The cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark.

Aim: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on msetformin alone. Materials and methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was populated with efficacy data from a head-to-head study between oral semaglutide+metformin and empagliflozin+metformin. Danish costs and quality-of-life data were sourced from literature. Price per day was Danish Krone (DKK) 25.53 for oral semaglutide and DKK11.40 for empagliflozin. Discounting was fixed at 4%. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Over a lifetime, Core Diabetes Model projected 8.78 and 8.75 quality-adjusted life-years and a total cost of DKK 447,633 and DKK 387,786, thereby generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 1,930,548 for oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin. Scenario and sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the outcomes. Duration of treatment with oral semaglutide is the key driver of the analyses. Conclusion: Oral semaglutide+metformin seems not cost effective versus empagliflozin+metformin in patients uncontrolled on metformin in Denmark.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Subcutaneous Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes Uncontrolled on Metformin Alone in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: International and Danish guidelines recommend the use of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors already in second line in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness (CE) of subcutaneous (SC) semaglutide (GLP-1 RA) versus empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor) in individuals with T2D uncontrolled on metformin alone from a Danish payer's perspective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) were conducted from a Danish payer's perspective, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes model (CDM 9.5), with a time horizon of 50 years and an annual discount of 4% on costs and effects. Patients received either SC semaglutide or empagliflozin, in addition to metformin, until HbA1c threshold of 7.5% (58 mmol/mol) was reached, following which treatment intensification with insulin glargine in addition to empagliflozin or SC semaglutide plus metformin was considered. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published CEA. Utilities and cost of diabetes-related complications were also obtained from published sources. Treatment costs were derived from Danish official sources. Scenario analyses were also performed to test the accuracy of the base case results. RESULTS: Individuals with T2D on SC semaglutide plus metformin gained 0.065 life-years (LYs) and 0.130 quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), respectively, at an incremental cost of DKK 96,923 (€ 13,031) compared to empagliflozin plus metformin, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of DKK 745,561(€ 100,239) per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) results showed that the SC semaglutide plus metformin was cost-effective in 19% of simulations assuming a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of DKK 357,100 (€ 48,011)/QALY gained. Duration of therapy with SC semaglutide seems the key driver of results. CONCLUSION: The current analyses suggest that SC semaglutide plus metformin is not cost-effective compared to empagliflozin plus metformin from a Danish payer's perspective.