Dataset Information

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide with sitagliptin and assess the associated economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated in real-world practice in the United States (US).

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used a large US claims database to identify patients with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin between January 2010 and December 2012. Adults (?18 years old) with persistent use of therapy for ?3 months were included. Changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and the proportion of patients achieving A1C targets (?6.5% and <7%) were examined at 6-month follow-up. Diabetes-related total, medical, and pharmacy costs over the follow-up period were assessed. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate the outcomes associated with liraglutide relative to sitagliptin, adjusting for differences in patient demographics and clinical characteristics.

Results

The study included 1,465 patients with T2DM who initiated liraglutide (N = 376) or sitagliptin (N = 1,089) (mean age [standard deviation (SD)]: 54 [8.9] vs. 58 [10.8] years; 43.9% vs. 61.8% males; both P < 0.01). After controlling for confounding factors, liraglutide patients experienced 0.31% points greater reduction in A1C (0.95% vs. 0.63% points; P < 0.01) at 6-month follow-up than sitagliptin patients and were more likely to reach A1C targets of ?6.5% (odds ratio [OR]: 2.00; P < 0.01) and <7% (OR: 1.55; P < 0.01). Liraglutide patients had $994 lower mean diabetes-related medical costs ($1,241 vs. $2,235; P < 0.01), but $544 higher diabetes-related pharmacy costs ($2,100 vs. $1,556; P < 0.01) during the follow-up. No difference was found in the total mean diabetes-related costs between the two cohorts.

Conclusion

Liraglutide showed greater improvement in glycemic outcomes than sitagliptin among adult patients with T2DM in real-world clinical practice. Although diabetes-related pharmacy costs for patients using liraglutide were higher compared with sitagliptin, these were offset by significantly lower diabetes-related medical costs, resulting in similar total diabetes-related costs between the two treatment groups.

SUBMITTER: Li Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4269653 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

Li Qian Q Chitnis Abhishek A Hammer Mette M Langer Jakob J

Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders 20140926 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of liraglutide with sitagliptin and assess the associated economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treated in real-world practice in the United States (US).<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective cohort study used a large US claims database to identify patients with T2DM who initiated liraglutide or sitagliptin between January 2010 and December 2012. Adults (≥18 years old) with persist ...[more]

PMID: 25256818

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundDiabetes is associated with substantial clinical and economic burdens on patients and on the US healthcare system. Treatment options for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes have increased significantly, from only 3 drug classes in 1995 to more than 12 distinct classes today. Although several of the newer treatments are reported to have improved efficacy and safety profiles, they are often substantially more costly than older medications. Consequently, as drug options increase, the cost of diabetes management continues to grow.ObjectivesTo estimate the annual real-world costs of type 1 and 2 diabetes, as well as diabetes prevalence, treatment patterns, care quality, and resource utilization during 8 years.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we examined 8 annual cohorts of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes, on a biennial basis, using claims data from the HealthCore Integrated Research Database between 2006 and 2014. Patients were matched with controls by age, sex, residency, and health plan type. We assessed the prevalence of diabetes, treatment patterns, care quality measures, and all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs using 2 methods. Method 1 calculated the annual costs as the difference in all-cause costs between patients with diabetes and matched controls. Method 2 calculated the costs for healthcare encounters based on specific codes for a diabetes diagnosis or for antidiabetes medications.ResultsBetween 346,486 and 410,234 patients with type 2 diabetes and between 21,176 and 26,228 patients with type 1 diabetes were included in each study year cohort. Between 2007 and 2014, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes increased from 4.9% to 6.3%. The costs associated with using Method 1 were almost double the cost estimates in Method 2 during most of the study period. For patients with type 1 diabetes, the associated costs were twice greater with Method 1 than with Method 2. Projections to the entire US population in 2014 indicated a total of 19.3 million individuals with diabetes and associated direct costs of $314.8 billion that year.ConclusionCost estimates can guide the prioritization of healthcare expenditures. The results of this study showed that costs attributable to diabetes differed by approximately 2-fold, depending on the estimation method. The management of the escalating expenses for diabetes management in the United States requires judicious selection of the methods for estimating costs.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The prevalence of endometriosis and the need for treatment in the USA has led to the need to explore the contemporary cost burden associated with the disease. This retrospective cohort study compared direct and indirect healthcare costs in patients with endometriosis to a control group without endometriosis. METHODS:Women aged 18-49 years with endometriosis (date of initial diagnosis = index date) were identified in the Truven Health MarketScan® Commercial database between 2010 and 2014 and female control patients without endometriosis were matched by age and index year. The following outcomes were compared: healthcare resource utilization (HRU) during the 12-month pre- and post-index periods (including inpatient admissions, pharmacy claims, emergency room visits, physician office visits, and obstetrics/gynecology visits), annual direct (medical and pharmacy) and indirect (absenteeism, short-term disability, and long-term disability) healthcare costs during the 12-month post-index period (in 2014 US$). Multivariate analyses were conducted to estimate annual total direct and indirect costs, controlling for demographics, pre-index clinical characteristics, and pre-index healthcare costs. RESULTS:Overall, 113,506 endometriosis patients and 927,599 controls were included. Endometriosis patients had significantly higher HRU during both the pre- and post-index periods compared to controls (p < 0.0001, all categories of HRU). Approximately two-thirds of endometriosis patients underwent an endometriosis-related surgical procedure (including laparotomy, laparoscopy, hysterectomy, oophorectomy, and other excision/ablation procedures) in the first 12 months post-index. Mean annual total adjusted direct costs per endometriosis patient during the 12-month post-index period was over three times higher than that for a non-endometriosis control [$16,573 (standard deviation (SD) = $21,336) vs. $4733 (SD = $14,833); p < 0.005]. On average, incremental direct and indirect 12-month costs per endometriosis patient were $10,002 and $2132 compared to their matched controls (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Endometriosis patients incurred significantly higher direct and indirect healthcare costs than non-endometriosis patients. FUNDING:AbbVie Inc.

Project description:IntroductionTreatments like glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists carry low hypoglycemia risk and are recommended for elderly patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), while some routine treatments, like insulin, increase hypoglycemia risk. The DISPEL-Advance (Dulaglutide vs Basal InSulin in Injection Naïve Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Effectiveness in ReaL World) study compared glycemic outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs in elderly patients with T2D who initiated treatment with dulaglutide versus those initiating treatment with basal insulin.MethodsThis observational, retrospective cohort study used data from the Optum Research Database. Medicare Advantage patients (≥ 65 years) with T2D were assigned to dulaglutide or basal insulin cohorts based on pharmacy claims and propensity score matched on demographic and baseline characteristics. Change in HbA1c, 12-months follow-up HbA1c, and follow-up all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared.ResultsPropensity score matching yielded well-balanced cohorts with 1891 patients each (mean age: dulaglutide, 72.09 years; basal insulin, 72.56 years). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly greater mean HbA1c reduction from baseline to follow-up than basal insulin cohort (- 0.95% vs - 0.69%; p < 0.001). The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower mean all-cause and diabetes-related medical costs (all-cause: $8306 vs $12,176; diabetes-related: $4681 vs $7582 respectively; p < 0.001) and lower mean all-cause total costs ($18,646 vs $20,972, respectively; p = 0.007) than basal insulin cohort. The dulaglutide cohort had significantly lower all-cause and diabetes-related total costs per 1% change in HbA1c than basal insulin cohort (all-cause: $19,729 vs $30,334; diabetes-related: $12,842 vs $17,288, respectively; p < 0.001).ConclusionsElderly patients with T2D initiating dulaglutide had greater HbA1c reduction, lower mean all-cause medical and total costs, lower diabetes-related medical costs, and lower total all-cause and diabetes-related costs per 1% change in HbA1c than patients initiating basal insulin. Future studies assessing medications that do not increase hypoglycemia risk could help inform therapeutic strategies in elderly patients.

Project description:Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic metabolic disease with substantial morbidity, mortality, and economic impacts. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as once-daily (QD) liraglutide and once-weekly (QW) exenatide, are FDA-approved treatment for T2DM. Head-to-head trials and meta-analyses comparing these agents have reported clinically meaningful improvements but small differences in glycemic control between both agents. In this study, we calculate and compare the cost-effectiveness implications of these alternative effectiveness outcomes.We developed a decision model to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide QW 2 mg versus liraglutide QD 1.8 mg in T2DM patients, with effectiveness measured as reduction in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). In the base case, the model tracks change in HbA1c and direct medical expenditure over a 6-month time horizon. We calculated and compared the cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of models populated with clinical data from a head-to-head randomized, controlled trial (DURATION-6) and a network meta-analysis. Expenditure inputs were derived from wholesale acquisition costs and published sources.In the base case, 6-month expenditure for the liraglutide and exenatide strategies were $3,509 and $2,618, respectively. Using clinical data from DURATION-6 and the network meta-analysis, the liraglutide strategy had an incremental cost per 1% reduction in HbA1c of $4,773 and $27,179, respectively. The most influential model parameters were drug costs, magnitude of HbA1c reduction in patients on treatment for >1 month, and liraglutide gastrointestinal adverse event rate. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) using DURATION-6 data, the exenatide strategy was optimal at willingness-to-pay levels below $4,800 per 1% reduction in HbA1c. In a PSA using meta-analysis data, the exenatide strategy was dominant.Our modeled results demonstrate that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of liraglutide QD 1.8 mg relative to exenatide QW 2 mg depend largely on the chosen source of the clinical data.

Dataset Information

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Real-world clinical and economic outcomes of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets