Budget Impact of Oral Semaglutide Intensification versus Sitagliptin among US Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Uncontrolled with Metformin.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide was approved in 2019 for blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and was the first oral glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA). T2DM is associated with substantial healthcare expenditures in the US, so the cost of a new intervention should be weighed against clinical benefits. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the budget impact of a treatment pathway with oral semaglutide 14 mg daily versus oral sitagliptin 100 mg daily among patients not achieving target glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level despite treatment with metformin. METHODS: This study used the validated IQVIA™ CORE Diabetes Model to simulate the treatment impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg over a 5-year time horizon from a US healthcare sector (payer) perspective. Trial data (PIONEER 3) informed cohort characteristics and treatment effects, and literature sources informed event costs. Population and market share data were from the literature and data on file. The analysis evaluated the estimated budget impact of oral semaglutide 14 mg use for patients currently using sitagliptin 100 mg considering both direct medical and treatment costs to understand the impact on total cost of care, given underlying treatment performance and impact on avoidable events. RESULTS: In a hypothetical plan of 1 million lives, an estimated 1993 patients were treated with sitagliptin 100 mg in the target population. Following these patients over 5 years, the incremental direct medical and treatment costs of a patient using oral semaglutide 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg was $US16,562, a 70.7% increase (year 2019 values). A hypothetical payer would spend an additional $US3,300,143 (7.1%) over 5 years for every 10% of market share that oral semaglutide 14 mg takes away from sitagliptin 100 mg. Univariate and scenario analyses with alternate inputs and assumptions demonstrated consistent results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of oral semaglutide 14 mg in patients currently receiving sitagliptin 100 mg substantially increases the budget impact for patients with T2DM whose blood glucose level is not controlled with metformin over a 5-year time horizon for US healthcare payers.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have many treatment options. Choices depend on factors such as cost, preference, and patient characteristics. Oral semaglutide was recently approved for the treatment of T2DM as the first oral therapy of its class. This study estimated the cost for patients treated with sitagliptin 100 mg, a commonly used T2DM treatment, versus oral semaglutide 14 mg for patients whose disease is not well controlled with metformin. Costs and effects were estimated over 5 years for each treatment strategy using predictive model equations and clinical trial data for the two treatments. These costs were considered for both a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million lives and the full US population. A patient treated with oral semaglutide 14 mg would expect to see 70.7% higher costs than a patient treated with sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years. For every 10% of patients who would switch from sitagliptin 100 mg to oral semaglutide 14 mg, costs would increase by 7.1%. Changing the cost of oral semaglutide 14 mg had the greatest impact on model results. The findings from the analysis were consistent across a range of alternate model inputs. Oral semaglutide 14 mg is more costly than sitagliptin 100 mg over 5 years.

Cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs switching to rosuvastatin therapy in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Statin monotherapy is the mainstay of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) management for high cardiovascular risk patients in Portugal; however, several therapeutic options are available and predicted to have different clinical and economic impacts. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of adding ezetimibe 10 mg (EZ10) to atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg (A10/20) vs switching to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg (R10/20) in Portuguese patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or diabetes who are currently above the LDL-C goal. METHODS: A Markov model was used to describe CHD disease progression and the lifetime costs and utilities associated with each disease state were used to estimate the gains in life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), of the two treatment regimens. Model inputs, such as age, gender, and prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors of the dyslipidemic Portuguese patients were obtained from the Portuguese cohort of the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS). The efficacy of each treatment regimen, the cost of drugs and of treating CHD events, and the utilities for each disease state were derived from published sources. RESULTS: The estimated lifetime discounted number of QALYs gained by patients treated with A10/20 was 8.70, while in those switching to R10/20 it was 8.81 and in those adding EZ10 it was 8.93. Discounted total health costs were estimated to be €11,131 for A10/20, but €14,511 and €16,571 for R10/20 and A10/20 + EZ10, respectively. The ICER of adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin was €16,465/QALY. Based on the Portuguese cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000/QALY, adding ezetimibe vs switching to rosuvastatin would be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal. Sensitivity analyses in patients with differing clinical histories (CHD or diabetes or both) yielded similar values, with no ICER over €30,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of the National Health Service, prescribing ezetimibe to high cardiovascular risk patients being treated with atorvastatin vs switching them to rosuvastatin is projected to be a cost-effective use of resources in Portugal.

Health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of aprepitant in outpatients receiving antiemetic prophylaxis for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) remains a major adverse effect of cancer therapy. We aimed to determine outcomes associated with use of aprepitant in outpatients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy in Germany from a patient's and payer's perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model compared an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant/ondansetron/dexamethasone) to a control regimen (ondansetron/dexamethasone) over a five days period. Clinical results and resource utilisation observed in aprepitant phase III clinical trials were assigned German unit cost data. RESULTS: Complete response over one chemotherapy cycle was observed in 68% of patients in the aprepitant group (N=514) compared to 48% of patients in the control group (N=518). Patients were estimated to have gained an equivalent of 15 additional hours of perfect health per cycle (0.63 quality-adjusted life days) with aprepitant-based regimen compared to control regimen. Cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with aprepitant was estimated at euro28,891. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant substantially improved CINV-related health outcomes in patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Incremental benefits materialised in a cost-effective fashion.