Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Insulin Intensification Regimens for the Treatment of Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the Czech Republic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kvapil M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5688988 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionFew patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) achieve recommended glycemic control targets in the Czech Republic. Novel therapies, such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin plus glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, may contribute to better glycemic control. In the analysis presented here, the present analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of two fixed-ratio combinations, IDegLira (insulin degludec/liraglutide) and iGlarLixi (insulin glargine/lixisenatide), for the treatment of patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with basal insulin from a healthcare payer perspective in the Czech Republic.MethodsA cost-effectiveness analysis was performed over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Treatment effects were obtained from an indirect treatment comparison as no head-to-head data for IDegLira versus iGlarLixi are currently available. IDegLira was compared with two iGlarLixi pens (100 U/mL insulin glargine + 33 μg/mL and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively). Direct medical costs associated with pharmaceutical interventions, screening and diabetes-related complications were captured. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsIDegLira was associated with gains in life expectancy of 0.11 years and in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.14 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) versus iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was also associated with higher projected costs due to higher acquisition costs; however, these were partially offset by cost savings from avoided complications. IDegLira was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Czech Koruna (CZK) 695,998 and CZK 348,323 per QALY gained versus iGlarLixi pens containing 33 and 50 μg/mL of lixisenatide, respectively. These ratios were below the commonly used willingness-to-pay threshold of CZK 1,200,000 per QALY gained.ConclusionThe present analysis indicated that IDegLira was associated with clinical benefits relative to iGlarLixi over patient lifetimes and was likely to be cost-effective in the treatment of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin in the Czech Republic.FundingNovo Nordisk. Plain language summary is available for this article.
| S-EPMC6437226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsTo assess the cost-effectiveness of utilizing IDegLira in comparison to other treatment regimens ( liraglutide and degludec) in managing type 2 diabetes, taking into account the Chinese healthcare system's perspective.MethodsThe clinical data were obtained from the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the DUAL I and DUAL II evidence studies that took place in China. To estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and direct medical costs of patients receiving different treatment strategies from a long-term perspective, the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model version 9.0 (IQVIA, Basel, Switzerland) was utilized. The costs were evaluated from the perspective of the China National Health System. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted annually at 5%, and sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsIDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) versus liraglutide and degludec. A survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over Liraglutide (0.073 years). Lifetime costs were lower by Chinese yuan (CNY) 27,945 on IDegLira than on Liraglutide therapy. A similar survival benefit was observed with IDegLira over degludec (0.068 years). Lifetime costs were lower by CNY 1196 on IDegLira than on degludec therapy. Therefore, IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus liraglutide and degludec with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of Dominant per QALY gained, respectively, under the threshold of three times the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China.ConclusionIDegLira is a cost-effective hypoglycemic treatment option that delivers positive clinical outcomes while also reducing costs for Chinese patients living with type 2 diabetes.
| S-EPMC10439551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAchieving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes is important as it reduces the risk of complications and their related clinical and economic burden. Yet therapeutic inertia due to the fear of hypoglycemia, complex treatment regimens, weight gain, and therapy costs, among others, limits achieving glycemic control. This analysis aims to assess the short-term cost of control (cost per patient achieving treatment goals) with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus other forms of basal insulin intensification (insulin glargine titration, basal-bolus therapy, and the combination of insulin glargine and lixisenatide: IGlarLixi) in type 2 diabetes patients not controlled with basal insulin in the Mexican private setting.MethodsThe proportion of patients achieving treatment goals was obtained from DUAL V and DUAL VII studies (full trial population) and a indirect treatment comparison analyzing IDegLira versus IGlarLixi. Annual cost of treatment was estimated using unitary costs from IQVIA's Pharmaceutical Market Mexico (PMM) audit and wholesale acquisition costs (both from December 2021). The cost of control was estimated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the corresponding treatment goal: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1C) < 7.0%, HbA1C < 7.0% without weight gain, HbA1C < 7.0% without hypoglycemia, and HbA1C < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and weight gain. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess how variations in the model inputs impacted cost-effectiveness outcomes.ResultsThe proportion of patients achieving treatment goals was higher for IDegLira versus other forms of basal insulin intensification in all endpoints assessed. The annual cost of treatment with IDegLira was similar to the cost of treatment versus IGlarLixi or versus basal-bolus therapy ($54,659 versus $55,831 MXN and $51,008 versus $52,987 MXN, respectively), and higher in comparison with insulin glargine titration ($52,186 versus $40,194 MXN). The cost of controlling one patient with IDegLira was lower than any other form of basal insulin intensification, for all treatment goals.ConclusionWhen integrating the greater clinical efficacy of IDegLira with its annual cost, it can be shown that within 1 year, IDegLira is the best option in terms of value for money for payers in a private healthcare setting in Mexico in comparison with other forms of basal insulin intensification. Thus, investing in IDegLira not only represents a greater clinical benefit, but also an economical one for payers.
| S-EPMC10471528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionIDegLira is a once-daily combination of insulin degludec (IDeg) and liraglutide. Trials directly comparing IDegLira with alternative strategies for intensifying basal insulin are ongoing. While awaiting results, this analysis compared indirectly how different strategies affected glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and other outcomes.MethodsA pooled analysis of five completed Novo Nordisk randomized clinical trials in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin was used to compare indirectly IDegLira (N = 199) with: addition of liraglutide to basal insulin (N = 225) [glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) add-on strategy]; basal-bolus (BB) insulin [insulin glargine (IGlar) + insulin aspart] (N = 56); or up-titration of IGlar (N = 329). A supplementary analysis was performed with the BB arm including patients who received IGlar or IDeg as basal insulin in the relevant trial (N = 210). All trials had comparable inclusion/exclusion criteria and baseline characteristics. Individual patient-level data were analyzed using multivariable statistical models with potential baseline heterogeneity accounted for using explanatory variables.ResultsAt end of study, differences between IDegLira and BB or up-titrated IGlar, respectively, were as follows: reduction in HbA1c -0.30%, 95% confidence interval (-0.58; -0.01) and -0.65% (-0.83; -0.47); change in body weight -6.89 kg (-7.92; -5.86) and -4.04 kg (-4.69; -3.40) all in favor of IDegLira. Confirmed hypoglycemia rate was 122.8 (90.7; 166.1), 1060.8 (680.2; 1654.4), and 286.1 (231.1; 354.1) events/100 patient-years for IDegLira, BB, and up-titrated IGlar, respectively. Odds ratios for achieving HbA1c <7.0%, <7.0% without hypoglycemia, and <7.0% without hypoglycemia and no weight gain were greater with IDegLira versus up-titrated IGlar. The supplementary analysis yielded similar results to the main analysis. Results with IDegLira were similar to those for the 'GLP-1RA add-on' arm.ConclusionThese results suggest that IDegLira may be more effective, with lower hypoglycemia rates and less weight gain, than up-titrated basal insulin or BB in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin.
| S-EPMC4674480 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTreatment with IDegLira has the potential to improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without the weight gain and with a lower risk of hypoglycemia than with other therapies. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus insulin glargine U100 with re-education and up-titration of the dose for treatment of patients with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.MethodsData were obtained from the DUAL V randomized controlled trial in which adults with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic targets with insulin glargine U100 were randomly allocated to receive either IDegLira or insulin glargine U100. Long-term projections of clinical outcomes and direct costs were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.ResultsIDegLira was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (13.99 [standard deviation 0.19] versus 13.82 [standard deviation 0.20] years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.14 [standard deviation 0.12] versus 8.87 [standard deviation 0.13] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared to insulin glargine U100. IDegLira was associated with increased direct costs of $16,970, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $63,678 per QALY gained versus insulin glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses identified that the key driver of cost-effectiveness was the greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin with IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100.ConclusionsBased on head-to-head clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is likely to improve long-term clinical outcomes for patients with T2DM not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin compared to re-education and up-titration of the dose of insulin glargine U100, with these improvements coming at an increased cost from a healthcare payer perspective. An ICER within the range described as high care value was calculated, suggesting IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the US.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc.
| S-EPMC5446378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are a priority group for intensified therapy without weight gain and with low risk of hypoglycaemia.ObjectiveThis study evaluates the cost effectiveness of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira, Xultophy®) compared with six potential intensification treatment options for patients with T2DM that is uncontrolled with basal insulin.MethodsThe Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE) Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used with Swedish input data, a 40-year time frame and a societal perspective. The comparators for treatment intensification included insulin glargine, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, insulin aspart plus either glargine or NPH, and liraglutide plus either glargine or NPH. Clinical data for all comparators (except NPH insulin) were based on an indirect treatment comparison of several studies. Prices were obtained from the 2014 Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket [TLV]) database, and utility values were obtained from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsOverall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were Swedish krona (SEK) 70,000 or lower per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). IDegLira compared with intensified basal insulin showed an ICER of SEK 28,000 per QALY versus insulin glargine, SEK70,000 per QALY versus NPH insulin and SEK 60,000 per QALY versus NPH insulin plus liraglutide. IDegLira was dominant over insulin glargine plus liraglutide and insulin aspart plus insulin glargine or NPH insulin. Results were driven by the difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between treatments, as confirmed by sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsIDegLira is estimated to be a cost-effective treatment in Sweden compared with commonly used intensification treatments for patients with T2DM uncontrolled with basal insulin.
| S-EPMC5343072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China.MethodsThe CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results.ResultsCompared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionCompared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.
| S-EPMC9623119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe fixed-ratio combinations (FRCs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) and basal insulin, insulin glargine 100 U/mL plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi), and insulin degludec plus liraglutide (iDegLira), have demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on GLP-1 RAs. However, a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis between these FRCs from a UK Health Service perspective has not been conducted.MethodsThe IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes in patients with T2DM receiving iGlarLixi (based on the LixiLan-G trial) versus iDegLira (based on relative treatment effects from an indirect treatment comparison using data from DUAL III). Utilities, medical costs, and costs of diabetes-related complications were derived from literature. Model outputs included costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated with a local willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Extensive scenario, one-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model.ResultsiGlarLixi was less costly (iGlarLixi, £30,011; iDegLira, £40,742), owing to lower acquisition costs, and similar in terms of QALYs gained (iGlarLixi, 8.437; iDegLira, 8.422). Extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses supported the base case findings.ConclusionIn patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control despite GLP-1 RAs, use of iGlarLixi was associated with substantial cost savings and comparable utility outcomes. iGlarLixi can be considered as cost-effective versus iDegLira from the UK Health Service perspective.
| S-EPMC8586382 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market.MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses.ResultsIDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DMBOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DMB/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DMBOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DMBOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar® and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo®). In T2DMB/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold.ConclusionIDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.
| S-EPMC5380498 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Insulin analogues may be associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than conventional insulins. However, they are costly alternatives. We compared the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues and conventional insulins used to treat type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of insulin analogues versus conventional insulins using the Center for Outcomes Research Diabetes Model. We compared rapid-acting analogues (insulin aspart and insulin lispro) with regular human insulin, and long-acting analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. We derived clinical information for the comparisons from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. We obtained cost and utility estimates from published sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our results. RESULTS: For type 1 diabetes, insulin aspart was more effective and less costly than regular human insulin. Insulin lispro was associated with an incremental cost of Can$28,996 per quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was Can$87,932 for insulin glargine and Can$387,729 for insulin detemir, compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. For type 2 diabetes, insulin aspart was associated with an incremental cost of Can$22,488 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with regular human insulin. For insulin lispro, the incremental cost was Can$130,865. Compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, insulin detemir was less effective and more costly. Insulin glargine was associated with an incremental cost of Can$642,994 per quality-adjusted life-year. The model was sensitive to changes in the effect size of hemoglobin A(1c) and to decrements applied to utility scores when fear of hypoglycemia was included as a factor. INTERPRETATION: The cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues depends on the type of insulin analogue and whether the patient receiving the treatment has type 1 or type 2 diabetes. With the exception of rapid-acting insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes, routine use of insulin analogues, especially long-acting analogues in type 2 diabetes, is unlikely to represent an efficient use of finite health care resources.
| S-EPMC2638053 | biostudies-other