Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Liraglutide Versus Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

To 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.

Methods

Cost-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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusion

This 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.

Funding

Novo Nordisk.

SUBMITTER: Vega-Hernandez G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5446377 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOnce-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.MethodsLong-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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsOnce-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.

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:BackgroundType 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

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: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.