Days absent from work as a result of complications associated with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from 20 years of linked national registry data in Sweden.

AIMS: To analyse days absent from work related to individual microvascular, macrovascular and other complications of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and to identify key drivers of absence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: National health and socio-economic individual-level data were analysed for the years 1997 to 2016 for people with T2D, and age-, sex- and residential region-matched controls (5:1) using linkage to Swedish national administrative registers, based on personal identity numbers. Regression analyses accounting for individual-level clustering and education were estimated to obtain days absent by individual complications. Alternative analyses, for example, workforce indicator and age subgroups, were explored for robustness and comparison purposes. RESULTS: A total of 413 000 people with T2D aged <66 years, comprising 4.9 million person-years, was included. The crude proportion with any absence was higher among those with T2D compared to controls (47% vs. 26%) in the index year, and the median (IQR) number of days was higher (223 [77;359] vs. 196 [59;352]) if any absence. Regression analyses showed that complications per se were a key driver of days absent: stroke (+102 days); end-stage renal disease (+70 days); severe vision loss (+56 days); and angina pectoris, heart failure, and osteoarthritis (+53 days each). The alternative analyses showed similar levels of days absent and age subgroups differed in expected directions. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the persisting impact on productivity from complications that supports continued efforts to reduce risk factors in T2D. Future studies on burden of disease and economic evaluations of new therapies and disease management may use this new set of complication-specific estimates to improve understanding of the value of reducing complications.

Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

AIMS: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are appealing as glucose-lowering therapy for individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) as they also reduce body weight and are associated with low rates of hypoglycaemia. This analysis assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (two once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists) from a UK healthcare payer perspective, based on the head-to-head SUSTAIN 7 trial, to inform healthcare decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics, changes in physiological parameters and adverse event rates were derived from the 40-week SUSTAIN 7 trial. Costs to a healthcare payer were assessed, and these captured pharmacy costs and costs of complications. Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.04 and 0.10 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, compared with dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical benefits were achieved at reduced costs, with lifetime cost savings of GBP 35 with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and GBP 106 with the once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, resulting from fewer diabetes-related complications due to better glycaemic control. Therefore, both doses of once-weekly semaglutide were considered dominant vs dulaglutide 1.5 mg (improving outcomes and reducing costs). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with treatment with dulaglutide, once-weekly semaglutide represents a cost-effective option for treating individuals in the UK with T2DM who are not achieving glycaemic control with metformin, projected to both improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs.

The Economic Burden of Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The global prevalence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is increasing, such that NASH is predicted to become the leading cause of liver transplantation (LT) in the US by 2025. Despite this, data on the economic burden of NASH are limited. OBJECTIVES: This systematic literature review aimed to summarise and critically evaluate studies reporting on the economic burden of NASH and identify evidence gaps for subsequent research. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched up to 6 January 2021 for English language articles published from January 2010 to January 2021 inclusive that reported economic outcomes of a NASH population or subpopulation. Evidence was presented and synthesised using narrative data analysis, and quality was assessed by two reviewers using an 11-item checklist developed for economic evaluations and adapted to cost of illness. RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included, of which five presented data on costs and resource use, four on costs only and five on resource use only. Overall, NASH is associated with a significant and increasing economic burden in terms of healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and direct and indirect costs. This burden was higher among NASH patients with advanced (fibrosis stage 3-4) versus early (fibrosis stage 0-2) disease, symptomatic versus asymptomatic disease and for patients with complications or comorbidities versus those without. In LT patients, those with NASH as the primary indication had greater HCRU and higher costs compared with non-NASH indications such as hepatitis B and C viruses. Considerable variability in HCRU and costs was seen across the US and Europe, with the highest costs seen in the US. The quality of the included studies was variable, and the studies themselves were heterogeneous in terms of study methodology, patient populations, comorbidities, follow-up time and outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a general scarcity of NASH-specific economic outcomes data. Despite this, the identified studies show that NASH is associated with a significant economic burden in terms of increased HCRU, and high direct medical and non-medical costs and societal burden that increases with disease severity or when patients have complications or comorbidity. More national-level NASH prevalence data are needed to generate accurate forecasts of HCRU and costs in the coming decades. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark.

It is important to know the cost of treating different diseases because this helps to guide how healthcare resources and funds are used. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a serious liver disease that can lead to liver scarring (cirrhosis), liver transplantation and early death, and the number of people with NASH is growing around the world. Fourteen studies published over the past 10 years have investigated the costs of treating patients with NASH. Patients with NASH generally use more healthcare services with a higher cost than the general population or patients with type 2 diabetes. In people with more serious liver disease, such as liver transplant patients, NASH tends to be more expensive and use more healthcare services than other serious liver diseases such as hepatitis. Costs and use of health services are particularly high in patients with more severe NASH, or those who have other diseases or complications in addition to NASH (such as type 2 diabetes or kidney failure).

The burden of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis: A systematic review of health-related quality of life and patient-reported outcomes.

Background & Aims: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is associated with increased mortality and a high clinical burden. NASH adversely impacts patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but published data on the humanistic burden of disease are limited. This review aimed to summarise and critically evaluate studies reporting HRQoL or patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in populations with NASH and identify key gaps for further research. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PsycINFO were searched for English-language publications published from 2010 to 2021 that reported HRQoL/PRO outcomes of a population or subpopulation with NASH. Results: Twenty-five publications covering 23 unique studies were identified. Overall, the data showed a substantial impact of NASH on HRQoL, particularly in terms of physical functioning and fatigue, with deterioration of physical and mental health as NASH progresses. Prevalent symptoms, including fatigue, abdominal pain, anxiety/depression, cognition problems, and poor sleep quality, adversely impact patients' ability to work and perform activities of daily living and the quality of relationships. However, some patients fail to attribute symptoms to their disease because of a lack of patient awareness and education. NASH is associated with high rates of comorbidities such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, which contribute to reduced HRQoL. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of diagnostic methods, population, outcomes, follow-up time, and measures of HRQoL/utility. Most studies were rated 'moderate' at quality assessment, and all evaluable studies had inadequate control of confounders. Conclusions: NASH is associated with a significant HRQoL burden that begins early in the disease course and increases with disease progression. More robust studies are needed to better understand the humanistic burden of NASH, with adequate adjustment for confounders that could influence outcomes. Lay summary: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) has a significant impact on quality of life, with individuals experiencing worse physical and mental health compared with the general population. NASH and its symptoms, which include tiredness, stomach pain, anxiety, depression, poor focus and memory, and impaired sleep, affect individuals' relationships and ability to work and perform day-to-day tasks. However, not all patients are aware that their symptoms may be related to NASH. Patients would benefit from more education on their disease, and the importance of good social networks for patient health and well-being should be reinforced. More studies are needed to better understand the patient burden of NASH.

The prevalence of comorbidities in Danish patients with obesity - A Danish register-based study based on data from 2002 to 2018.

We used the Danish National Health Registers to conduct a study on the prevalence of obesity-related comorbidities in Danish citizens who have been diagnosed with obesity at a Danish hospital. This was a retrospective observational study with a population comprising all Danish citizens (≥18 years) who have been registered with a specific obesity class diagnosis in the Danish National Patient Register between 2002 and 2018. A total of 86 980 persons with hospital-diagnosed obesity were included in the study population. To investigate how the risk of having comorbidities varies with the degree of obesity, we applied adjusted logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio of having one of the following predefined comorbidities for people with a BMI in obesity classes II and III compared with people with a BMI in obesity class I: type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, hip and knee osteoarthritis, obstructive sleep apnoea and asthma. Comorbidities were defined from ICD-10 diagnosis codes and prescription medication utilization. The odds ratio for obstructive sleep apnoea (OR 1.86 and OR 3.0), type 2 diabetes (OR 1.68 and OR 2.26), hip and knee osteoarthritis (OR 1.29 and OR 1.54) and asthma (OR1.13 and OR 1.25) increased significantly with obesity class (obesity class II relative to I and III relative to I, respectively). The odds ratio of having had at least one comorbidity was estimated to be 1.52 for people with a BMI in obesity class II and 2.10 for people with a BMI in obesity class III compared with people in obesity class I. The risk of obstructive sleep apnoea, type 2 diabetes, hip and knee osteoarthritis, and asthma increased significantly with increasing BMI, highlighting the importance of preventing further weight gain even in individuals who are already living with obesity.

The Effect of Bariatric Surgery on Healthcare Costs and Labor Market Attachment.

PURPOSE: We aimed to estimate the total cost of bariatric surgery in Denmark. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included all Danish citizens ≥ 18 years who had received bariatric surgery, identified in the Danish National Patient Register in the period from 2002 to 2018. Patients who had received bariatric surgery were matched with three controls on gender, year of birth, and region of residence. A difference-in-difference approach was used to estimate the healthcare costs attributable to bariatric surgery from 3 years before to 5 years after surgery. RESULTS: Total healthcare costs for cases receiving bariatric surgery during the first 5 years following surgery amounted to EUR 32,899, and EUR 16,651 for their matched controls. Thereby, the difference in total healthcare costs (EUR 16,248) between persons receiving bariatric surgery and their matched controls was 2.2 times the DRG rate for the surgery itself (EUR 7387). Moreover, the results suggest that receiving bariatric surgery led to a total increase in gross earnings of EUR 5970 (5%) and a total reduction in receipt of transfer payments of EUR 4488 (12%) in the period up until 5 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: The results showed a significant and persistent increase in healthcare costs for people with obesity receiving bariatric surgery during the first 5 years after surgery. We also found that bariatric surgery was associated with increased attachment to the labor market.

The substantial costs to society associated with obesity - a Danish register-based study based on 2002-2018 data.

INTRODUCTION: The Danish national health registers were used to investigate the economic burden of obesity, associated costs of comorbidities and a breakdown into direct and indirect costs. METHODS: The study population comprised all Danish adult citizens registered with a hospital diagnosis of obesity in the Danish National Patient Register between 2002 and 2018. Cases were matched with five controls via the Danish Civil Registration System. We estimated the difference in total healthcare costs and indirect costs between cases and controls and the difference in healthcare resource utilization. In a sub-analysis, we estimated total healthcare costs for persons who had been registered with one or more of 11 predefined comorbidities. RESULTS: People with obesity experienced a statistically significant twofold increase in average direct healthcare costs per year (EUR 5,934), compared with controls (EUR 2,788) and had statistically significantly higher indirect costs compared to controls. Total healthcare costs for people with obesity and one or more of the 11 comorbidities were 91.7%-342.8% higher than total healthcare costs of the population with obesity but none of the 11 comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Obesity was associated with an increase in both direct and indirect costs. The presence of comorbidities was associated with additional healthcare costs. KEY POINTS: Obesity is associated with an increase in direct and indirect costs in Denmark.Comorbidities are associated with additional healthcare costs.

A population-adjusted indirect comparison of cardiovascular benefits of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide and dulaglutide in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without established cardiovascular disease.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular (CV) effects of once-weekly subcutaneous (s.c.) semaglutide 0.5 and 1 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg are reported in their respective placebo-controlled cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), SUSTAIN 6 and REWIND. There is no head-to-head CVOT comparing these treatments and heterogeneity between their CVOTs renders conventional indirect comparison inappropriate. Therefore, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was performed to compare the effects of s.c. semaglutide and dulaglutide on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with and without established cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: Individual patient data from SUSTAIN 6 were matched with aggregate data from REWIND, using a propensity score method to balance baseline effect-modifying patient characteristics. Hazard ratios (HRs) for three-point (3P) MACE (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke), anchored via placebo, were then indirectly compared between balanced populations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the main analysis. RESULTS: After matching, included effect modifiers were balanced. In the main analysis, s.c. semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant 35% reduction in 3P MACE versus placebo (HR, 0.65 [95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.48, 0.87]) and nonsignificantly greater reduction (26%) versus dulaglutide (HR, 0.74 [95% CI; 0.54, 1.01]). Results were supported by all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a statistically significant lower risk of 3P MACE for s.c. semaglutide versus placebo, in a population with lower prevalence of pre-existing CVD than that in the pre-specified primary analysis in SUSTAIN 6. Reduction in 3P MACE with s.c. semaglutide was greater than with dulaglutide, although not statistically significant.

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.

Comparing the Cohort and Micro-Simulation Modeling Approaches in Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Case Study of the IHE Diabetes Cohort Model and the Economics and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM.

BACKGROUND: Economic modeling is widely used in estimating cost-effectiveness in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Because type 2 diabetes is complex and patients are heterogenous, the cohort modeling approach may generate biased estimates of costeffectiveness. The IHE Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) was constructed using the cohort approach as an alternative for stakeholders with limited resources, some of whom have voiced reasonable concerns about a lack of transparency with type 2 diabetes micro-simulation models and long run times. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to inform decision makers by investigating the direction and magnitude of bias of IHE-DCM cost-effectiveness estimates that can be attributed to the cohort modeling approach. METHODS: Simulation scenarios inspired by the 9th Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge were simulated with IHE-DCM and with a micro-simulation model, the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM), and key metrics (absolute and incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years, event rates, and cost-effectiveness) were compared for evidence of systematic differences. The models were harmonized to the extent possible to ensure that differences were driven primarily by the unit of observation and not by other model differences. RESULTS: IHE-DCM run times were faster and IHE-DCM produced uniformly larger estimates of absolute life-years, quality-adjusted life-years, and costs than ECHO-T2DM but smaller between-arm (incremental) differences. Estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits varied similarly and predictably across the scenarios. On average, IHE-DCM estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits were CAN$269 (3%) and CAN$2935 (10%) smaller, respectively, than ECHO-T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: There was little evidence that estimated cost-effectiveness metrics, the outcomes that matter most to stakeholders, differed systematically.

Once-Weekly Semaglutide Reduces HbA1c and Body Weight in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Regardless of Background Common OAD: a Subgroup Analysis from SUSTAIN 2-4 and 10.

INTRODUCTION: Despite treatment with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), achieving effective glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains a challenge. The objective of this post hoc analysis of data from the SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 active-controlled trials was to assess the efficacy and safety of the once-weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) semaglutide in patients on background treatment with metformin (MET), with or without a sulphonylurea (SU). METHODS: Data from the randomised phase 3 trials SUSTAIN 2, 3, 4 and 10 for subjects who received background MET alone or MET + SU were analysed. Change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight at the end of treatment visit (week 30 in SUSTAIN 4 and 10, week 56 in SUSTAIN 2 and 3), and rates of hypoglycaemia and adverse events leading to premature treatment discontinuation were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 3411 subjects were included in the full analysis set (3410 in the safety analysis set). Across the four trials, semaglutide significantly reduced HbA1c (estimated treatment difference [ETD] - 0.32 to - 0.79%-points for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 0.38 to - 1.07%-points for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.01) in subjects receiving both MET and MET + SU. Regardless of background OAD, semaglutide significantly reduced body weight (ETD - 2.35 to - 4.72 kg for semaglutide 0.5 mg, and - 2.96 to - 6.76 kg for semaglutide 1.0 mg vs comparators; p < 0.0001). Across the trials, hypoglycaemic events were more common with background MET + SU than MET alone, in subjects receiving either semaglutide or a comparator. The rate of adverse events (AEs) leading to premature treatment discontinuations in subjects treated with semaglutide were generally consistent regardless of background therapy. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg significantly improve glycaemic control (HbA1c) and body weight in subjects with T2D, with a similar tolerability profile, regardless of whether they receive background MET or MET + SU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2), NCT01885208 (SUSTAIN 3), NCT02128932 (SUSTAIN 4) and NCT03191396 (SUSTAIN 10).

External Validation of the Core Obesity Model to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Weight Management Interventions.

BACKGROUND: For economic models to be considered fit for purpose, it is vital that their outputs can be interpreted with confidence by clinicians, budget holders and other stakeholders. Consequently, thorough validation of models should be carried out to enhance confidence in their predictions. Here, we present results of external dependent and independent validations of the Core Obesity Model (COM), which was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight management interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the external validity of the COM (version 6.1), in line with best practice guidance from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making. METHODS: For validation, suitable sources and outcomes were identified, and used to populate the COM with relevant inputs to allow prediction of study outcomes. Study characteristics were entered into the COM to replicate either the studies used to develop the model (dependent validation) or those not included in the model (independent validation). The concordance between predicted and observed outcomes was then assessed using established statistical methods and generation of mean error estimates. RESULTS: For most outcomes, the predictions of the COM showed good linear correlation with observed outcomes, as evidenced by the high coefficients of determination (R2 values). The independent validation revealed a degree of underestimation in predictions of cardiovascular (CV) disease and mortality, and type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSION: The predictions generated by the risk equations used in the COM showed good concordance both with the studies used to develop the model and with studies not included in the model. In particular, the concordance observed in the external dependent validation suggests that the COM accurately predicts obesity-related event rates observed in the studies used to develop the model. However, the impact of existing CV risk, as well as mortality, is a key area for future refinement of the COM. Our results should increase confidence in the estimates derived from the COM and reduce uncertainty associated with analyses using this model.

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.

Systematic Literature Review and Critical Appraisal of Health Economic Models Used in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Non-Alcoholic Steatohepatitis: Potential for Improvements.

BACKGROUND: Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a severe, typically progressive form of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The global prevalence of NASH is increasing, driven partly by the global increase in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), such that NASH is now a leading cause of cirrhosis. There is currently an unmet clinical need for efficacious and cost-effective treatments for NASH; no pharmacologic agents have an approved indication for NASH. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to summarise and critically appraise published health economic models of NASH, to evaluate their quality and suitability for use in the assessment of novel treatments for NASH, and to identify knowledge gaps, challenges and opportunities for future modelling. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and EconLit databases to identify published health economic analyses in patients with NAFLD or NASH. Supplementary hand searches of grey literature were also performed. Articles published up to November 2019 were included in the review. Quality assessment of identified studies was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles comprising 16 unique models including either NAFLD as a whole or NASH alone were included in the review. Structurally, most models had a state-transition component; in terms of health states, two different approaches to early disease states were used, modelling either progression through fibrosis stages or NAFLD/NASH-specific health states. Conditions that frequently co-exist with NASH, such as obesity, T2DM and cardiovascular disease were not captured in models identified here. Late-stage complications such as cirrhosis, decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma were consistently included, but input data (e.g. costs, utilities and transition probabilities) for late-stage complications were frequently sourced from other liver disease areas. The quality of included studies was heterogenous, and only a small proportion of studies reported internal and external validation processes. CONCLUSION: The health economic models identified in this review are associated with limitations primarily driven by a lack of NASH-specific data. Identified models also largely overlooked the intricate association between NASH and other conditions, including obesity and T2DM, and did not capture the increased risk of cardiovascular events associated with NASH. High-quality, transparent, validated health economic models of NASH will be required to evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments currently in development, particularly compounds that may target other non-hepatic outcomes.

Efficacy of Once-Weekly Semaglutide vs Empagliflozin Added to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetes: Patient-Level Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: No head-to-head trials have directly compared once-weekly (OW) semaglutide, a human glucagon-like peptide-1 analog, with empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, in type 2 diabetes (T2D). OBJECTIVE: We indirectly compared the efficacy of OW semaglutide 1 mg vs once-daily (OD) empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy, using individual patient data (IPD) and meta-regression methodology. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: IPD for patients with T2D receiving metformin monotherapy and randomized to OW semaglutide 1 mg (SUSTAIN 2, 3, 8 trials), or to OD empagliflozin 25 mg (PIONEER 2 trial) were included. Meta-regression analyses were adjusted for potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy outcomes were change from baseline to end-of-treatment (~1 year) in HbA1c (%-point) and body weight (kg). Responder outcomes and other clinically relevant efficacy measures were analyzed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between OW semaglutide (n = 995) and empagliflozin (n = 410). Our analyses showed that OW semaglutide significantly reduced mean HbA1c and body weight vs empagliflozin (estimated treatment difference: -0.61%-point [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.72; -0.49] and -1.65 kg [95% CI: -2.22; -1.08], respectively; both P < 0.0001). Complementary analyses supported the robustness of these results. A significantly greater proportion of patients on OW semaglutide vs empagliflozin also achieved HbA1c targets and weight-loss responses. CONCLUSIONS: This indirect comparison suggests that OW semaglutide 1 mg provides superior reductions in HbA1c and body weight vs OD empagliflozin 25 mg in patients with T2D when added to metformin monotherapy.

Correction to: A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA.

The article "A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA", written by Pierre Johansen, Barnaby Hunt, Neeraj N. Iyer, Tam Dang-Tan, Richard F. Pollock was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on November 27, 2018 without Open Access.

A Relative Cost of Control Analysis of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Exenatide Extended-Release and Dulaglutide for Bringing Patients to HbA1c and Weight Loss Treatment Targets in the USA.

INTRODUCTION: The SUSTAIN 3 and 7 clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide relative to exenatide extended-release (ER) and dulaglutide, respectively, in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). The trials included a series of clinically relevant single and composite endpoints focused on improving glycemic control and reducing body weight, while avoiding hypoglycemia. The present study combined SUSTAIN 3 and 7 outcomes with short-term treatment costs to evaluate the relative cost of control of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER and dulaglutide. METHODS: Proportions of patients reaching three endpoints were taken from SUSTAIN 3 and 7 for comparisons with exenatide ER and dulaglutide, respectively. The endpoints investigated were HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia or weight gain, and a ≥ 1.0% HbA1c reduction with ≥ 5.0% weight loss. Annual per patient treatment costs were based on US wholesale acquisition costs from July 2018. Relative cost of control was calculated by plotting the ratio of the treatment costs and the ratio of the proportions of patients reaching each endpoint on the cost-efficacy plane. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were most effective at bringing patients to each of the three endpoints across both SUSTAIN trials. The efficacy-to-cost ratios for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg were also superior to all comparators when assessing both the single endpoint of HbA1c < 7.0% and the two composite endpoints including weight loss and hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg offer superior cost of control versus exenatide ER and dulaglutide in terms of achieving single and composite endpoints, based on an analysis of retrieved dropout data. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1.0 mg would therefore represent good value for money in the USA, particularly in the attainment of multi-model T2D treatment goals. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Long-Term Clinical Benefits of Canagliflozin 100 mg Versus Sulfonylurea in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled With Metformin in India.

OBJECTIVES: To simulate the long-term health outcomes of canagliflozin 100 mg versus glimepiride over 20 years in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on metformin from the perspective of the Indian health care system. METHODS: Health outcomes were simulated using the validated Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM. Patient demographic characteristics, biomarker values, and treatment effects were sourced from a subgroup of Indian patients enrolled in a 52-week, head-to-head study of canagliflozin versus glimepiride (mean maximum dose of 5.6 mg/d) in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin. Outcomes were discounted at 5%. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative values for key model inputs. RESULTS: Relative to glimepiride, treatment with canagliflozin 100 mg was associated with approximately 14 more patients surviving at year 20 per 1,000 patients treated and 0.43 quality-adjusted life-years gained, largely because of improved body weight and reduced risk of macrovascular and microvascular morbidity over 20 years. Risk reductions were the largest for microvascular complications (e.g., chronic kidney disease and albuminuria). Improved health outcomes were driven by better glycated hemoglobin control associated with canagliflozin versus glimepiride, which also delayed the need for rescue therapy. Key components of quality-adjusted life-year gains included the avoidance of hypoglycemic episodes, chronic kidney disease, and weight gain, as well as increased survival with canagliflozin compared with glimepiride. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation results suggest that canagliflozin 100 mg may provide better long-term health outcomes compared with glimepiride in Indian patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin.

Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide, Exenatide ER, Liraglutide and Lixisenatide: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Danish Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Once-weekly semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that has been associated with greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus GLP-1 receptor agonists dulaglutide, exenatide extended-release (ER), liraglutide and lixisenatide in the SUSTAIN trial program and a network meta-analysis (NMA). The aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide versus all available GLP-1 receptor agonists in Denmark, using a clinically orientated treatment approach. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from the corresponding SUSTAIN trials and the NMA. Patients were assumed to initiate GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy and subsequently treatment-intensify according to clinical treatment guidelines, with addition of basal insulin and switching to basal-bolus insulin occurring when HbA1c exceeded recommended targets. Patients were assumed to receive a GLP-1 receptor agonist plus basal insulin therapy once HbA1c levels reached 7.5% and a basal-bolus insulin regimen once HbA1c exceeded 8.0%. Costs were captured in 2017 Danish kroner (DKK), with future costs and outcomes discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Primary analyses indicated that semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.34 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus dulaglutide, achieved at cost savings of DKK 289 and DKK 13,416, respectively. Supporting analyses indicated that both doses of semaglutide were either cost-effective or dominant versus exenatide ER, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg and lixisenatide. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide represents a cost-effective alternative to other GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies available in Denmark, demonstrating clinical benefits versus dulaglutide, exenatide ER, liraglutide and lixisenatide for the treatment of patients with T2D. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S. Plain language summary available for this article.

Correction to: Management of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes with Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide, Exenatide ER, Liraglutide and Lixisenatide: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the Danish Setting.

In the original publication, Figs. 3 and 5 and the final sentence in the final paragraph of Results/Sensitivity Analyses were incorrectly published. The corrected statement and the figures are given below.