Semaglutide versus tirzepatide for people with type 2 diabetes: cost of glycemic control in Austria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the United Arab Emirates.

OBJECTIVES: The glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide tirzepatide have proven to significantly reduce glucose levels in people with type 2 diabetes. However, the costs needed to achieve a sustained decrease in HbA1c level and disease control with semaglutide and tirzepatide, respectively, are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the cost of treatment with semaglutide with the cost of treatment with tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in Austria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the United Arab Emirates in order to determine their respective value for money. METHODS: The primary outcome of this analysis was the cost in euros needed to achieve disease control in one person with type 2 diabetes based on the composite endpoint of HbA1c <7%, ≥5% weight loss, and no hypoglycemic events. In addition, analyses regarding the cost needed to reach relevant HbA1c endpoints were performed. Clinical data were obtained from the SURPASS 2 trial, registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03987919), and drug cost was based on wholesale acquisition cost or pharmacy purchase prices from public domains obtained in Q1 of 2023. RESULTS: The cost needed to achieve disease control in one person with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c <7%, ≥5% weight loss, and no hypoglycemic events) was up to three times lower using semaglutide compared with all three doses of tirzepatide in most markets. In the HbA1c analyses, semaglutide was also found to be the least expensive treatment option. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide provides better value for money than tirzepatide for HbA1c-lowering endpoints.

Cost-effectiveness of ALK testing and first-line crizotinib therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer in China.

INTRODUCTION: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearrangement gene testing is used increasingly to identify patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are most likely to benefit from crizotinib. This study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the ALK tests followed by crizotinib compared to the standard chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A 10-year Markov model was constructed to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of crizotinib with standard chemotherapy, guided by the ALK rearrangement tests: next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel tests and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The health states included progression-free survival (PFS), progressed survival, and death. The costs examined included cost of drugs (pemetrexed, standard chemotherapy, salvage chemotherapy, and crizotinib), follow-up, palliative care, supportive care, severe adverse events, and ALK rearrangement testing. RESULTS: Under Patient Assistance Program (PAP), the model demonstrated that the patients using NGS panel tests spent US $31,388 and gained 0.780 QALYs, whereas patients using multiplex PCR spent US $31,362 and gained 0.780 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of crizotinib with PAP compared to the control strategy were projected at $14,384 (NGS) and $13,740 (multiplex PCR) per QALY gained, respectively. Sensitivity analyses showed the utility of PFS and the costs of crizotinib and pemetrexed were the most impactful factors on the model outcomes. The results were robust to changes in all parameters. CONCLUSION: ALK-rearrangement test positive followed by crizotinib may be cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy from the Chinese healthcare system perspective when PAP was available.

Cost analysis for different sequential treatment regimens for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in China.

PURPOSE: Targeted therapies, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, and everolimus, have recently become the mainstay for the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The objective of this study was to estimate the costs of sequential treatment regimens for mRCC and associated adverse events (AEs) from the Chinese payers' perspective. METHODS: Key inputs included in the calculation were patient population, dosing information, incidence rates and associated costs of Grade 3/4 AEs, treatment costs (including drug discount programs), and patients' progression-free survival (PFS) as a proxy for length of treatment. To calculate PFS, this study identified pivotal clinical trials and generated a reconstructed individual patient data set from the published Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The median PFS from the pooled estimates were used in the calculation. In the base-case scenario, sunitinib was used as first line and the other three therapies were used as second line. Sensitivity analyses were conducted where (1) sorafenib was used as first line, or (2) a third-line therapy was added to the base-case scenario. RESULTS: In the base case, the cost per patient per treatment month (PPPM) cost was the lowest for sunitinib + axitinib among all sequential regimens (¥14,898) and was the highest for sunitinib + sorafenib (¥20,103). If sorafenib is used as first line, everolimus had lower per patient per months (PPPM) cost than axitinib (¥17,046 vs ¥23,337), but also had shorter PFS (13.5 months vs 15 months). Second sensitivity analysis with an additional third-line therapy showed consistent results with the base-case scenario; axitinib as second line was the least costly. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that, for mRCC sequential treatment, sunitinib followed by axitinib generates the highest cost savings from the Chinese payers' perspective. Future studies are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of various mRCC treatment regimens in Chinese populations.