Utilities for Complications Associated with Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Utility values are used in health economic modeling analyses of type 2 diabetes (T2D) to quantify the effect of acute and long-term complications on quality of life (QoL). For accurate modeling projections, it is important that the utility values used are up to date, accurate and representative of the simulated model cohort. METHODS: A literature review was performed to identify utility values for health states representing acute and chronic T2D-related complications including cardiovascular complications, stroke, renal disease, ophthalmic complications, neuropathy, diabetic foot, amputation and hypoglycemia. Searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases and limited to articles published since 2010. Supplementary searches were performed to identify data published at congresses in 2019-2023. RESULTS: A total of 54 articles were identified that reported utility values for T2D-related complications. The most frequently used elicitation method/instrument was the EQ-5D (n = 42 studies) followed by the Short Form-6 dimensions (n = 6), time tradeoff (n = 5), the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 or Mark 3 (n = 2), 15D (n = 1), visual analog scale (n = 1) and standard gamble (n = 1). Stroke and amputation were consistently associated with the largest decrements in QoL. There is a lack of published data that distinguishes between severity of several complications including renal disease, retinopathy and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes-related complications can have a profound impact on QoL; therefore, it is important that these are captured accurately and appropriately in health economic models. Recently published utility values for diabetes-related complications that can be used to inform health economic models are summarized here.

Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Tirzepatide is a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist approved for type 2 diabetes (T2D) treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg vs semaglutide 2.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, in patients with T2D from a US health care payer perspective. METHODS: The PRIME T2D Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from a published adjusted indirect treatment comparison that used data from the SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN FORTE trials. Patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy at a hemoglobin A1c of greater than 7.5%. Costs and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: Tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg were associated with improved quality-adjusted life-expectancy (10 mg: 0.085 quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs], 15 mg: 0.121 QALYs), higher direct costs (10 mg: USD 5,990, 15 mg: USD 6,617), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of USD 70,147 and 54,699 per QALY gained, respectively, vs semaglutide 2.0 mg. Both doses of tirzepatide remained cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections using the PRIME T2D model and based on treatment effects from an adjusted indirect treatment comparison indicate that tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg are likely to be cost-effective vs semaglutide 2.0 mg for the treatment of T2D in the United States.

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the management of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of tirzepatide (5, 10 and 15 mg doses), a novel glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, versus semaglutide 1.0 mg, an injectable glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, based on the results of the head-to-head SURPASS-2 trial, from a US healthcare payer perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model was used to make projections of clinical and cost outcomes over a 50-year time horizon. Baseline cohort characteristics, treatment effects and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SURPASS-2 trial. Intensification to insulin therapy occurred when HbA1c reached 7.5%, in line with American Diabetes Association recommendations. Direct costs in 2021 US dollars (US$) and health state utilities were derived from published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: All three doses of tirzepatide were associated with lower diabetes-related complication rates, improved life expectancy, improved quality-adjusted life expectancy and higher direct costs versus semaglutide. This resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$ 75 803, 58 908 and 48 785 per quality-adjusted life year gained for tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg, respectively, versus semaglutide. Tirzepatide remained cost-effective versus semaglutide over a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on the SURPASS-2 trial results indicate that 5, 10 and 15 mg doses of tirzepatide are likely to be cost-effective versus semaglutide 1.0 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the United States.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of ferric carboxymaltose versus iron sucrose for the treatment of iron deficiency anemia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in Spain.

Background: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can result in reduced quality of life and increased healthcare costs. IDA is treated with iron supplementation, commonly with intravenous iron formulations, such as ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), and iron sucrose (IS). Methods: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of FCM compared with IS, in terms of additional cost per additional responder in patients with IDA subsequent to IBD in the Spanish setting. An economic model was developed to assess the additional cost per additional responder, defined as normalization or an increase of ⩾2 g/dl in hemoglobin levels, for FCM versus IS from a Spanish healthcare payer perspective. Efficacy inputs were taken from a randomized controlled trial comparing the two interventions (FERGIcor). Costs of treatment were calculated in 2021 Euros (EUR) using a microcosting approach and included the costs of intravenous iron, healthcare professional time, and consumables. Cost-effectiveness was assessed over one cycle of treatment, with a series of sensitivity analyses performed to test the robustness of the results. Results: FCM was more effective than IS, with 84% of patients achieving a response compared with 76%. When expressed as number needed to treat, 13 patients would need to switch treatment from IS to FCM in order to achieve one additional responder. Costs of treatment were EUR 323 with FCM compared with EUR 470 with IS, a cost saving of EUR 147 with FCM. Cost savings with FCM were driven by the reduced number of infusions required, resulting in a reduced requirement for healthcare professional time and use of consumables compared with the IS arm. Conclusion: The present analysis suggests that FCM is less costly and more effective than IS for the treatment of IDA subsequent to IBD in Spain and therefore was considered dominant.

Cost of Severe Hypoglycemia and Budget Impact with Nasal Glucagon in Patients with Diabetes in Spain.

INTRODUCTION: Severe hypoglycemic events (SHE) represent a clinical and economic burden in patients with diabetes. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel treatment for SHEs with similar efficacy, but with a usability advantage over injectable glucagon (IG) that may translate to improved economic outcomes. The economic implications of this usability advantage on SHE-related spending in Spain were explored in this analysis. METHODS: A cost-offset and budget impact analysis (BIA) was conducted using a decision tree model, adapted for the Spanish setting. The model calculated average costs per SHE over the SHE treatment pathway following a treatment attempt with IG or NG. Analyses were performed separately in three populations with insulin-treated diabetes: children and adolescents (4-17 years) with type 1 diabetes (T1D), adults with T1D and adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D), with respective population estimates applied in BIA. Treatment probabilities were assumed to be equal for IG and NG, except for treatment success following glucagon administration. Epidemiologic and cost data were obtained from Spanish-specific sources. BIA results were presented at a 3-year time horizon. RESULTS: On a per SHE level, NG was associated with lower costs compared to IG (children and adolescents with T1D, EUR 820; adults with T1D, EUR 804; adults with T2D, EUR 725). Lower costs were attributed to reduced costs of professional medical assistance in patients treated with NG. After 3 years, BIA showed that relative to IG, the introduction of NG was projected to reduce SHE-related spending by EUR 1,158,969, EUR 142,162,371, and EUR 6,542,585 in children and adolescents with T1D, adults with T1D, and adults with insulin-treated T2D, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, the usability advantage of NG over IG translates to potential cost savings per SHE in three populations with insulin-treated diabetes, and the introduction of NG was associated with a lower budget impact versus IG in each group.

The PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model: a novel, patient-level model for estimating long-term clinical and cost outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The growing burden of diabetes mellitus and recent progress in understanding cardiovascular outcomes for type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients continue to make the disease a priority for healthcare decision-makers around the world. Our objective was to develop a new, product-independent model capable of projecting long-term clinical and cost outcomes for populations with T2D to support health economic evaluation. METHODS: Following a systematic literature review to identify longitudinal study data, existing T2D models and risk formulae for T2D populations, a model was developed (the PRIME Type 2 Diabetes Model [PRIME T2D Model]) in line with good practice guidelines to simulate disease progression, diabetes-related complications and mortality. The model runs as a patient-level simulation and is capable of simulating treatment algorithms and risk factor progression, and projecting the cumulative incidence of macrovascular and microvascular complications as well as hypoglycemic events. The PRIME T2D Model can report clinical outcomes, quality-adjusted life expectancy, direct and indirect costs, along with standard measures of cost-effectiveness and is capable of probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Several approaches novel to T2D modeling were utilized, such as combining risk formulae using a weighted model averaging approach that takes into account patient characteristics to evaluate complication risk. RESULTS: Validation analyses comparing modeled outcomes with published studies demonstrated that the PRIME T2D Model projects long-term patient outcomes consistent with those reported for a number of long-term studies, including cardiovascular outcomes trials. All root mean squared deviation (RMSD) values for internal validations (against published studies used to develop the model) were 1.1% or less and all external validation RMSDs were 3.7% or less. CONCLUSIONS: The PRIME T2D Model is a product-independent analysis tool that is available online and offers new approaches to long-standing challenges in diabetes modeling and may become a useful tool for informing healthcare policy.HIGHLIGHTSThe PRIME Type 2 Diabetes (T2D) Model is a new, product-independent simulation model.The model offers new approaches to long-standing challenges in diabetes modeling.PRIME T2D Model projects outcomes consistent with those from clinical trials.The model is designed to be a useful tool for informing healthcare policy in T2D.

Cost-Effectiveness of Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections Plus Intermittently Scanned Glucose Monitoring in People With Type 1 Diabetes in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Hybrid closed loop (HCL) insulin pump systems and intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (IS-CGM) are increasingly used by individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). The aim of the analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of the MiniMed 670G HCL system versus IS-CGM plus multiple daily injections of insulin (MDI) or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in adults with T1D in the Netherlands. METHODS: The analysis was performed using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model with clinical input data sourced from observational studies. Simulated patients were assumed to have a baseline HbA1c of 7.8%. Use of the MiniMed 670G system was assumed to reduce HbA1c by 0.4% and confer a quality-of-life (QoL) benefit through reduced fear of hypoglycemia (FoH). The analysis was performed from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon; future costs and clinical outcomes pertaining to the Netherlands were used and discounted at 4% and 1.5% per annum, respectively. RESULTS: Use of the MiniMed 670G HCL system was projected to improve mean quality-adjusted life expectancy by 2.231 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus IS-CGM. Total mean lifetime costs were EUR 13,683 higher with the MiniMed 670G system resulting in an ICER of EUR 6133 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses revealed findings to be sensitive to changes in assumptions around severe hypoglycemic event rates and the (QoL) benefit associated with reduced FoH. CONCLUSIONS: Over patient lifetimes, for adults with long-standing T1D in the Netherlands, use of the MiniMed 670G system is projected to be cost-effective versus IS-CGM plus MDI or CSII.

Evaluation of the cost and medical resource use outcomes associated with nasal glucagon versus injectable glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes in Canada: a modeling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions. METHODS: A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anaemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) can impair quality of life and increase healthcare costs. Treatment options for IDA-associated IBD include oral iron and intravenous iron formulations (such as ferric carboxymaltose [FCM], ferric derisomaltose [FD, previously known as iron isomaltoside 1000], and iron sucrose [IS]). The present analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron sulfate in terms of additional cost per additional responder in the UK setting. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness was calculated for FCM versus FD, IS, and oral iron individually in terms of the additional cost per additional responder, defined as haemoglobin normalisation or an increase of ≥2 g/dL in haemoglobin levels, in a model developed in Microsoft Excel. Relative efficacy inputs were taken from a previously published network meta-analysis, since there is currently no single head-to-head trial evidence comparing all therapy options. Costs were calculated in 2020 pounds sterling (GBP) capturing the costs of iron preparations, healthcare professional time, and consumables. RESULTS: The analysis suggested that FCM may be the most effective intervention, with 81% of patients achieving a response. Response rates with FD, IS, and oral iron were 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively. Total costs with FCM, FD, IS, and oral iron were GBP 296, GBP 312, GBP 503, and GBP 56, respectively. FCM was found to be more effective and less costly than both FD and IS, and therefore was considered dominant. Compared with oral iron, FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 2045 per additional responder. CONCLUSIONS: FCM is likely to be the least costly and most effective IV iron therapy in the UK setting. Compared with oral iron, healthcare payers must decide whether the superior treatment efficacy of FCM is worth the additional cost.

Smart Insulin Pens are Associated with Improved Clinical Outcomes at Lower Cost Versus Standard-of-Care Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes in Sweden: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world evidence has demonstrated improved glycemic control and insulin management following introduction of smart insulin pens in a Swedish type 1 diabetes (T1D) population. To understand the implications for healthcare costs and expected health outcomes, this analysis evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of introducing smart insulin pens to standard-of-care T1D treatment (standard care) from a Swedish societal perspective. METHODS: Clinical outcomes and healthcare costs (in 2018 Swedish krona, SEK) were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model to estimate cost-effectiveness. Clinical data and baseline characteristics for the simulated cohort were informed by population data and a prospective, noninterventional study of a smart insulin pen in a Swedish T1D population. This analysis captured direct and indirect costs, mortality, and the impact of diabetes-related complications on quality of life. RESULTS: Over patients' lifetimes, smart insulin pen use was associated with per-patient improvements in mean discounted life expectancy (+ 0.90 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (+ 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years), in addition to mean cost savings (direct, SEK 124,270; indirect, SEK 373,725), versus standard care. A lower frequency and delayed onset of complications drove projected improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy and lower costs with smart insulin pens versus standard care. Overall, smart insulin pens were a dominant treatment option relative to standard care across all base-case and sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Use of smart insulin pens was projected to improve clinical outcomes at lower costs relative to standard care in a Swedish T1D population and represents a good use of healthcare resources in Sweden.

Iron Formulations for the Treatment of Iron Deficiency Anemia in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a common complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can result in reduced quality of life and increased healthcare costs. IDA is treated with iron supplementation, either with oral iron therapy (OI) or intravenous iron formulations, including ferric carboxymaltose (FCM), iron isomaltoside 1000 (IIM), and iron sucrose (IS). This analysis compared the cost-effectiveness of FCM versus IIM, IS, and OI in terms of additional cost per additional responder in Switzerland. METHODS: A health economic model was developed to assess the additional cost per additional responder, defined as normalization or an increase of at least 2 g/dL in hemoglobin levels, for FCM versus IIM, IS, and OI. To date, no single head-to-head trial comparing all therapies is available, and therefore relative efficacy data were taken from a published network meta-analysis. Costs of treatment were calculated in 2020 Swiss francs (CHF) using a microcosting approach, and included the costs of iron, healthcare professional time, and consumables. Costs are also presented in euros (EUR) based on an exchange rate of CHF 1 = EUR 0.94. RESULTS: Response rates with FCM, IIM, IS, and OI were 81%, 74%, 75%, and 69%, respectively, with FCM projected to be the most effective treatment. FCM was associated with cost savings of CHF 24 (EUR 23) versus IIM and of CHF 147 (EUR 138) versus IS, and increased costs by CHF 345 (EUR 324) versus OI. Therefore FCM was considered dominant versus both IIM and IS, improving clinical outcomes with cost savings. FCM was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CHF 2970 (EUR 2792) per additional responder versus OI. CONCLUSIONS: FCM was projected to be the most cost-effective intravenous iron therapy in Switzerland, increasing the number of responders and leading to cost savings for healthcare payers.

Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden of Poor Glycemic Control Associated with Therapeutic Inertia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Therapeutic inertia refers to the failure to initiate or intensify treatment in a timely manner and is widespread in type 2 diabetes (T2D) despite the well-established importance of maintaining good glycemic control. The aim of this analysis was to quantify the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control due to therapeutic inertia in patients with T2D in the USA. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate life expectancy, costs associated with diabetes-related complications, and lost workplace productivity in US patients. Baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels were 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), 11.0% (97 mmol/mol) 13.0% (119 mmol/mol), or 15.0% (140 mmol/mol), with targets of 6.5% (48 mmol/mol), 7.0% (53 mmol/mol), 8.0% (64 mmol/mol), or 9.0% (75 mmol/mol) depending on baseline HbA1c, across several delayed intensification scenarios (values above target were defined as poor control). The burden associated with intensification delays of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 years was estimated over time horizons of 1-30 years. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually. RESULTS: In a population of 13.4 million patients with T2D and baseline HbA1c of 9.0% (75 mmol/mol), delaying intensification of therapy by 1 year was associated with a loss of approximately 13,390 life-years and increased total costs of US dollars (USD) 7.3 billion (1-year time horizon). Longer delays in intensification were associated with a greater economic burden. Delaying intensification by 7 years was projected to cost approximately 3 million life-years and USD 223 billion over a 30-year time horizon. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic inertia is common in routine clinical practice and makes a substantial contribution to the burden associated with type 2 diabetes in the USA. Initiatives and interventions aimed at preventing therapeutic inertia are needed to improve clinical outcomes and avoid excess costs.

Evaluating the burden of poor glycemic control associated with therapeutic inertia in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Background and aims: Effective glycemic control is the cornerstone of successful type 2 diabetes management. However, many patients fail to reach glycemic control targets, and therapeutic inertia (failure to intensify therapy to address poor glycemic control in a timely manner) has been widely reported. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the economic burden associated with diabetes-related complications due to poor glycemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK.Methods: A validated long-term model of type 2 diabetes (IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model) was used to project cost outcomes for a UK population with type 2 diabetes, based on data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database, at different levels of glycemic control. Costs associated with diabetes-related complications were accounted in 2017 Pounds Sterling (GBP). Complication costs were estimated for populations achieving different glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets, in a number of delayed treatment intensification scenarios, and across a range of time horizons.Results: For patients with an HbA1c level of 8.2% (66 mmol/mol), 7 years in poor control could increase mean costs associated with diabetes-related complications by over GBP 690 per patient and lead to costs of over GBP 1,500 in lost workplace productivity compared with achieving good glycemic control (HbA1c 7.0%, 53 mmol/mol) over a 10-year time horizon. Based on published estimates of the proportion of type 2 diabetes patients failing to meet glycemic targets in the UK, this corresponds to an additional economic burden of ∼GBP 2,600 million (complication costs plus lost productivity costs).Conclusions: The economic burden of poor glycemic control in type 2 diabetes in the UK is substantial. Efforts to avoid therapeutic inertia could substantially reduce diabetes-related complication costs even in the short-term.

Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin, Sitagliptin and Liraglutide in the UK: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trial Programme.

INTRODUCTION: The PIONEER trial programme showed that, after 52 weeks, the novel oral glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue semaglutide 14 mg was associated with significantly greater reductions in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) versus a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (empagliflozin 25 mg), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) and an injectable GLP-1 analogue (liraglutide 1.8 mg). The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus each of these comparators in the UK setting. METHODS: Analyses were performed from a healthcare payer perspective using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model, in which outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes (50 years). Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were based on 52-week data from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomised controlled trials, comparing oral semaglutide with empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Treatment switching occurred when HbA1c exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol). Utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications (in pounds sterling [GBP]) were taken from published sources. The acquisition cost of oral semaglutide was assumed to match that of once-weekly semaglutide. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin, 0.20 QALYs versus sitagliptin and 0.07 QALYs versus liraglutide. Direct costs over a patient's lifetime were GBP 971 and GBP 963 higher with oral semaglutide than with empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively, but GBP 1551 lower versus liraglutide. Oral semaglutide was associated with a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications versus all comparators. Therefore, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of GBP 11,006 and 4930 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg, respectively, and was more effective and less costly (dominant) versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was cost-effective versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and dominant versus liraglutide, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. METHODS: Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c < 7.0%; (3) ≥ 1.0%-point HbA1c reduction and weight loss ≥ 3.0%; and (4) HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain. The proportions of patients achieving each endpoint were sourced from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 trials. Treatment costs were accounted over an annual time-period in 2019 US dollars (USD), based on wholesale acquisition cost. Cost of control was calculated by dividing treatment costs by the proportion of patients achieving each target. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was consistently associated with the lowest cost of control for all four endpoints. For the targets of HbA1c ≤ 6.5% and HbA1c < 7.0%, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with lower cost of control than empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg by USD 15,036, 14,697, and 6996, respectively, and USD 931, 346 and 4497, respectively. For the double composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 525, 32,277 and 13,011, respectively versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. For the triple composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 1255, 7510 and 5774, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was associated with lower cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to four clinically-relevant treatment targets versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16).

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal-bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial. METHODS: A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England. RESULTS: Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies.

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for the US setting. METHODS: A health economic model was developed to estimate mean costs per SHE for which treatment was attempted using NG or IG, which differed only in the probability of treatment success, based on a published usability study. The budget impact of NG was projected over 2 years for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (T2D-BB). Epidemiologic and cost data were sourced from the literature and/or fee schedules. RESULTS: Mean costs were $992 lower if NG was used compared with IG per SHE for which a user attempted treatment. NG was estimated to reduce SHE-related spending by $1.1 million and $230 000 over 2 years in 10 000 patients each with T1D and T2D-BB, respectively. Reduced spending resulted from reduced professional emergency services utilization as successful treatment was more likely with NG. CONCLUSIONS: The usability advantage of NG over IG was projected to reduce SHE-related treatment costs in the US setting. NG has the potential to improve hypoglycemia emergency care and reduce SHE-related treatment costs.

Computer Modeling of Diabetes and Its Transparency: A Report on the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge.

OBJECTIVES: The Eighth Mount Hood Challenge (held in St. Gallen, Switzerland, in September 2016) evaluated the transparency of model input documentation from two published health economics studies and developed guidelines for improving transparency in the reporting of input data underlying model-based economic analyses in diabetes. METHODS: Participating modeling groups were asked to reproduce the results of two published studies using the input data described in those articles. Gaps in input data were filled with assumptions reported by the modeling groups. Goodness of fit between the results reported in the target studies and the groups' replicated outputs was evaluated using the slope of linear regression line and the coefficient of determination (R2). After a general discussion of the results, a diabetes-specific checklist for the transparency of model input was developed. RESULTS: Seven groups participated in the transparency challenge. The reporting of key model input parameters in the two studies, including the baseline characteristics of simulated patients, treatment effect and treatment intensification threshold assumptions, treatment effect evolution, prediction of complications and costs data, was inadequately transparent (and often missing altogether). Not surprisingly, goodness of fit was better for the study that reported its input data with more transparency. To improve the transparency in diabetes modeling, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist listing the minimal input data required for reproducibility in most diabetes modeling applications was developed. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency of diabetes model inputs is important to the reproducibility and credibility of simulation results. In the Eighth Mount Hood Challenge, the Diabetes Modeling Input Checklist was developed with the goal of improving the transparency of input data reporting and reproducibility of diabetes simulation model results.