Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of second-line empagliflozin versus liraglutide for type 2 diabetes in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential use of the sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide after metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) from the US payer perspective.

Materials and methods

An economic simulation model with a lifetime horizon was developed to estimate T2D-related complications (including cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and renal outcomes) using EMPA-REG OUTCOME data or UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk equations, in patients with or without a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD), respectively. Evidence synthesis methods were used to provide effectiveness inputs for empagliflozin and liraglutide. Population characteristics, adverse event rates, treatment escalation, costs ($2019), and utilities (both discounted 3%/year) were taken from US sources.

Results

Compared with second-line liraglutide in the overall T2D population, second-line empagliflozin was dominant as it was associated with lower total lifetime cost ($11 244/patient less) and resulted in a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain (0.32/patient). Second-line empagliflozin was associated with reductions in CV death (by 5%) and lower cumulative complication rates in patients with CVD (by 2%), relative to second-line liraglutide. These findings were consistent among patients with co-morbid CVD, with gains in incremental QALYs (0.43/patient) and lower lifetime cost (by $10 175/patient) relative to second-line liraglutide. Scenario analyses consistently showed dominance for second-line empagliflozin.

Conclusion

For patients with T2D, use of second-line empagliflozin combined with metformin was a dominant strategy for US payers, associated with extended survival, improved QALYs, and lower costs compared with second-line liraglutide.

SUBMITTER: Reifsnider OS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9305296 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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:BackgroundCabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.MethodsA Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.ResultsCabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.ConclusionsOur analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios.

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:BackgroundCurrent first-line treatments for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) include the multityrosine kinase inhibitors pazopanib and sunitinib. Both agents had similar progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in the COMPARZ trial (Comparing the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib); however, the adverse event profiles of the 2 agents are different. In the PISCES trial (Patient Preference Study of Pazopanib versus Sunitinib in Advanced or Metastatic Kidney Cancer), patients and physicians preferred pazopanib primarily because it offered better health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and caused less fatigue.ObjectiveTo compare the cost-effectiveness of pazopanib versus sunitinib from a U.S. health care system perspective in the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC.MethodsA partitioned-survival analysis model with 3 health states (preprogression, postprogression, and dead), data from 2 randomized controlled trials of pazopanib versus sunitinib (COMPARZ and PISCES), and secondary sources were used to calculate the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for pazopanib versus sunitinib. A time horizon of 37.5 months was used in the base case, consistent with the duration of follow-up used in the COMPARZ trial. The proportion of patients in each health state over time was based on Kaplan-Meier survival distributions for PFS and OS from the COMPARZ trial. Utility values were obtained from the PISCES trial. Costs were based on medical resource utilization data from the COMPARZ trial and unit costs from secondary sources. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.ResultsIn the base case, pazopanib was estimated to provide more QALYs at a lower cost compared with sunitinib (pazopanib dominant). In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was projected to be dominant in 69% of the simulations. The probability that pazopanib was more cost-effective than sunitinib was ≥ 90% for threshold values of cost-effectiveness between the range of $10,000-$160,000 per QALY gained. In deterministic sensitivity analyses, pazopanib was dominant in all scenarios examined.ConclusionResults of this study suggest that pazopanib is cost-effective compared with sunitinib as the first-line treatment of patients with mRCC in the United States.