A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction using fast-acting insulin aspart in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: This survey aimed to explore real-world physician experiences and treatment satisfaction with fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in clinical practice across Europe and Canada. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online web-based survey was used for physicians treating people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. General practitioners and specialists, with experience using faster aspart, were interviewed. RESULTS: A total of 191 physicians participated in the survey. Most of their patients (68% of those with T1D and 63% of those with T2D) were previously treated with another mealtime insulin before switching to faster aspart. At the time of initiating faster aspart, nearly half of patients had an HbA1c level between 7.5% (59 mmol/mol) and 8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The main prescription drivers for faster aspart, versus other mealtime insulins, were faster onset of action, improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and dosing flexibility. Most physicians were more satisfied with faster aspart than other mealtime insulins regarding at-meal (66%) and post-meal (71%) dosing flexibility, improved PPG levels (66%), and onset of action (61%). Main reasons for not prescribing faster aspart included a good response to current treatment (76%) or patient reluctance to switch (57%). Overall, 12% of patients discontinued faster aspart, for reasons including concerns of hypoglycemia (17%), poor adherence (17%), and level of patient co-pay (17%). More than half of physicians had fewer concerns regarding postprandial hyperglycemia, and were more confident in their patients reaching their HbA1c target with faster aspart than with other mealtime insulins. LIMITATIONS: The findings of this survey are based heavily on physicians' experiences, and could therefore be subject to recall bias. CONCLUSIONS: Reported physician and patient experiences of using faster aspart have been positive, and better PPG control and increased dosing flexibility are expected to improve glycemic management.

Value For Money In The Treatment Of Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Assessing The Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Of IDegLira Versus iGlarLixi In Italy.

OBJECTIVE: Italian treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) target good glycemic control but acknowledge the associated risk of hypoglycemia. Unlike traditional antidiabetic therapies, modern treatment options such as fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists are associated with improved glycemic control, reduced body weight and low risk of hypoglycemia. The cost-effectiveness of the fixed-ratio combinations of basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists IDegLira and iGlarLixi was assessed for Italy in patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, to evaluate how short-term clinical benefits translate into long-term health economic outcomes. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over patient lifetimes. Treatment effects were sourced from an indirect treatment comparison. The analysis captured direct medical costs (expressed in 2017 Euros) from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS) and patient-related quality of life. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with gains of 0.09 life years and 0.13 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) relative to iGlarLixi, due to a lower cumulative incidence and delayed onset of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with an incremental cost of EUR 930 over patient lifetimes, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of EUR 7,386 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Over the lifetime of patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at higher costs relative to iGlarLixi. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, IDegLira was considered to be cost-effective versus iGlarLixi from the perspective of the Italian NHS.

The Economic Burden of Insulin-Related Hypoglycemia in Adults with Diabetes: An Analysis from the Perspective of the Italian Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost of insulin-related hypoglycemia in adult patients with diabetes in Italy using the Local Impact of Hypoglycemia Tool (LIHT), and to explore the effect of different hypoglycemia rates on budget impact. METHODS: Direct costs and healthcare resource utilization were estimated for severe and non-severe hypoglycemic episodes in Italy and applied to the population of adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and their corresponding hypoglycemia episode rates (0.49 severe and 53.3 non-severe episodes per year for T1DM, and 0.09 severe and 9.3 non-severe episodes per year for T2DM). Uncertainty around model inputs was explored through sensitivity and scenario analyses. RESULTS: The direct cost of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Italy is estimated at €144.7 million per year, with €65 million attributable to severe episodes and €79.6 million due to non-severe episodes. The total cost of hypoglycemia is approximately 1.7-fold higher for T2DM (€91.7 million) than for T1DM (€53 million). The cost of a hypoglycemic episode ranges from €4.59 for a non-severe event where additional self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) testing is the only cost incurred, to €5790.59 for a severe event that also requires an ambulance, A&E, hospitalization, and a visit to a diabetes specialist. A reduction in hypoglycemia event rates could result in substantial cost savings; for example, a 20% reduction in severe and non-severe hypoglycemia rates could result in a saving of €47,769 per general population of 100,000 people. CONCLUSIONS: The LIHT highlights the substantial economic burden of insulin-related hypoglycemia in Italy, particularly with regards to non-severe hypoglycemia, an aspect of hypoglycemia that is often overlooked. This analysis may aid healthcare decision-making by allowing the costs of insulin therapies or diabetes self-management programs to be balanced with the savings provided by reductions in hypoglycemia. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, UK.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Two GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Italian Setting: Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide.

PURPOSE: Maintaining glycemic control is the key treatment target for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be associated with other favorable treatment characteristics, such as reduction in body weight and reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with traditional diabetes interventions. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg (both administered once daily), in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin monotherapy in the Italian setting. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term clinical outcomes and subsequent costs (in 2015 Euros [€]) associated with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg treatment in a cohort with baseline characteristics derived from the open-label LIRA-LIXI trial (Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; NCT01973231) over patient lifetimes from the perspective of a health care payer. Efficacy data were taken from the 26-week end points of the same trial, including changes in glycated hemoglobin, body mass index, serum lipid levels, and hypoglycemic event rates. Outcomes projected included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative incidence and time to onset of diabetes-related complications, and direct medical costs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (14.07 vs 13.96 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.18 vs 9.06 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared with lixisenatide 20 µg. These improvements were mostly attributable to a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin level with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg, leading to reduced incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Compared with lixisenatide 20 µg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs over patient lifetimes (€41,623 vs €41,380), but this was offset by lower costs of treating diabetes-related complications (€26,682 vs €27,476). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2001 per QALY gained versus lixisenatide 20 µg. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, liraglutide 1.8 mg had a probability of 77.2% of being cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS: Based on long-term projections, liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.

Liraglutide vs. sitagliptin add-on to metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Short-term cost-per-controlled patient in Italy.

AIM: To estimate the short-term cost-per-controlled-patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus with liraglutide 1.2mg/day vs. sitagliptin 100mg/day as add-on treatment to metformin in Italy. METHODS: The percentage of controlled patients, i.e. with "HbA1c<7% without hypoglycemia and weight gain", at 26 and 52 weeks with liraglutide and sitagliptin, as well as at 78 weeks for patients switching at 52 weeks from sitagliptin to liraglutide or hypothetically continuing on sitagliptin were obtained from randomized clinical trials (RCT) and a meta-analysis. The treatment cost-per-controlled-patient was calculated from the perspective of the National Health System over a 26, 52- and 78-week time horizon. RESULTS: Despite the higher acquisition cost of liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, at 26 weeks liraglutide resulted in a lower cost-per-controlled-patient (€1460 vs. €1820 - with efficacy from RCT - and €1593 vs. €2234 - with efficacy from a meta-analysis), as well as at 52 weeks (€2627 vs. €2649). At 78 weeks, in patients who have switched from sitagliptin to liraglutide at 52 weeks, the cost-per-controlled-patient is also lower than that of patients continuing sitagliptin for 78 weeks (€2889 vs. €3970). CONCLUSIONS: Due to higher efficacy, liraglutide is associated with better cost-benefit than sitagliptin at 26, 52 and 78 weeks.