RESUMO
AIM: Liraglutide, a once-daily subcutaneous glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, is approved for treatment of hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). For patients with established cardiovascular diseases, liraglutide has also been shown to reduce major cardiovascular events. However, its cost is relatively higher than other oral antidiabetic drugs. This study aims to compare the costs and benefits of liraglutide vs sitagliptin, in treating T2DM in Thailand. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In part 1, the cost of keeping T2DM under control per patient (HbA1c<7.0% with no reported hypoglycemia and no body weight gain) with liraglutide (1.2 and 1.8 mg daily) was compared with using sitagliptin (100 mg daily). Costs were based on Thai local data. Clinical outcomes were based on head-to-head randomized controlled trials. Part 2 estimated the cost-per-controlled patient, based on major cardiovascular outcomes (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke). Economic benefit was calculated as the reduction in cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: In Thailand, liraglutide (1.8 mg daily) costs 7.37-times more than sitagliptin 100 mg. The cost per patient achieving a composite clinical endpoint (HbA1c<7.0%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with T2DM receiving liraglutide 1.8 mg is 2.80-times higher than patients receiving sitagliptin 100 mg. When cardiovascular benefits (reduced composite endpoint of major cardiovascular events, ie, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) were taken into account, it was found that liraglutide had lower cost than sitagliptin, resulting in estimated savings of 20,085 THB (620 USD) per patient per year. CONCLUSION: The clinical benefits of liraglutide (HbA1c<7.0%, no hypoglycemia, no weight gain, reduced cardiovascular outcomes) partly offset its high price. Therefore, liraglutide should be considered as an appropriate treatment alternative to sitagliptin, particularly for T2DM patients with high cardiovascular risks.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the financial consequences of different adoption rate of Biphasic Insulin Aspart (BIAsp) 30 instead of Biphasic Human Insulin (BHI) 30 for people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand from the payer's perspective. METHODS: The Excel-based International T2DM Budget Impact Model over a 3-year period was used. The cohort was the T2DM patients who received treatment from government hospitals under the Universal Health Coverage Scheme. Demographic, the adverse events, and the costs were derived from published studies in Thailand. Efficacy was based on meta-analysis. Adoption rates were assumed to increase each year. Net budget impact (NBI) and one-way sensitivity were analyzed. RESULTS: Hypoglycemia costs were lower in BIAsp 30 compared with BHI 30. The NBI per year was 26,511,269 THB (771,349 USD) for year 1, 52,181,133 THB (1,518,218 USD) for year 2, and 76,189,608 THB (2,216,747 USD) for year 3. The NBI per insulin user per year was 33.45 THB (0.97 USD), 67.27 THB (1.96 USD), 101.49 THB (2.95 USD) from year 1 to year 3, respectively Conclusions: Lower rate of hypoglycemia with BIAsp 30 than those treated with BHI 30 generates cost savings resulting in significant deduction in the additional acquisition cost of BIAsp 30. Therefore, the NBI per insulin user per year has become small.