Cost-Effectiveness of Exercise Therapy in Patients with Intermittent Claudication-A Comparison of Supervised Exercise, Home-Based Structured Exercise, and Walk Advice from the SUNFIT Trial.

Hospital-based supervised exercise (SEP) is a guideline-recommended intervention for patients with intermittent claudication (IC). However, due to the limited availability of SEP, home-based structured exercise programs (HSEP) have become increasingly popular alongside the "go home and walk" advice. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of walk advice (WA) with Nordic pole walking vs. SEP combined with WA or HSEP combined with WA. We used data from the SUNFIT RCT (NCT02341716) to measure quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over a 12-month follow-up, and economic costs were obtained from a hospital cost-per-patient accounting system. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated, and uncertainty was assessed using nonparametric bootstrapping. The average health-care-cost per patient was similar in the WA (EUR 1781, n = 51) and HSEP (EUR 1820, n = 48) groups but higher in the SEP group (EUR 4619, n = 50, p-value < 0.01). Mean QALYs per patient during the follow-up were similar with no statistically significant differences. The findings do not support SEP as a cost-effective treatment for IC, as it incurred significantly higher costs without providing additional health improvements over WA with or without HSEP during the one-year observation period. The analysis also suggested that HSEP may be cost-effective compared to WA, but only with a 64% probability.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Daily Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes that has demonstrated significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the GLP-1 RA once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg in the SUSTAIN 10 trial. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0), with baseline characteristics and treatment effects sourced from SUSTAIN 10. Patients were assumed to initiate treatment with GLP-1 RAs and continue treatment until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, at which point GLP-1 RAs were discontinued and basal insulin was initiated. Pharmacy costs and costs of complications were measured in 2018 pounds sterling (GBP), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5% per annum. Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with an increase in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.30 quality-adjusted life-years, compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 140 per patient with semaglutide versus liraglutide, owing to a reduction in diabetes-related complications, in particular cardiovascular disease (mean cost saving of GBP 279 per patient). Therefore, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was dominant compared with once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg. The results of the sensitivity analyses were similar, demonstrating the robustness of the base-case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a cost-effective treatment option versus once-daily liraglutide 1.2 mg, based on the SUSTAIN 10 trial, from a UK healthcare payer perspective.

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release, Dulaglutide and Liraglutide in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) that, in the SUSTAIN clinical trials, has demonstrated greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight than the other GLP-1 RAs exenatide extended-release (ER) 2 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and liraglutide 1.2 mg. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the relative cost of control of achieving treatment goals in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide from a UK perspective. METHODS: Proportions of patients reaching HbA1c targets (< 7.0% and < 7.5%), weight loss targets (≥ 5% reduction in body weight) and composite endpoints (HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia; reduction in HbA1c of ≥ 1% and weight loss of ≥ 5%) were obtained from the SUSTAIN clinical trials. Annual per patient treatment costs were based on wholesale acquisition costs from July 2019 in the UK. Cost of control was calculated by plotting relative treatment costs against relative efficacy. RESULTS: The annual per patient cost was similar for all GLP-1 RAs. Once-weekly semaglutide was superior to exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in bringing patients to HbA1c and weight loss targets, and to composite endpoints. When looking at the composite endpoint of HbA1c < 7.0% without weight gain or hypoglycaemia, exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide were 50.0%, 21.6% and 51.3% less efficacious in achieving this, respectively, than once-weekly semaglutide. Consequently, the efficacy-to-cost ratios for once-weekly semaglutide were superior to all comparators in bringing patients to all endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that once-weekly semaglutide offers superior cost of control versus exenatide ER, dulaglutide and liraglutide in terms of achieving clinically relevant, single and composite endpoints. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg would therefore represent good value for money in the UK setting.

Postprandial glucose and healthcare resource use: a cross-sectional survey of adults with diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin.

AIMS: Postprandial glucose (PPG) control is a well-known challenge for diabetes management, yet there is limited research on how PPG affects healthcare resource utilization. This study investigated the association between PPG levels and healthcare resource utilization among adults with diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin. METHODS: A web-based, cross-sectional survey (n = 940) of adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and treated with basal and bolus insulins was conducted in Italy, the UK, and the US. Descriptive analyses included frequencies, cross-tabulations, and comparison of means. Incidence-rate ratios (IRR) were calculated using negative binomial regression analysis to investigate the relationship between elevated PPG and healthcare resource utilization. Models controlled for demographic characteristics, duration of diabetes, and diabetes-related complications. RESULTS: Among respondents who measured PPG regularly and reported their two highest PPG values in the past week (n = 691), the mean average highest PPG value was 11.9 mmol/L (SD = 4.0). On average, holding other variables constant at their means, a 1 mmol/L increase in PPG was associated with an increase in healthcare resource utilization related to diabetes and elevated PPG, including the expected number of healthcare provider (HCP) visits in the past 6 months (IRR [95% CI] = 1.14 [1.08-1.21], p < .001), the expected number of calls/emails to HCPs in the past 6 months (IRR [95% CI] = 1.12 [1.06-1.19], p < .001), and the expected number of overnight hospitalizations in the past year (IRR [95% CI] = 1.14 [1.07-1.23], p < .001). LIMITATIONS: The study relied on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias. Given the cross-sectional nature of the study, results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Increased PPG levels were significantly associated with increased healthcare resource utilization among adults with diabetes. Additional education regarding PPG monitoring may help improve the day-to-day management of diabetes and reduce healthcare costs.

Projected long-term outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with fast-acting insulin aspart vs conventional insulin aspart in the UK setting.

AIM: To assess the impact of faster aspart vs insulin aspart on long-term clinical outcomes and costs for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK setting. METHODS: The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs over patient lifetimes in a cohort with data on baseline characteristics from the "onset 1" trial. Treatment effects were taken from the 26-week main phase of the onset 1 trial, with costs and utilities based on literature review. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: Projections indicated that faster aspart was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (by 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years) vs insulin aspart. Improved clinical outcomes resulted from fewer diabetes-related complications and a delayed time to their onset with faster aspart. Faster aspart was found to be associated with reduced costs vs insulin aspart (cost savings of £1715), resulting from diabetes-related complications avoided and reduced treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Faster aspart was associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings vs insulin aspart for patients with T1DM in the UK setting.

Patient perspective on the management of atrial fibrillation in five European countries.

BACKGROUND: Long-term management of chronic conditions, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), require frequent interactions with the healthcare systems. The multinational EUropean Patient Survey in Atrial Fibrillation (EUPS-AF) was conducted to investigate patient satisfaction with AF management in different of five European healthcare systems at a time of changing treatment paradigms for stroke prophylaxis, prior to the advent of newer oral anticoagulants. METHODS: Adults (>18 years) were recruited at random from the total populations of France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK using a randomized telephone dialling system. At least 300 respondents per country reporting to have a diagnosis of AF or receiving oral anticoagulation therapy for suspected AF or to have a heart rhythm disturbance completed a structured telephone interview. RESULTS: Most respondents were satisfied with their treatment for AF over the previous 12 months, with 85.5% (n = 1289) rating their care as good or better. Suboptimal clinical practices, however, were identified in several key areas. Coordination of primary and secondary care and a lack of patient engagement and support were particular issues, especially for those patients likely to have extensive contact with their healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of Europe-wide guidelines for management of AF, most patients with AF were satisfied with their care, but for a greater proportion of patients, some aspects are unsatisfactory. Patient-centred surveys, such as the EUPS-AF, are crucial for understanding the factors that contribute to patient satisfaction and compliance with long-term treatment for chronic conditions.