A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release, Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the UK.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Johansen P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7089718 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release, Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the UK.
Johansen Pierre P Sandberg Anna A Capehorn Matthew M
Advances in therapy 20200211 3
<h4>Introduction</h4>Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that, in the SUSTAIN clinical trials, has demonstrated greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the other GLP-1 RAs exenatide extended-release (ER) 2 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the relative cost of control of achieving treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekl ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionOnce-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus GLP-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release (ER), liraglutide and lixisenatide in the SUSTAIN trial program and a network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide versus all available GLP-1 receptor agonists in Denmark, using a clinically orientated treatment approach.MethodsOutcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the corresponding SUSTAIN trials and the NMA. Patients were assumed to initiate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy and subsequently treatment-intensify according to clinical treatment guidelines, with addition of basal insulin and switching to basal-bolus insulin occurring when HbA1c exceeded recommended targets. Patients were assumed to receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin therapy once HbA1c levels reached 7.5% and a basal-bolus insulin regimen once HbA1c exceeded 8.0%. Costs were captured in 2017 Danish kroner (DKK), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum.ResultsPrimary analyses indicated that semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.34 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus dulaglutide, achieved at cost savings of DKK 289 and DKK 13,416, respectively. Supporting analyses indicated that both doses of semaglutide were either cost-effective or dominant versus exenatide ER, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg and lixisenatide.ConclusionSemaglutide represents a cost-effective alternative to other GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies available in Denmark, demonstrating clinical benefits versus dulaglutide, exenatide ER, liraglutide and lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with T2D.FundingNovo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.
| S-EPMC6612343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of semaglutide versus dulaglutide, as an add-on to metformin monotherapy, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), from a Canadian societal perspective. METHODS:The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Cohort Model of T2D was used to assess the cost effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) versus once-weekly dulaglutide (0.75 or 1.5 mg) over a 40-year time horizon. Using data from the SUSTAIN 7 trial, which demonstrated comparatively greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index and systolic blood pressure with semaglutide, compared with dulaglutide, a deterministic base-case and scenario simulation were conducted. The robustness of the results was evaluated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses and 15 deterministic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS:The base-case analysis indicated that semaglutide is a dominant treatment option, compared with dulaglutide. Semaglutide was associated with lower total costs (Canadian dollars [CAN$]) versus dulaglutide for both low-dose (CAN$113,287 vs. CAN$113,690; cost-saving: CAN$403) and high-dose (CAN$112,983 vs. CAN$113,695; cost-saving: CAN$711) comparisons. Semaglutide resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and QALY gains, compared with dulaglutide, for both low-dose (11.10 vs. 11.07 QALYs; +?0.04 QALYs) and high-dose (11.12 vs. 11.07 QALYs; +?0.05 QALYs) comparisons. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for 66-73% of iterations, semaglutide was either dominant or was considered cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000. CONCLUSIONS:From a Canadian societal perspective, semaglutide may be a cost-effective treatment option versus dulaglutide in patients with T2D who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
| S-EPMC6861407 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsOnce-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.Materials and methodsThe IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective.ResultsSemaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg.ConclusionsSemaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.
| S-EPMC10290607 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7467468 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundType 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and in Colombia, representing one of the main causes of death and placing a considerable burden on healthcare systems. 13 classes of drugs are approved for the treatment of T2DM, with Glucagon-like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists being a first-line treatment option for patients with or at high risk of certain cardiovascular diseases and chronic kidney disease. The objective of this study is to conduct a short-term cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-weekly dulaglutide in Colombian adults with T2DM, from a third-party payer perspective.MethodsNumbers needed to treat were calculated for different single and composite endpoints of the SUSTAIN 7 trial, annual costs for once weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg were extracted from the public SISMED database. With these inputs a cost of control model was developed, to obtain the annual cost of bringing one T2DM patient to relevant clinical outcomes by using semaglutide or dulaglutide.ResultsSemaglutide was considered cost-effective compared to dulaglutide across all pre-specified endpoints, even in the different scenarios evaluated in the sensitivity analyses, and in a particularly pronounced manner for weight loss outcomes. Semaglutide at a dose of 1.0 mg once-weekly was cost-effective compared to dulaglutide 1.5 mg across all outcomes in the short-term, making it an appropriate first-line choice in the treatment of T2DM when deciding between these two GLP-1 receptor agonists.ConclusionsThis is the first short-term cost-effectiveness study of semaglutide and dulaglutide in T2DM Colombian patients. Our modeled results suggest that once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals with T2DM in Colombia who are not achieving glycaemia control with metformin, and it would be expected to improve HbA1C, promote greater weight loss and reduce costs from a third-payer perspective compared with treatment with dulaglutide.
| S-EPMC10730985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making.Materials and methodsLong-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources.ResultsOnce-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs).ConclusionsCompared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.
| S-EPMC6587509 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGlucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide was amongst the first authorised for use in 2010, but once-weekly semaglutide represents the most efficacious GLP-1 analogue currently available for type 2 diabetes. The aim of the present analysis was therefore to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus liraglutide 1.8 mg with a lowered acquisition cost in the UK, as potentially lower cost liraglutide formulations may soon be developed.MethodsOutcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (v9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 2, with changes in HbA1c, blood pressure and body mass index applied from a network meta-analysis, in which SUSTAIN 2 was used to inform the semaglutide arm. Modelled patients received semaglutide or liraglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective and expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP). The acquisition cost of liraglutide was reduced by 33% compared with the currently marketed formulation.ResultsLife expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy were projected to improve with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, by 0.05 years and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. Clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 280 lower with semaglutide, entirely because of avoidance of diabetes-related complications versus liraglutide. Semaglutide 1 mg was therefore considered dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%.ConclusionOnce-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is likely to represent a dominant treatment option versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%.
| S-EPMC10203087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA once-weekly, 2.4-mg dose of subcutaneous semaglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, is used to treat obesity in adults, but assessment of the drug in adolescents has been lacking.MethodsIn this double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we enrolled adolescents (12 to <18 years of age) with obesity (a body-mass index [BMI] in the 95th percentile or higher) or with overweight (a BMI in the 85th percentile or higher) and at least one weight-related coexisting condition. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (at a dose of 2.4 mg) or placebo for 68 weeks, plus lifestyle intervention. The primary end point was the percentage change in BMI from baseline to week 68; the secondary confirmatory end point was weight loss of at least 5% at week 68.ResultsA total of 201 participants underwent randomization, and 180 (90%) completed treatment. All but one of the participants had obesity. The mean change in BMI from baseline to week 68 was -16.1% with semaglutide and 0.6% with placebo (estimated difference, -16.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -20.3 to -13.2; P<0.001). At week 68, a total of 95 of 131 participants (73%) in the semaglutide group had weight loss of 5% or more, as compared with 11 of 62 participants (18%) in the placebo group (estimated odds ratio, 14.0; 95% CI, 6.3 to 31.0; P<0.001). Reductions in body weight and improvement with respect to cardiometabolic risk factors (waist circumference and levels of glycated hemoglobin, lipids [except high-density lipoprotein cholesterol], and alanine aminotransferase) were greater with semaglutide than with placebo. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was greater with semaglutide than with placebo (62% vs. 42%). Five participants (4%) in the semaglutide group and no participants in the placebo group had cholelithiasis. Serious adverse events were reported in 15 of 133 participants (11%) in the semaglutide group and in 6 of 67 participants (9%) in the placebo group.ConclusionsAmong adolescents with obesity, once-weekly treatment with a 2.4-mg dose of semaglutide plus lifestyle intervention resulted in a greater reduction in BMI than lifestyle intervention alone. (Funded by Novo Nordisk; STEP TEENS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04102189.).
| S-EPMC9997064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo compare adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]), persistence, and treatment patterns among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) newly initiating glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs). More specifically, the main objectives were to compare dulaglutide vs exenatide once weekly and dulaglutide vs liraglutide.MethodsPatients with T2DM newly initiating dulaglutide, albiglutide, exenatide once weekly, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide between November 2014 and April 2015 were hierarchically selected from Truven Health's MarketScan Research Databases. Propensity score matching was used to account for selection bias. Adherence to and persistence with the index GLP-1RA, and switching and augmentation patterns were assessed during the 6-month post-index period.ResultsMean adherence for the matched cohorts was significantly higher for dulaglutide than for exenatide once weekly (0.72 vs 0.61; P < .0001) and liraglutide (0.71 vs 0.67; P < .0001). The percentage of patients achieving PDC ≥ 0.80 was significantly higher for dulaglutide compared with exenatide once weekly (54.2% vs 37.9%; P < .0001) and liraglutide (53.5% vs 44.3%; P < .0001). The mean (standard deviation) days on treatment for all matched patients was significantly higher for patients in the dulaglutide cohort compared with those in the exenatide once-weekly (148.4 [55.4] vs 123.6 [61.6]; P < .0001) and liraglutide cohorts (146.0 [56.9] vs 137.4 [60.1]; P < .0001). A significantly lower proportion of patients on dulaglutide discontinued treatment compared with those on exenatide once weekly (26.2% vs 48.4%; P < .0001) and those on liraglutide (28.0% vs 35.6%; P < .0001).ConclusionsDulaglutide initiators had significantly higher adherence, were more persistent, and had lower discontinuation rates compared with initiators of exenatide once weekly or liraglutide during the 6-month follow-up period.
| S-EPMC5485056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn SUSTAIN 7, once-weekly semaglutide demonstrated superior glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight (BW) reductions versus once-weekly dulaglutide in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This post hoc analysis investigated the impact of clinically relevant subject characteristics on treatment effects of semaglutide versus dulaglutide.DesignAnalyses by baseline age (<65, ≥65 years), sex (male, female), diabetes duration (≤5, >5-10, >10 years), HbA1c (≤7.5, >7.5-8.5, >8.5% (≤58, >58-69, >69 mmol/mol)) and body mass index (BMI) (<30, 30-<35, ≥35 kg/m2).Setting194 sites; 16 countries.ParticipantsSubjects with T2D (n=1199) exposed to treatment.InterventionsSemaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg (low-dose comparison); semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg (high-dose comparison), all subcutaneously once weekly.Primary and secondary outcome measuresChange in HbA1c (primary endpoint) and BW (confirmatory secondary endpoint) from baseline to week 40; proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets (<7%, ≤6.5% (<53, ≤48 mmol/mol)) and weight-loss responses (≥5%, ≥10%) at week 40; and safety.ResultsHbA1c and BW reductions (estimated treatment difference ranges: -0.22 to -0.70%-point; -1.76 to -3.84 kg) and proportion of subjects achieving HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses were statistically significantly greater for the majority of comparisons of semaglutide versus dulaglutide within each subgroup category and, excepting glycaemic control within the low-dose comparison in HbA1c subgroups, this was irrespective of subgroup or dose comparison. Gastrointestinal adverse events, the most common with both treatments, were reported by more women than men and, with semaglutide, decreased with increasing BMI.ConclusionsConsistently greater improvements in HbA1c and BW with semaglutide versus dulaglutide, regardless of age, sex, diabetes duration, glycaemic control and BMI, support the efficacy of semaglutide across the continuum of care in a heterogeneous population with T2D.Trial registration numberNCT02648204.
| S-EPMC7670946 | biostudies-literature