The economic value of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in people ≥18 years of age with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a value-based economic model from a U.S. payer perspective.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the value and affordability of insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in a budget impact model from a United States (U.S.) payer perspective by leveraging recent real-world evidence (RWE) studies and incorporating the recent insulin price caps where applicable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic model for a hypothetical one million U.S. health-plan population was developed to assess the budgetary impact of therapeutic interchanges in either direction between the two long- and longer-acting basal insulins (BIs) for patients with type 2 diabetes over a three-year model horizon. The utilization of long-acting BIs, longer-acting BIs, biosimilar BIs, and insulin degludec (IDeg-100) were informed by IQVIA data and internal forecasting at Sanofi. The DELIVER-2 and DELIVER-naïve studies provided healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) parameters. In the model base case, 24% of patients switched from long-acting BIs to insulin glargine biosimilars, IDeg-100, and other longer-acting BIs (Gla-300) by projected year 3. RESULTS: The base case total costs were $10,145 per patient per year (PPPY) in year 3 for the cumulative population. When all patients switched to Gla-300, the total costs in year 3 were $8,799, reflecting a net savings of -$660 PPPY compared to the budget increase of $686 PPPY in the base case. However, the longer-acting to long-acting BIs reversal scenario demonstrated a budgetary decrease of $676 PPPY over the model horizon. The reduction in incremental PPPY cost of $93 was observed using net drug costs rather than wholesale acquisition costs (WAC). LIMITATIONS: The market shares for years 1-3 were based on expectations supported by the clinicians' expert opinions and were not obtained from real-world data. CONCLUSIONS: The economic value of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by the reduction in HCRU, costs and market shares assumptions. Budgetary reductions were achieved by switching patients from long-acting BIs to Gla-300.

Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) is a chronic and debilitating condition that can lead to severe macro or microvascular complications. To mitigate these complications, it is crucial to effectively manage blood glucose levels. When other treatments prove ineffective in achieving adequate glucose control, insulin-based therapy becomes necessary. However, insulin-based treatments often come with the risk of hypoglycemic episodes, which can lead to increased utilization of healthcare resources (HCRU) and have a negative impact on costs.This study aimed to assess the budgetary impact of higher market shares of longer-acting basal insulins (specifically insulin glargine Gla-300) compared to long-acting basal insulins, insulin glargine biosimilars, and insulin degludec (IDeg) in the treatment of T2D. The perspective taken was that of a U.S. payer, taking into account the recent insulin price caps where applicable.The economic benefit of increased utilization of Gla-300 was driven by reductions in HCRU, costs, and market share assumptions. This resulted in a budgetary increase of $686 per patient per year (PPPY). In an alternative scenario where all patients transitioned to Gla-300, it led to a net savings of $660 PPPY.These findings provide valuable insights for decision-makers and healthcare professionals when making choices related to formulary placement and treatment utilization.

Budget Impact Analysis of Intensification with iGlarLixi Compared to Alternative Treatment Strategies Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical benefits of treating patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with fixed-ratio combination of insulin iGlar (iGlar) plus lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) were demonstrated in clinical trials and real-world evidence studies; however, its cost impact to healthcare payers is unknown. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed from a United States (US) payer's perspective for a hypothetical healthcare plan of 1 million people over a 1-year time horizon. In scenario analysis, patients with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treated with 60 units or less of daily insulin (insulin cohort) or oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) only (OAD cohort) were intensified to iGlarLixi/rapid-acting insulin (RAI)/glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) or iGlarLixi/iGlar/GLP-1RA, respectively. Model inputs from real-world data (RWD) included baseline market shares, proportion of patients intensifying to respective treatments, and dosing inputs; unit costs were obtained from published literature. One-way sensitivity analyses assessed the impact of individual parameters. RESULTS: Intensification with iGlarLixi resulted in the lowest incremental per member per month (PMPM) budget impact compared to other intensifying drugs (iGlar, RAI, and GLP-1RA). In the insulin cohort, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi ($0.03) was the lowest among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($72.20) and RAI ($4.81). Similarly, the incremental PMPM cost for intensification with iGlarLixi was the lowest ($1.25) in the OAD cohort among intensifying drugs; GLP-1RA ($321.65) and iGlar ($114.82). In scenario analyses, when equal market intensification shares for iGlarLixi and GLP-1RA were explored, the incremental PMPM cost for iGlarLixi ($0.03) remained lower than GLP-1RA ($2.28) and RAI ($10.44) in the insulin cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Intensification with iGlarLixi was associated with lower costs compared to other treatment intensifications, as well as overall budget reductions compared to pre-intensification when considering cost savings attributable to reduction in HbA1c; therefore, its inclusion for the treatment of T2DM would represent a budget saving.

Clinical and economic outcomes associated with use of anti-arrhythmic drugs versus ablation in atrial fibrillation.

Aim: To evaluate the clinical and economic impact of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) compared with ablation both as individual treatments and as combination therapy without/with considering the order of treatment among patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a one-year time horizon was developed to assess the economic impact of AADs (amiodarone, dofetilide, dronedarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and as a group) versus ablation across three scenarios: direct comparisons of individual treatments, non-temporal combinations, and temporal combinations. The economic analysis was conducted in accordance with CHEERS guidance as per current model objectives. Results are reported as costs per patient per year (PPPY). The impact of individual parameters was evaluated using one-way sensitivity analysis (OWSA). Results: In direct comparisons, ablation had the highest annual medication/procedure cost ($29,432), followed by dofetilide ($7661), dronedarone ($6451), sotalol ($4552), propafenone ($3044), flecainide ($2563), and amiodarone ($2538). Flecainide had the highest costs for long-term clinical outcomes ($22,964), followed by dofetilide ($17,462), sotalol ($15,030), amiodarone ($12,450), dronedarone ($10,424), propafenone ($7678) and ablation ($9948). In the non-temporal scenario, total costs incurred for AADs (group) + ablation ($17,278) were lower compared with ablation alone ($39,380). In the temporal scenario, AADs (group) before ablation resulted in PPPY cost savings of ($22,858) compared with AADs (group) after ablation ($19,958). Key factors in OWSA were ablation costs, the proportion of patients having reablation, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Conclusion: Utilization of AADs as individual treatment or in combination with ablation demonstrated comparable clinical benefits along with costs savings in patients with AFib.

A value-based budget impact model for dronedarone compared with other rhythm control strategies.

Aim: The budgetary consequences of increasing dronedarone utilization for treatment of atrial fibrillation were evaluated from a US payer perspective. Materials & methods: A budget impact model over a 5-year time horizon was developed, including drug-related costs and risks for long-term clinical outcomes (LTCOs). Treatments included antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs; dronedarone, amiodarone, sotalol, propafenone, dofetilide, flecainide), rate control medications, and ablation. Direct comparisons and temporal and non-temporal combination scenarios investigating treatment order were analyzed as costs per patient per month (PPPM). Results: By projected year 5, costs PPPM for dronedarone versus other AADs decreased by $37.69 due to fewer LTCOs, treatment with dronedarone versus ablation or rate control medications + ablation resulted in cost savings ($359.94 and $370.54, respectively), and AADs placed before ablation decreased PPPM costs by $242 compared with ablation before AADs. Conclusion Increased dronedarone utilization demonstrated incremental cost reductions over time.

Estimation of Annual Health Care Costs for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes health care resource utilization (HCRU) studies tend to focus on patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) or pool patients with T2D and type 1 diabetes (T1D). There is a paucity of recent data on the cost of treating patients with T1D in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To (a) estimate the per-patient per-year (PPPY) HCRU and costs, from a payer perspective, associated with treating U.S. adults with T1D and (b) compare these with the HCRU and costs for patients with T2D. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used claims data from the Optum Clinformatics database between January 2015 and December 2017. Adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of T1D were propensity score-matched to adults with T2D. Overall and nondiabetes-related HCRU and costs were assessed for T1D and T2D and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: Propensity scores were used to match 10,103 patient pairs from T1D and T2D cohorts (mean ages 54.4 and 56.9 years, respectively). In the T1D cohort, inpatient, emergency department (ED), outpatient, and prescription claims occurred in 14.0%, 17.3%, 85.5%, and 100% of patients, respectively, resulting in a mean total cost of U.S. $18,817 PPPY (diabetes-related = $11,002; nondiabetes-related = $7,816). The T1D cohort had significantly higher mean total costs than the T2D cohort ($18,817 vs. $14,148 PPPY; P < 0.001). When extrapolating these findings to a commercial health plan with 1 million covered lives, the estimated total direct medical costs of T1D would be $103.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the total annual cost of managing an adult with T1D is significantly higher than that of an adult with T2D. Nondiabetes costs accounted for 40% of the total per-patient cost, similar to patients with T2D, confirming that as patients with T1D live longer lives, they may also be at greater risk for cardiometabolic complications. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Sanofi U.S. and Lexicon Pharmaceuticals as part of a business partnership in a diabetes program at the time this study was conducted. Joish and Davies are employees and stockholders of Lexicon Pharmaceuticals. Zhou, Preblick, and Paranjape are employees and stockholders of Sanofi. Lin was a postdoctoral fellow at Sanofi through Rutgers University during this project. Deshpande provided consulting services through Communication Symmetry. Verma is an employee of Evidera, which was contracted by Sanofi for work on this study. Pettus is a consultant for Diasome, Insulet, Lexicon, Lilly, Mannkind, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Senseonics.

Relationship between treatment persistence and A1C trends among patients with type 2 diabetes newly initiating basal insulin.

This study examines the relationship between glycated haemoglobin (A1C) levels and treatment persistence with, or time to discontinuation of, basal insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) newly initiating insulin. Claims data were extracted from the Optum Clinformatics database from January 2010 to June 2015. Adult patients with T2D initiating insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100) or insulin detemir (DET) with ≥1 A1C measurement during 12-month baseline and 18-month follow-up periods were included. Patients with a refill gap of >90 days were considered non-persistent; otherwise, patients were considered persistent with insulin. The main outcome was A1C, measured closest to the end of each quarter during the follow-up period. A total of 3993 of 109 934 patients met the inclusion criteria (43.0% persistent; 57.0% non-persistent). Persistent patients were older (54.7 vs 52.7 years; P < .001), were more likely to be male (59.4% vs 54.4%; P = .002), and had significantly lower mean unadjusted A1C values at 18 months (8.26% vs 8.60%; P < .001) and quarterly. Only 43.0% of adults initiating basal insulin persisted with treatment for 18 months, with earlier discontinuation associated with higher A1C.

Cost-effectiveness of edoxaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism based on the Hokusai-VTE study.

OBJECTIVE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated with almost 300,000 deaths per year in the United States. Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) offer an alternative to warfarin-based therapy without monitoring requirements and with fewer drug and food interactions. Edoxaban, a direct Xa inhibitor, is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), based upon results of the Hokusai-VTE Phase 3 trial. The trial demonstrated that edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was non-inferior in reducing the risk of VTE recurrence and caused significantly less major and clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding compared to warfarin. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of adults with VTE. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using patient-level data from the Hokusai-VTE trial, clinical event costs from real-world databases, and drug acquisition costs for warfarin of $0.36 and edoxaban of $9.24 per tablet. RESULTS: From a U.S. health-care delivery system perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $22,057 per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that edoxaban had an ICER <$50,000 per QALY gained relative to warfarin in 67% of model simulations. The result was robust to variation in key model parameters including the cost and disutility of warfarin monitoring. CONCLUSION: Despite its higher drug acquisition cost, edoxaban is a cost-effective alternative to warfarin for the treatment of VTE.

Review of the cost of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the second most common medical complication and a cause of excess length of hospital stay. Its incidence and economic burden are expected to increase as the population ages. We reviewed the recent literature to provide updated cost estimates on VTE management. METHODS: Literature search strategies were performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Collaboration, Health Economic Evaluations Database, EconLit, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 2003-2014. Additional studies were identified through searching bibliographies of related publications. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were identified and are summarized in this review; of these, 13 reported data from the USA, four from Europe, and one from Canada. Three main cost estimations were identified: cost per VTE hospitalization or per VTE readmission; cost for VTE management, usually reported annually or during a specific period; and annual all-cause costs in patients with VTE, which included the treatment of complications and comorbidities. Cost estimates per VTE hospitalization were generally similar across the US studies, with a trend toward an increase over time. Cost per pulmonary embolism hospitalization increased from $5,198-$6,928 in 2000 to $8,764 in 2010. Readmission for recurrent VTE was generally more costly than the initial index event admission. Annual health plan payments for services related to VTE also increased from $10,804-$16,644 during the 1998-2004 period to an estimated average of $15,123 for a VTE event from 2008 to 2011. Lower costs for VTE hospitalizations and annualized all-cause costs were estimated in European countries and Canada. CONCLUSION: Costs for VTE treatment are considerable and increasing faster than general inflation for medical care services, with hospitalization costs being the primary cost driver. Readmissions for VTE are generally more costly than the initial VTE admission. Further studies evaluating the economic impact of new treatment options such as the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants on VTE treatment are warranted.

Economic burden of recurrent venous thromboembolism: analysis from a U.S. hospital perspective.

PURPOSE: An analysis of resource utilization and hospital costs associated with recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) is presented. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using a large U.S. hospital database. Patients with VTE-related hospitalization events during the period January-December 2010 were identified; data collection extended for up to 12 months after the index event. Postdischarge hospital resource use and total costs were compared in cohorts of patients with and without recurrent VTE. Regression analysis was performed to compare hospital costs and length of stay (LOS) during initial and subsequent VTE encounters. RESULTS: Among the study population of 43,734 patients, 4% had postdischarge VTE-related events during the data collection period. The median and mean ± S.D. times to VTE recurrence were 48 days and 98 ± 106 days, respectively. Patients with recurrent VTE had more all-cause hospitalizations than those without recurrent VTE (mean ± S.D., 1.07 ± 0.96 versus 0.15 ± 0.53; p < 0.0001), more all-cause emergency room visits (mean ± S.D., 0.31 ± 0.66 versus 0.05 ± 0.31; p < 0.0001), and greater total costs (mean ± S.D., $28,353 ± $39,624 versus $17,712 ± $33,461; p < 0.0001). Relative to initial VTE admissions, admissions for recurrent VTE were, on average, associated with a 14% longer LOS (p = 0.0002) and a 22% higher total cost (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with recurrent VTE used more hospital resources than those without recurrent VTE. Readmissions for VTE were significantly longer and more costly than index encounters.

Potential health care cost savings associated with early treatment of multiple sclerosis using disease-modifying therapy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown that treatment with disease-modifying therapies (DMTs), such as interferon, at the time of clinically isolated syndrome can delay the onset of multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess health care utilization and expenditures associated with treating patients early with DMTs rather than delaying until patients meet the full diagnostic criteria of MS. METHODS: A retrospective study used insurance claims data (2000-2008) of enrolled patients before documented MS (1 inpatient or 2 outpatient claims with International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification 340 coding). Treatment cohorts were early DMT (DMT claim before the first documented MS; N = 227) and delayed DMT (DMT started after documented MS; N = 3724). Comparisons during 1 year of follow-up were adjusted for confounding using multivariate methods. RESULTS: Adjusted annual per-patient expenditures (including patient out of pocket) for early versus delayed were as follows: total ($28,280 vs $29,102; P = 0.44), excluding DMT cost ($15,214 vs $17,630; P < 0.01), and MS-related ($9365 vs $13,661; P < 0.01). Hospitalizations were 10.1% versus 16.5% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis indicated that early DMT treatment was associated with fewer hospitalizations than delayed treatment, and there was no statistically significant difference in annual health care expenditures. This suggests that the drug costs of early therapy were offset by savings in other medical expenditures.

Effects of initial antihypertensive drug class on patient persistence and compliance in a usual-care setting in the United States.

Antihypertensive treatment regimen persistence and compliance were measured using a retrospective cohort study of pharmacy claims data. Newly treated patients receiving monotherapy with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), beta-blockers (BBs), or diuretics were followed for 1 year (N=242,882). A higher proportion of ARB patients (51.9%) were persistent in taking prescribed medication compared with those in the ACEI (48.0%), BB (40.3%), CCB (38.3%), and diuretic groups (29.9%). Compared with patients receiving diuretics, those receiving ARBs (hazard ratio [HR], 0.593; P<.0001), ACEIs (HR, 0.640; P<.0001), CCBs (HR, 0.859; P<.0001), and BBs (HR, 0.819; P<.0001) were all less likely to discontinue therapy. Compliance was similar in ACEI and ARB patients, but patients receiving ARBs and ACEIs had better compliance than those receiving BBs, CCBs, or diuretics. The lesser degree of compliance and persistence observed in patients receiving diuretics compared with other antihypertensive medications may have public health as well as cost implications.

Effects of a step-therapy program for angiotensin receptor blockers on antihypertensive medication utilization patterns and cost of drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Step therapy for angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) requiring prior use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) is a common cost-containment intervention in managed care. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of the step-therapy intervention for ARBs, including ARB/hydrochlorthiazide (HCTZ) combinations, as measured by prescription use patterns and antihypertensive drug ingredient costs. METHODS: Rejected and paid pharmacy claims data were evaluated from 3 health plans with a total membership of approximately 1 million. These plans had implemented a step-therapy intervention for ARBs from May 1, 2001, through February 28, 2003. Patients in the intervention group who had experienced a claim rejection for an ARB within the first 6 months of program implementation (i.e., had had no ACEI [or ACEI/HCTZ combination] or ARB [or ARB/HCTZ] claim in the preceding 3 months) were followed for 1 year after the ARB claim rejection. The rate of initiation of ARB versus ACEI and other outcomes was compared with similar data from a health plan with approximately 2 million members that did not have a step-therapy intervention for ARBs (comparison group). Mean and median total antihypertensive drug ingredient costs per patient and per day of therapy over 12 months were analyzed for the intervention and comparison groups. One pharmacy benefit manager administered the pharmacy benefits for the intervention and comparison health plans during the entire study period from May 1, 2001, through February 28, 2004, and the drug formulary was similar for all health plans. RESULTS: In the step-therapy health plans, before the criterion for 15 months of continuous eligibility was applied, there were 8,904 patients (approximately 0.9% of health plan members) who either attempted and were rejected for an ARB or who newly started ACEI therapy, compared with 44,788 patients (approximately 2.2% of members in the comparison health plan) who newly started ARB or ACEI therapy without the step-therapy intervention. After the eligibility criterion was applied, there were 6,758 intervention health plan members (0.7% of members) and 33,709 comparison health plan members (1.7% of members) in the 2 study groups. In addition to the smaller proportion of total members affected by the intervention in the ARB step-therapy health plans, a smaller proportion of ARB/ACEI patients attempted to obtain an ARB (1,296/6,758 or 19.2%) compared with the health plan without step therapy (8,697/33,709 or 25.8%, P <0.001). Of the 1,296 patients who attempted to obtain an ARB and were rejected in the step-therapy group, 578 patients (44.6%) went through the prior-authorization process and received an ARB as initial therapy, 632 patients (48.8%) received other antihypertensive therapy, and 86 patients (6.6%) did not receive any antihypertensive therapy within the 12-month follow-up period. In the 12 months of follow-up, 51.1% (323/632) of patients in the intervention group who received other antihypertensives as index therapy switched to or added an ARB, and 1,234 of total ACE/ARB patients (n = 6,758, 18.3%) received ARB therapy in the health plan with step therapy compared with 10,498 of 33,709 total ACEI/ARB patients (31.1%) who received ARB therapy in the health plan without step therapy. The mean antihypertensive drug cost per patient was lower in the intervention group ($370.00) than in the comparison group ($445.12; P <0.001), and the average cost per day of antihypertensive drug therapy was 12.8% lower in the step-therapy group ($0.82) than in the comparison group ($0.94). Unadjusted annual cost savings were $75.12 per patient, and ordinary least squares regression analysis showed that the ARB step-therapy intervention was associated with $43.91 in antihypertensive drug cost savings per patient over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Within 12 months of follow-up, a step-therapy intervention for ARBs was associated with an 18% ratio of ARB users to total ACEI/ARB users compared with a 31% ratio in a comparison health plan without the ARB step-therapy intervention. Approximately 45% of patients who did not receive an ARB as a result of the step-therapy intervention had either switched to or added an ARB within 12 months of the intervention, and almost 7% of patients did not receive any antihypertensive therapy. Antihypertensive drug cost was about 13% lower for the ACEI/ARB patients in the intervention group, creating approximately $368,000 in savings in 1 year or $0.03 per member per month across the 1 million health plan members.