Relationship between body weight change and glycaemic control with tirzepatide treatment in people with type 2 diabetes: A post hoc assessment of the SURPASS clinical trial programme.

AIM: To assess the relationship between HbA1c and body weight reductions with tirzepatide treatment (5, 10 or 15 mg). MATERIALS AND METHODS: HbA1c and body weight data at 40 weeks (SURPASS-1, -2 and -5) and 52 weeks (SURPASS-3 and -4) were analysed by trial. RESULTS: Across the SURPASS clinical trials, HbA1c reductions from baseline were observed in 96%-99%, 98%-99% and 94%-99% of participants treated with tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively. Moreover, 87%-94%, 88%-95% and 88%-97% of participants, respectively, experienced weight loss associated with HbA1c reductions. Statistically significant associations (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.1438 to 0.3130 across studies; P ≤ .038) between HbA1c and body weight changes were observed with tirzepatide in SURPASS-2, -3, -4 (all doses) and -5 (tirzepatide 5 mg only). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc analysis, consistent reductions in both HbA1c and body weight were observed in most participants treated with tirzepatide at doses of 5, 10 or 15 mg. A statistically significant but modest association between HbA1c and body weight change was observed in SURPASS-2, SURPASS-3 and SURPASS-4, suggesting that both weight-independent and weight-dependent mechanisms are responsible for the tirzepatide-induced improvement in glycaemic control.

A modeling framework for the economic evaluation of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis.

Objectives: The approval in more than 50 countries of baricitinib, an oral Janus Kinase inhibitor for the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), warrants a framework for corresponding economic evaluations. To develop a comprehensive economic model assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of moderately-to-severely active RA patients in comparison to other relevant treatments, considering the natural history of the disease, real world treatment patterns, and clinical evidence from the baricitinib trials.Methods: A systematic literature review of previously developed models in RA was conducted to inform the model structure, key modeling assumptions and data inputs. Consultations with rheumatologists were undertaken to validate the modeling approach and underlying assumptions.Results: A discrete event simulation model was developed to international best practices with flexibility to assess the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib over a lifetime in a variety of markets. The model incorporates treatment sequencing to adequately reflect treatment pathways in clinical practice. Outcomes assessed include cost and quality-adjusted life years, allowing for a full incremental analysis of cost-effectiveness of competing treatments and treatment sequences.Conclusion: The economic model developed provides a robust framework for future analyses assessing the cost-effectiveness of baricitinib for the treatment of RA in specific country settings.

Correction to: A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

Due to a single error in the annual cost of sarilumab the following needs to be corrected in the article.

A Budget Impact and Cost Per Additional Responder Analysis for Baricitinib for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis in Patients with an Inadequate Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors in the USA.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Baricitinib is a selective and reversible Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor indicated for the treatment of adult patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have had an inadequate response to one or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) and has been shown to improve multiple clinical and patient-reported outcomes. However, it is unclear what the budgetary impact would be for US commercial payers to add baricitinib to their formulary and how the efficacy of baricitinib compares to other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with a similar indication. METHODS: A budget impact model (BIM) was developed for a hypothetical population of 1 million plan members that compared a world without and with baricitinib. A retrospective observational study was carried out to estimate market utilization of advanced therapies. Number needed to treat (NNT) and cost per additional responder were calculated for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20%/50%/70% improvement criteria (ACR20/50/70) response outcomes combining cost estimates from the BIM and efficacy values from a network meta-analysis (NMA). The model included costs related to drug acquisition and monitoring costs. RESULTS: Adding baricitinib would save a commercial payer $US169,742 for second-line therapy and $US135,471 for third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon (all costs correspond to 2019 US dollars). Cost savings were driven by baricitinib drawing market share away from more expensive comparators. The NMA, based on nine studies, found no statistically significant differences in the median treatment difference between baricitinib and comparators except for versus a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD), and thus NNT versus a csDMARD was similar. The cost per additional responder for baricitinib in patients with inadequate response to a TNFi was substantially lower than all other treatments for all three ACR response criteria at 12 weeks (ACR20: $US129,672; ACR50: $US237,732; ACR70: $US475,464), and among the lowest at 24 weeks (ACR20: $US167,811; ACR50: $US259,344; ACR70: $US570,557). CONCLUSIONS: Baricitinib, compared to other DMARDs, was a less expensive option (- $US0.01 incremental cost per member per month in second- and third-line therapy over a 2-year time horizon) with comparable efficacy in patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Adding baricitinib to formulary would likely be cost saving for US payers and expands treatment options for these patients.

Long-term clinical, functional, and cost outcomes for early rheumatoid arthritis patients who did or did not achieve early remission in a real-world treat-to-target strategy.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the long-term clinical, functional, and cost outcomes for early RA patients (symptoms < 1 year) who did or did not achieve early remission in a treat-to-target strategy. METHOD: Five-year data of 471 patients included in the DREAM remission induction cohort were used. Patients were treated according to a pre-specified 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) remission driven step-up treatment strategy starting with methotrexate, addition of sulfasalazine, and exchange of sulfasalazine for biological medication in case of failure. Two- and 3-year healthcare costs were available for selected subsamples of patients only. RESULTS: DAS28 remission was achieved in 27.7%, 38.2%, and 51.6% of patients at 2, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Achieving DAS28 remission at 2, 3, or 6 months was consistently associated with significantly lower DAS28 and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability scores at 1, 3, and 5 years of follow-up (all P values < 0.02). Patients in remission at 2, 3, or 6 months also had significantly lower medication costs per patient over the first 2 and 3 years of treatment, mainly due to lower biologic use, but differences in total healthcare resource costs (hospital admissions plus consultations) were less pronounced. Mean total medication and total healthcare resource costs at 3 years were €1131 and €1757 for patients in remission at 6 months vs. €7533 (P < 0.01) and €2202 (P = 0.09) for those not in remission. CONCLUSION: Achieving early remission was associated with beneficial clinical outcomes for early RA patients and lower costs in the long term. Key Points • Previous studies in rheumatoid arthritis patients have demonstrated that early good response is associated with sustained remission and better long-term clinical outcomes. • This study extents these findings by examining the long-term benefits of achieving early remission on clinical, patient-reported, and economic outcomes in a real-world cohort of patients with very early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to treat-to-target principles. • The findings of this study clearly demonstrate that aiming for early remission in rheumatoid arthritis patients is beneficial in the long-term in terms of better clinical and functional outcomes and lower healthcare costs.

Estimating the real world daily usage and cost for exenatide twice daily and liraglutide in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK based on volumes dispensed by pharmacies.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are indicated for improvement of glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes. Cost is one aspect of treatment to be considered, in addition to clinical benefits, when selecting optimal therapy for a patient. The objective of this study was to estimate the average dose usage and real world daily cost of the GLP-1 receptor agonists, exenatide twice daily and liraglutide once daily, in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. METHODS: Administrative databases were used to source the data from longitudinal records of dispensed prescriptions. Data were extracted from the IMS Longitudinal Prescription database which captures details of prescriptions dispensed in pharmacies. Information on the dispensed quantity of each product was used to estimate average daily usage per patient. Daily dose usage was multiplied by the public price per unit to estimate daily cost. RESULTS: The dispensed volume in Germany corresponded to a mean dispensed daily dose of 16.81 µg for exenatide twice daily and 1.37 mg for liraglutide (mean daily cost €4.02 and €4.54, respectively). In the Netherlands, average dispensed daily doses of 17.07 µg and 1.49 mg were observed for exenatide twice daily and liraglutide (mean daily cost €3.05 and €3.97, respectively). In the UK, the mean dispensed volume corresponded to a daily usage of 20.49 µg for exenatide twice daily and 1.50 mg for liraglutide (mean daily cost £2.53 and £3.28, respectively). CONCLUSION: Estimates of average daily dispensed doses of GLP-1 receptor agonists derived from pharmacy data in real world settings corresponded to the dosing recommendation of the summaries of product characteristics. Nevertheless, the mean daily cost of exenatide twice daily was lower than that of liraglutide in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Such estimates can be used to inform health care decision-makers on the real world usage and cost of medications effective in achieving glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Evaluation of insulin initiation on resource utilization and direct costs of treatment over 12 months in patients with type 2 diabetes in Europe: results from INSTIGATE and TREAT observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the changes in resource utilization in seven European countries (Germany, Greece, Portugal, Romania, Sweden, Spain, and Turkey) and direct costs in four European countries (Germany, Spain, Sweden, and Greece) over the first 12 months of insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: INSTIGATE and TREAT (2005-2010) were non-interventional, prospective, observational studies in patients with T2DM and initiating insulin for the first time. A 6-month retrospective data capture was conducted at baseline (insulin initiation) followed by prospective data collections at ∼3, 6, and 12 months. Statistical analyses were descriptive; estimated costs are presented as nominal values. RESULTS: This study presents data for 1450 patients. Overall, in the first 6 months after insulin initiation, the use and cost of blood glucose monitoring and insulin increased, while the cost of oral diabetic medication decreased. Contributors to total direct costs differed between countries. Ranges of total mean direct costs over the 6-month period before insulin initiation were €489.10-€658.50 (Greece-Spain); 0-6 months after insulin initiation, €573.40-€1084.70 (Greece-Spain); and 6-12 months after insulin initiation, €495.80-€859.30 (Greece-Germany). Thus, the mean cost of treatment increased in all countries in the first 6 months after insulin initiation and then returned to baseline except in Germany. LIMITATIONS: Overall, 15% of patients were lost to follow-up over 12 months. Costs were not pro-rated to account for variation of visits. Participating centres may not have been fully representative of all levels of care. CONCLUSIONS: Contributors to total cost differed between countries, potentially reflecting local clinical practice patterns and insulin regimens. In each country, mean direct total costs of T2DM care increased during the first 6 months after insulin initiation and decreased thereafter.

Direct healthcare costs and clinical outcomes after insulin initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain: 24-month follow-up data from the INSTIGATE study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The INSTIGATE study assessed healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus starting insulin therapy in Spain over a 24-month follow up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was an observational, non-interventional, prospective, multicenter study. Costs incurred in the previous 6 months were assessed at each visit. RESULTS: A total of 172 patients with a mean body mass index of 29.6 kg/m2, a mean [standard deviation] duration of diabetes of 10.9 [7.0] years and a hemoglobin A1c value of 9.2% [1.5%] were followed up for at least 12 and up to 24 months. Direct costs were assessed from the perspective of the Spanish healthcare system. Long/intermediate-acting insulin alone was started in 116 patients (67.4%). After 6, 12, and 24 months of insulin treatment, mean [SD] intraindividual changes from baseline in hemoglobin A1c were -1.9% [1.65%], -1.6 [1.73%], and -1.5% [1.76%] respectively. Mean (median) total diabetes-related healthcare costs per patient increased from €659 (€527) to €1.085 (€694) 6 months after insulin initiation, decreased to €646 (€531) after 12 months, and increased again after 24 months to €667(€539). Insulin/oral antidiabetics, primary/specialized care, and blood glucose monitoring accounted for 41%, 26%, and 19% of total cost at 24 months respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical parameters of these patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus improved following insulin initiation. After a temporary increase, direct healthcare costs of diabetes care returned to baseline values at the end of the follow-up period.

Healthcare costs associated with change in body mass index in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain: the ECOBIM study.

BACKGROUND: Weight management is considered a key therapeutic strategy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, little is known about the impact of weight loss or body mass index (BMI) reduction on type 2 diabetes-related healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the economic impact of change in BMI among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus from the Spanish healthcare system perspective. METHODS: The ECOBIM study is an observational, non-interventional study in which data on BMI change and costs incurred by patients with type 2 diabetes were collected cross-sectionally and retrospectively for a 12-month period. Generalized linear mixed models were applied to estimate the effects of (i) BMI change in general (one-slope model); (ii) BMI gain and no BMI gain (two-slope model); and (iii) BMI gain and no BMI gain among obese and non-obese patients (four-slope model). RESULTS: We studied 738 patients with a mean (SD) age of 66 (11) years and BMI of 30.6 (5.2) kg/m2. During the 12-month study period, 41.2% of patients gained BMI (BMI gainers) and 58.8% experienced either loss (52.2%) or no change (6.6%) in BMI (non-BMI gainers). One-unit gain (or loss) in BMI was significantly (p < 0.001) associated with a 2.4% cost increase (or decrease) [one-slope model]. Every unit gain in BMI was associated with a 20.0% increase in costs among BMI gainers while losing one unit was associated with an 8.0% decrease in costs among non-BMI gainers (two-slope model, p < 0.01). The economic benefit associated with reducing one BMI unit was 9.4% cost decrease in obese and 2.7% in non-obese patients (4-slope model). CONCLUSION: An increase in BMI among patients with type 2 diabetes was associated with increased 1-year direct healthcare costs. A reduction in BMI was associated with appreciable short-term economic benefits, especially in obese patients.

Increase in direct diabetes-related costs and resource use in the 6 months following initiation of insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes in five European countries: data from the INSTIGATE study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the resource use and associated direct costs of diabetes care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the 6 months before and after initiation of insulin therapy. METHODS: INSTIGATE is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter study of patients with type 2 diabetes who were initiating insulin for the first time as part of their usual care in 2006. The study was conducted in France, Germany, Greece, Spain, and the UK, and observed the course of diabetes therapy for up to 6 months. Direct medical costs were evaluated from the national health care system (third-party payer) perspective at 2006 prices. RESULTS: Of the 1153 patients with type 2 diabetes, 1051 (91.2%) had follow-up visits in the 6 months after insulin initiation and were included in the cost analysis. In all countries in our study, mean total direct costs per patient increased in the 6-month follow-up period, compared with the 6-month period prior to insulin initiation, and ranged from €577 in Greece to €1402 in France. The incremental cost of adding insulin treatment ranged from €81 in France to €471 in Spain. CONCLUSION: In all countries, the mean total direct cost of care for diabetes increased after starting insulin. The breakdown of total direct costs by expenditure category varied considerably across countries, reflecting differences in resource use patterns, prices of medical resources, and different health care systems.