Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg versus Canagliflozin 300 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Canadian Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled with metformin from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in Canada. METHODS: Head-to-head data from the SUSTAIN 8 randomised trial (NCT03136484) were extrapolated over 40 years using economic simulation modelling. The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus canagliflozin 300 mg for treating T2DM was estimated using the Swedish Institute for Health Economics-Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) and the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM). Unit costs and disutility weights capturing treatments and key macro- and microvascular complications were sourced from the literature to best match the Canadian setting. A probabilistic base-case simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with reductions in macro- and microvascular complications, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of (Canadian dollars [CAD]) CAD16,392 and 18,098 per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus canagliflozin 300 mg for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a healthcare payer perspective. Accounting for productivity loss as well, ICERs were CAD14,127 and 13,188 per QALY gained for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base-case results were robust to changes in input parameters and assumptions used. CONCLUSIONS: At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD50,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was cost-effective over 40 years versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg for the treatment of T2DM in patients failing to maintain glycemic control with metformin alone.

Cost of microvascular complications in people with diabetes from a public healthcare perspective: a retrospective database study in Brazil.

AIM: To evaluate direct medical costs incurred by patients with diabetes in the periods before and after experiencing a microvascular complication from a Brazilian public healthcare system perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study using the Brazilian Unified Health System (DATASUS) database. Direct medical costs (hospitalization and outpatient) were extracted for patients with evidence of diabetes and a microvascular complication (January 2012-December 2018) and converted to 2019 US Dollars (USD). Length of hospital stays was also extracted. Mixed-effects logistic regression explored associations between demographic/clinical characteristics and incurrence of high direct medical costs (defined as the highest tertile of the annual costs ranked by median cost in the total population). RESULTS: In total, 2,096 patients with diabetes experienced a microvascular complication and met study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Median [interquartile range] annual costs (USD/patient) were 176.3 [91.0; 481.2] at baseline, increasing to 1,678.5 [287.0; 6,908.4] and 5,172.4 [274.8; 7,395.9] in the first and second year after the complication, respectively. Median hospital stay was 2.0 and 3.0 days at baseline and in the first year, respectively. The odds of incurring high costs were substantially elevated in the first and second years (odds ratios of 69.9 and 84.7, respectively, vs. baseline, both p < .001). LIMITATIONS: The DATASUS database covers secondary and tertiary care (not primary), adding selection bias to our sample. Additionally, our findings may not apply to the entire Brazilian population, as around 25% have some access to private healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a large increase in costs, from the perspective of the Brazilian public healthcare system, in patients with diabetes after experiencing a microvascular complication compared with pre-complication costs. In addition to providing up-to-date cost estimates, our findings highlight the need to appraise the cost-effectiveness of evidence-based strategies that reduce the risk of diabetes-related microvascular complications in Brazilian patients.

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg.

AIM: To compare the effects of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg on HbA1c and body weight in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Bucher indirect comparison was conducted to compare efficacy outcomes of semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg using published results from the SUSTAIN 7 and AWARD-11 trials. Sensitivity analyses using individual patient data from SUSTAIN 7 and aggregate data from AWARD-11 were conducted to explore the impact of adjustment for cross-trial imbalances in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg, with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.24%-points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.43, -0.05), with comparable reductions in HbA1c versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg with an ETD of -0.07%-points (95% CI -0.26, 0.12). Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg with an ETD of -2.65 kg (95% CI -3.57, -1.73) and -1.95 kg (95% CI -2.87, -1.03), respectively. Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis findings. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison showed significantly greater reductions in HbA1c with semaglutide 1.0 mg versus dulaglutide 3.0 mg and comparable HbA1c reductions versus dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Semaglutide 1.0 mg significantly reduced body weight versus both dulaglutide 3.0 and 4.5 mg. With several glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists available, information regarding their comparative efficacy can be valuable to clinicians.