConclusionsA previous analysis has suggested that 1.2 mg liraglutide is cost-effective from a healthcare payer perspective in Spain, and the present analysis suggests that the 1.8 mg dose is also likely to be cost-effective.

Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are used successfully in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes as they are associated with low hypoglycemia rates, weight loss and improved glycemic control. This study compared, in the Spanish setting, the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, both GLP-1 receptor agonists, for patients with type 2 diabetes who had not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy.MethodsThe IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs, expressed in 2015 Euros, over patient lifetimes. Baseline cohort data and treatment effects were taken from the 26-week, open-label LIRA-LIXI™ trial (NCT01973231). Treatment and management costs of diabetes-related complications were retrieved from published sources and databases. Future benefits and costs were discounted by 3% annually. Sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsCompared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with higher life expectancy (14.42 vs. 14.29 years), higher quality-adjusted life expectancy [9.40 versus 9.26 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Higher acquisition costs resulted in higher total costs for liraglutide 1.8 mg (EUR 42,689) than for lixisenatide 20 μg (EUR 42,143), but these were partly offset by reduced costs of treating diabetes-related complications (EUR 29,613 vs. EUR 30,636). Projected clinical outcomes and costs resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 4113 per QALY gained for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg.ConclusionsLong-term projections in the Spanish setting suggest that liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg in type 2 diabetes patients who have not achieved glycemic control targets on metformin monotherapy. Liraglutide 1.8 mg presents a clinically and economically attractive treatment option in the Spanish setting.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:This study compared the clinical and economic outcomes of long-term use of liraglutide versus sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in real-world practice in the USA. METHODS:We identified adult patients (≥ 18 years old) with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin in 2010-2014 using a large claims database. Quarterly glycemic control measures and annual healthcare costs were assessed during the 1st and 2nd years of persistent medication use. Their associations with medication use (liraglutide or sitagliptin) were estimated using multivariable regression models adjusted for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS:A total of 3113 patients persistently used liraglutide (N = 493) or sitagliptin (N = 2620) for ≥ 1 year [mean age (standard deviation, SD): 53 (8.5) vs. 56 (9.7) years; 48.3% vs. 62.3% males; both p < 0.05]; 911 (including 113 liraglutide users) were persistent users for ≥ 2 years. During the 1st-year follow-up, liraglutide users (versus sitagliptin users, after adjustment) experienced larger glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) reductions from baseline (ranging from 0.34%-point in quarter 1 to 0.21%-point in quarter 4); higher likelihoods of obtaining HbA1c reductions of ≥ 1%-points or ≥ 2%-points [odds ratios (ORs) range 1.47-2.04]; and higher likelihoods of reaching HbA1c goals of < 6.5% or < 7% (ORs range 1.51-2.12) (all p < 0.05). Liraglutide users also experienced HbA1c reductions from baseline in the 2nd-year follow-up (0.53-0.33%-point, all p < 0.05). Although liraglutide users incurred higher healthcare costs than sitagliptin users during the 1st-year follow-up, they had $2674 (per patient) lower all-cause medical costs (adjusted cost ratio: 0.67, p < 0.05) and similar total costs (all-cause and diabetes-related) in the 2nd year. CONCLUSION:Long-term use of liraglutide for 1 or 2 years was associated with better glycemic control than using sitagliptin. Savings in medical costs were realized for liraglutide users during the 2nd year of persistent treatment, which offset differences in pharmacy costs. FUNDING:Novo Nordisk Inc.

Project description:BackgroundEffective glycemic control can reduce the risk of serious micro- and macrovascular complications in type 2 diabetes. However, many patients fail to reach glycemic targets due partly to low efficacy and adverse effects of treatment such as hypoglycemia or weight gain.ObjectiveTo evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin, in terms of cost per patient reaching a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target with no hypoglycemia and no weight gain after 52 weeks, based on a recently published trial. MethodsData were taken from a 52-week randomized, controlled trial (NCT00700817) in which adults with type 2 diabetes (mean age = 55 years, HbA1c = 8.4%, body mass index = 33 kg/m2) failing metformin monotherapy were randomly allocated to receive either liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, or sitagliptin 100 mg daily, in addition to metformin. For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the proportion of patients achieving a clinically relevant composite endpoint, defined as HbA1c less than 7.0%, with no reported hypoglycemia  and no gain in body weight, was estimated using logistic regression. Trial data showed that 38.9% of patients on liraglutide 1.2 mg and 49.9% on liraglutide 1.8 mg achieved the composite endpoint, compared with 18.6% on sitagliptin at 52 weeks. Costs of antihyperglycemia medications were accounted for based on published wholesale acquisition costs in 2012 U.S. dollars. ResultsOverall pharmacy costs (needle costs included) were higher for patients on liraglutide than sitagliptin. The cost per patient achieving an HbA1c less than 7% was lowest for patients receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg ($7,993) and highest for patients receiving sitagliptin ($11,570). When expressed as the mean cost per patient reaching target HbA1c with no hypoglycemia or weight gain (cost of control), costs were notably lower on liraglutide than on sitagliptin. Annual mean costs of control were $10,335 on liraglutide 1.2 mg and $11,755 on liraglutide 1.8 mg versus $16,858 on sitagliptin.ConclusionThe mean cost per patient achieving control, defined as reaching HbA1c target with no hypoglycemia or weight gain, was lower with liraglutide than with sitagliptin based on data from a recently published 52-week clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundWe assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions.ResultsFrom the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20μg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model.ConclusionsThe costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 μg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving.

Project description:AimLiraglutide, a once-daily subcutaneous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, is approved for treatment of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). For patients with established cardiovascular diseases, liraglutide has also been shown to reduce major cardiovascular events. However, its cost is relatively higher than other oral antidiabetic drugs. This study aims to compare the costs and benefits of liraglutide vs sitagliptin, in treating T2DM in Thailand.MethodsThis study consists of two parts. In part 1, the cost of keeping T2DM under control per patient (HbA1c<7.0% with no reported hypoglycemia and no body weight gain) with liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg daily) was compared with using sitagliptin (100 mg daily). Costs were based on Thai local data. Clinical outcomes were based on head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Part 2 estimated the cost-per-controlled patient, based on major cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke). Economic benefit was calculated as the reduction in cardiovascular outcomes.ResultsIn Thailand, liraglutide (1.8 mg daily) costs 7.37-times more than sitagliptin 100 mg. The cost per patient achieving a composite clinical endpoint (HbA1c<7.0%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with T2DM receiving liraglutide 1.8 mg is 2.80-times higher than patients receiving sitagliptin 100 mg. When cardiovascular benefits (reduced composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events, ie, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) were taken into account, it was found that liraglutide had lower cost than sitagliptin, resulting in estimated savings of 20,085 THB (620 USD) per patient per year.ConclusionThe clinical benefits of liraglutide (HbA1c<7.0%, no hypoglycemia, no weight gain, reduced cardiovascular outcomes) partly offset its high price. Therefore, liraglutide should be considered as an appropriate treatment alternative to sitagliptin, particularly for T2DM patients with high cardiovascular risks.

Project description:IntroductionThe increasing financial burden associated with diabetes treatment presents a challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Recently, clinical guidelines have focussed on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and established cardiovascular disease (CVD) and recommend a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor or a glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist as second-line treatment after metformin or independently of baseline glycated haemogloblin A1c (HbA1c). In Danish clinical guidelines, empagliflozin and liraglutide are highlighted owing to their positive impact on mortality. Thus, this study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin plus standard of care (SoC) versus liraglutide plus SoC in Danish patients with T2D and established CVD using a lifetime and 5-year horizon.MethodsThe IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the clinical event rates observed in the cardiovascular outcome trial EMPA-REG OUTCOME. Network meta-analysis provided the relative risks for cardiovascular outcomes with empagliflozin versus liraglutide. Microvascular outcomes were predicted by standard CDM risk equations. The relative treatment effect was assumed for 9 years after which treatment was switched to basal-bolus therapy. The CDM was populated with Danish costs of events and drug costs at price-level 2019. Discounting of 4% was applied.ResultsOver a lifetime horizon, CDM projected 9.858 and 9.667 life years, 6.162 and 5.976 quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and DKK 478,026 (€64,079) and DKK 500,025 (€67,027) in total costs for empagliflozin plus SoC and liraglutide plus SoC, respectively. For a 5-year horizon, the results were 4.189 and 4.140 life years, 2.746 and 2.655 QALY, as well as DKK 123,413 (€16,543) and DKK 161,783 (€21,687), respectively. Empagliflozin was the dominant treatment alternative. Sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of these results.ConclusionThe cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that empagliflozin plus SoC is dominant compared to liraglutide plus SoC in Denmark over both lifetime and 5-year horizons.

Project description:IntroductionTo date there is a lack of economic analysis comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) to sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Liraglutide and dapagliflozin are the most commonly prescribed GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in the UK. This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg/day compared to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day for the treatment of T2DM in the UK in patients on dual and triple antidiabetic therapy.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM). The model estimated expected costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon using the UK national payer perspective. Liraglutide efficacy estimates and patient characteristics were sourced from a trial in patients on prior metformin monotherapy, and from a trial in patients on prior combination therapy. Comparative efficacy data for the other interventions were derived from a network meta-analysis. Utility inputs were extracted from a systematic literature review. Costs are presented in Great British Pound (GBP), 2016 values.ResultsIn dual and triple therapy, liraglutide 1.2 mg was less costly and more effective compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg, providing a QALY gain of 0.04 and cost savings of GBP 11 per patient in dual therapy, and a QALY gain of 0.06 and cost savings of GBP 71 per patient in triple therapy. For liraglutide 1.8 mg, increased efficacy and costs compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg were observed in both dual and triple therapy. In dual therapy, a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional costs of GBP 888 per patient yielded an ICER of GBP 13,227, whereas in triple therapy a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional cost of GBP 791 per patient gave an ICER of 11,857.ConclusionThis long-term modelling analysis found that both dosages of liraglutide may be cost-effective treatment alternatives as part of a dual or a triple antidiabetic therapy in patients for whom an SGLT-2i therapy is considered.FundingNovo Nordisk.