Dataset Information

Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Savings of Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin in Treating Type 2 Diabetes for 1 and 2 Years.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Li Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5984935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhile the liraglutide effect and action in diabetes (LEAD-6) clinical trial compared the efficacy and safety of liraglutide once daily (LIRA) to exenatide twice daily (EXEN) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes, few studies have explored the associated per-patient costs of glycemic goal achievement of their use in a real-world clinical setting.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study used integrated medical and pharmacy claims linked with glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C) results from the IMS Patient-Centric Integrated Data Warehouse. Patients' ≥18 years and naïve to incretin therapies during a 6-month pre-index period, with ≥1 prescription for LIRA or EXEN between January 2010 and December 2010, were included. Patients with evidence of insulin use (pre- or post-index) were excluded. Only patients who were persistent on their index treatment during a 180-day post-index period were included. Follow-up A1C assessments were based on available laboratory data within 45 days before or after the 6-month post-index point in time. Diabetes-related pharmacy costs over the 6-month post-index period were captured and included costs for both the index drugs and concomitant diabetes medications.Results234 LIRA and 182 EXEN patients were identified for the analysis. The adjusted predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs per patient over the 6-month post-index period were higher for LIRA compared to EXEN ($2,002 [95% confidence interval (CI): $1,981, $2,023] vs. $1,799 [95% CI: $1,778, $1,820]; P < 0.001). However, a higher adjusted predicted percentage of patients on LIRA reached A1C < 7% goal (64.4% [95% CI: 63.5, 65.3] vs. 53.6% [95% CI: 52.6, 54.6]; P < 0.05), translating into lower average diabetes-related pharmacy costs per successfully treated patient for LIRA as compared to EXEN ($3,108 vs. $3,354; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsAlthough predicted diabetes-related pharmacy costs were greater with LIRA vs. EXEN, a higher proportion of patients on LIRA achieved A1C < 7%, resulting in a lower per-patient cost of A1C goal achievement with LIRA compared to EXEN.

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:IntroductionThe 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).MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionLiraglutide 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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting. METHODS:Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide. RESULTS:Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. CONCLUSION:Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

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:BACKGROUND:Two common methods of treating pediatric dental patients with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC) are general anesthesia (GA) and conscious sedation (CS). We sought to first evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating S-ECC with GA versus CS and then compare the cost-effectiveness at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. METHODS:We used a decision tree model to produce 2-y estimates of costs and outcomes from the Medicaid perspective. The model cohort consisted of healthy 3-y-olds with S-ECC in need of a theoretical set of dental treatments to be performed under either a single GA visit or 3 CS visits. Outcomes were measured in caries-free months. Costs were evaluated in 2015 US dollars. Costs, probabilities, and outcomes were estimated from published data, expert opinion, and Medicaid billing at an academic health center. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS:As compared with CS, GA resulted in 4 additional caries-free months per child. The cost of a caries-free month for GA versus CS rose from $596 in 2011 to $881 in 2015. These findings were sensitive to loss to follow-up for subsequent CS visits and total cost of GA. CONCLUSIONS:Comprehensive S-ECC treatment had better outcomes when performed under GA versus CS. However, GA was not cost saving when compared with CS. While the cost of dental treatment increased for both GA and CS from 2011 to 2015, the cost rose faster for GA. These results have important implications due to the increasing cost to Medicaid insurance and the rising number of young children being treated for S-ECC under GA. KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT:Medicaid policy makers can use the results of this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of dental treatment for young children with S-ECC at 2 time points: 2011 and 2015. Compared with CS, GA resulted in a longer amount of time during which children were free from dental caries but at a higher cost. The cost difference rose from 2011 to 2015.

Dataset Information

Real-World Clinical Effectiveness and Cost Savings of Liraglutide Versus Sitagliptin in Treating Type 2 Diabetes for 1 and 2 Years.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets