Cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in adult patients with short bowel syndrome - a European socioeconomic perspective.

BACKGROUND: Short bowel syndrome with intestinal failure (SBS-IF) is a rare but devastating medical condition. An absolute loss of bowel length forces the patients into parenteral support dependency and a variety of medical sequelae, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Interdisciplinary treatment may include therapy with the effective but expensive intestinotrophic peptide teduglutide. OBJECTIVES: A time-discrete Markov model was developed to simulate the treatment effect [lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and life years (LYs)] of teduglutide plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone in patients with SBS-IF. METHODS: The health status of the model was structured around the number of days on PS. Clinical data from 3 data sets were used: 1) an Austrian observational study (base case), 2) pooled observational cohort studies, and 3) a prospective study of teduglutide effectiveness in parenteral nutrition-dependent short bowel syndrome subjects. Direct and indirect costs were derived from published sources. QALYs, LYs, and costs were discounted (3% per annum). RESULTS: Under the base case assumption, teduglutide is associated with costs of 2,296,311 € per patient and 10.78 QALYs (13.74 LYs) over a lifetime horizon. No teduglutide is associated with 1,236,816 € and 2.24 QALYs (8.57 LYs). The incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) amounts to 123,945 €. In case of the pooled clinical data set, the ICUR increases to 184,961 €. If clinical data based on the study of teduglutide effectiveness in parenteral nutrition-dependent short bowel syndrome subjects were used, the ICUR increased to 235,612 €. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide in treating patients with SBS-IF meets the traditional cost-effectiveness criteria from a European societal perspective. Nevertheless, the varying concentrations of teduglutide efficacy leave a degree of uncertainty in the calculations.

Assessing the cost and quality-of-life impact of on-demand-only medications for adults with hereditary angioedema.

Background: Novel subcutaneous (SC) prophylactic therapies are transforming the treatment landscape of hereditary angioedema (HAE). Although questions are being raised about their cost, little attention has been paid to the cost and quality of life (QoL) impact of using on-demand-only medications. Objective: We assessed the overall economic burden of on-demand-only treatment for HAE and compared patient QoL with patients who received novel SC prophylactic therapies. Methods: US Hereditary Angioedema Association members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey to profile attack frequency, treatment use, and the presence of comorbidities as well as economic and socioeconomic variables. We modeled on-demand treatment costs by using net pricing of medications in 2018, indirect patient and caregiver costs, and attack-related direct billed costs for emergency department admissions, physician office visits, and/or hospitalizations. QoL was assessed by using the Angioedema Quality of Life questionnaire. Results: A total of 1225 patients (31.4%) responded. Of these, 737 adults with HAE (type I or II) met the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Per patient/year direct costs associated with modeled on-demand-only treatment totaled $363,795, with additional indirect socioeconomic costs of $52,576 per patient/year. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies, with a 59.5% (p < 0.01) improvement in median impairment scores versus on-demand-only treatment. In addition, patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies reported a 77% reduction in the number of attacks each year when compared with those who used on-demand-only treatment. Conclusion: Our real-world patient data showed the cost and QoL burden of HAE treatment with on-demand-only therapy. Use of novel SC prophylaxis can lead to sizeable reductions in attack frequency and statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in QoL. These data could be useful to clinicians and patients as they consider therapy options for patients with HAE.

Cost-effectiveness of teduglutide in adult patients with short bowel syndrome: Markov modeling using traditional cost-effectiveness criteria.

BACKGROUND: Adults with short bowel syndrome have a high mortality and significant morbidity due to unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation that necessitate chronic use of parenteral nutrition (PN). Teduglutide is a novel therapy that promotes intestinal adaptation to improve rehabilitation but with a price >$400,000/y. OBJECTIVE: The current study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of using teduglutide in US adult patients with short bowel syndrome. METHODS: A Markov model evaluated the costs (in US dollars) and effectiveness (in quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs) of treatment compared with no teduglutide use, with a presumed starting age of 40 y. Parameters were obtained from published data or estimation. The primary effect modeled was the increased likelihood of reduced PN days per week when using teduglutide, leading to greater quality of life and lower PN costs. Sensitivity analyses were performed on all model parameters. RESULTS: In the base scenario, teduglutide cost $949,910/QALY gained. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, only reducing teduglutide cost decreased the cost/QALY gained to below the typical threshold of $100,000/QALY gained. Specifically, teduglutide cost would need to be reduced by >65% for it to reach the threshold value. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis favored no teduglutide use in 80% of iterations at a $100,000/QALY threshold. However, teduglutide therapy was cost-saving in 13% of model iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Teduglutide does not meet a traditional cost-effectiveness threshold as treatment for PN reduction in adult patients with short bowel syndrome compared with standard intestinal rehabilitation. Subpopulations that demonstrate maximum benefit could be cost-saving, and complete nonuse could lead to financial loss. Teduglutide becomes economically reasonable only if its cost is substantially reduced.

Modeling Cost-Effectiveness of On-Demand Treatment for Hereditary Angioedema Attacks.

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare C1-inhibitor (C1-INH) deficiency disease. Low levels of functional C1-INH can lead to recurrent attacks of severe swelling occurring in areas such as the limbs, face, gastrointestinal tract, and throat. These attacks are both painful and disabling and, if not treated promptly and effectively, can result in hospitalization or death. Agents targeting the specific physiologic pathway of HAE attacks can offer improved outcomes with limited side effects compared with nonspecific therapies. However, these treatments display varying efficacy in HAE patients, including the need to redose or seek additional care if the treatment does not resolve symptoms effectively. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the expected cost and utility per HAE attack when treated on-demand with HAE therapies indicated for the treatment of acute attacks. METHODS: A decision-tree model was developed using TreeAge Pro software. Four on-demand HAE treatments were included: ecallantide, icatibant, plasma-derived (pd)C1-INH, and recombinant human (rh)C1-INH. The model uses probabilities for redosing, self-administration versus health care provider administration, and risk of hospitalization. Costs within the model consisted of the HAE treatments and associated health care system expenses. Nonattack baseline utility and attack utility were implemented for effectiveness calculations; time to attack resolution was considered as well. Effectiveness and overall costs per attack were calculated and used to estimate cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Variability and ranges in cost-effectiveness were determined using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Finally, a budget impact model for a health plan with 1 million covered lives was also developed. RESULTS: The base case model outputs show costs and calculated effectiveness per attack at $12,905 and 0.806 for rhC1-INH, $14,806 and 0.765 for icatibant, $14,668 and 0.769 for pdC1-INH, and $21,068 and 0.792 for ecallantide, respectively. Cost per QALY was calculated using 26.9 attacks per person-year, leading to results of $420,941 for rhC1-INH, $488,349 for icatibant, $483,892 for pdC1-INH, and $689,773 for ecallantide. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that redose rates (from 3% for rhC1-INH to 44% for icatibant) are a primary driver of variability in cost-effectiveness. Annual health plan costs from the budget impact model are calculated as $6.94 million for rhC1-INH, $7.97 million for icatibant, $7.90 million for pdC1-INH, and $11.33 million for ecallantide. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for patient well-being and additional cost components of HAE attacks generates a better estimation of cost-effectiveness than drug cost alone. Results from this model indicate that rhC1-INH is the dominant treatment option with lower expected costs and higher calculated effectiveness than comparators. Further analyses reinforce the idea that low redose rates contribute to improved cost-effectiveness. DISCLOSURES: Funding support was contributed by Pharming Healthcare. Relan and Adams are employed by Pharming Healthcare. Tyson and Magar are employed by AHRM, which received fees to perform the analysis and develop the manuscript. Bernstein reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Shire, CSL Behring, and Pharming Healthcare; grants and personal fees from Biocryst; and nonfinancial support from HAEA, unrelated to this study.

Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide and lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control in Sweden.

Aims: This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide vs glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) uncontrolled on metformin or basal insulin in Sweden. Materials and methods: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was conducted using the Swedish Institute of Health Economics (IHE) Diabetes Cohort Model. Analyses were conducted from the Swedish societal perspective over a time horizon of 40 years. For patients uncontrolled on metformin, dulaglutide was the comparator, and data from the SUSTAIN 7 clinical trial was used. For patients uncontrolled on basal insulin, lixisenatide was chosen as the comparator and data was obtained from a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results: The results show that, in patients with inadequate control on metformin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated (i.e. provided greater clinical benefit, and was less costly) dulaglutide 1.5 mg. In patients with inadequate control on basal insulin, semaglutide 1.0 mg dominated lixisenatide. The reduction in costs is largely driven by the reduction in complications seen with once-weekly semaglutide. Limitations and conclusions: It is likely that this analysis is conservative in estimating the cardiovascular (CV) cost benefits associated with treatment with once-weekly semaglutide. In patients inadequately controlled on basal insulin, the analyses vs lixisenatide were based on results from an NMA, as no head-to-head clinical trial has been conducted for this comparison. These CEA results show that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective GLP-1 RA therapy for the treatment of T2D in patients inadequately controlled on metformin or basal insulin, addressing many current clinician, patient, and payer unmet needs in Sweden.

Cost-effective production of recombinant peptides in Escherichia coli.

Among bioactive peptides, cationic antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), also referred to as host defence peptides (HDPs), are valuable tools to treat infections, being able to kill a wide variety of microbes directly and/or modulate host immunity. HDPs have great therapeutic potential against antibiotic-resistant bacteria, viruses and even parasites. However, high manufacturing costs have greatly limited their development as drugs, thus highlighting the need to develop novel and competitive production strategies. Here, a cost-effective procedure was established to produce the high amounts of peptides required for basic and clinical research. Firstly, a novel culture medium was designed, which was found to support significantly higher cell densities and recombinant expression levels of peptides under test compared to conventional media. The procedure has been also efficiently scaled up by using a 5 L fermenter, while the costs have been lowered significantly by developing a successful auto-induction strategy, which has been found to support higher yields of target constructs and cell biomass compared to conventional strategies based on expression induction by IPTG. Interestingly, it was estimated that by increasing production scale from 100 to 1000 mg/batch, unit costs decreased strongly from 253 to 42 €/mg. These costs appear highly competitive when compared to chemical synthesis strategies. Altogether, the data indicate that the strategy represents an important starting point for the future development of large-scale manufacture of HDPs.

Calcimimetics and Bundled Reimbursement.

Since 2011, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has provided reimbursement for renal dialysis services furnished to Medicare beneficiaries through a bundled payment system known as the Prospective Payment System. Medications that have no injectable equivalent, known as "oral-only medications," are currently excluded from the bundle and are paid separately through Medicare Part D. Thus, before the development of etelcalcetide, the first injectable calcimimetic, calcimimetics were reimbursed outside the bundle. Etelcalcetide's introduction and approval for use in Medicare triggered a transition payment for a minimum of 2 years that will eventually result in the incorporation of calcimimetics into the dialysis bundle. Consequently, providers may face incentives to reduce calcimimetic use when the transition period has expired. The complexity of bone-mineral management in conjunction with the paucity of evidence-based recommendations in this area makes it difficult to predict the impact of this transition. Because these medications are expensive, a poor transition could have financial ramifications for dialysis organizations and potentially patient health. To ensure that patients are not adversely affected, it is critical that Medicare incorporate these medications into the bundle carefully, with close monitoring of outcomes.

Valuing injection frequency and other attributes of type 2 diabetes treatments in Australia: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Multiple pharmacotherapy options are available to control blood glucose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). Patients and prescribers may have different preferences for T2DM treatment attributes, such as mode and frequency of administration, based on their experiences and beliefs which may impact adherence. As adherence is a pivotal issue in diabetes therapy, it is important to understand what patients value and how they trade-off the risks and benefits of new treatments. This study aims to investigate the key drivers of choice for T2DM treatments, with a focus on injection frequency, and explore patients' associated willingness-to-pay. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to present patients with a series of trade-offs between different treatment options, injectable and oral medicines that were made up of 10 differing levels of attributes (frequency and mode of administration, weight change, needle type, storage, nausea, injection site reactions, hypoglycaemic events, instructions with food and cost). A sample of 171 Australian consenting adult T2DM patients, of which 58 were receiving twice-daily injections of exenatide and 113 were on oral glucose-lowering treatments, completed the national online survey. An error components model was used to estimate the relative priority and key drivers of choice patients place on different attributes and to estimate their willingness to pay for new treatments. RESULTS: Injection frequency, weight change, and nausea were shown to be important attributes for patients receiving injections. Within this cohort, a once-weekly injection generated an additional benefit over a twice-daily injection, equivalent to a weighted total willingness to pay of AUD$22.35 per month. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the patient preferences, the importance of frequency of administration and other non-health benefits can be valued. Understanding patient preferences has an important role in health technology assessment, as the identification of the value as well as the importance weighting for each treatment attribute may assist with funding decisions beyond clinical trial outcomes.

Etelcalcetide for Treating Secondary Hyperparathyroidism: An Evidence Review Group Evaluation of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal.

The manufacturer of the calcimimetic drug etelcalcetide was invited to make an evidence submission as part of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Single Technology Appraisal (STA) programme. Within this submission, they reported evidence on the clinical and cost effectiveness of etelcalcetide for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on haemodialysis. The Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), part of the Wessex Institute at the University of Southampton, was the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG) commissioned to appraise the company's submission. This article describes the ERG's review and critique of the company's submission and summarises the NICE Appraisal Committee's subsequent guidance (issued in June 2017). The clinical-effectiveness evidence submitted by the company consisted of two double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing etelcalcetide with placebo, one RCT comparing etelcalcetide with cinacalcet, two single-arm extension studies of the above trials, and one single-arm study evaluating the effect of switching from cinacalcet to etelcalcetide. No study specifically examined the population specified in the NICE appraisal scope: patients refractory to standard therapy with phosphate binders and vitamin D (PBVD). None of these trials were designed to collect long-term efficacy data for outcomes such as mortality, bone fractures, cardiovascular events, or parathyroidectomies. Instead, biomarker data from the trials were mapped to long-term outcomes by an assumed linear relationship between the trial outcome, reduction of parathyroid hormone (PTH) by > 30%, and the log-hazard ratios for the occurrence of clinical events derived from a large, long-term RCT of cinacalcet (the EVOLVE trial). After submission of a confidential Patient Access Scheme (PAS) discount reducing etelcalcetide drug costs, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet was £14,778 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained in the company's base case. While this value is lower than the NICE threshold range of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained, it was the opinion of the ERG that the ICER was highly uncertain due to efficacy data limitations for etelcalcetide, inadequate synthesis of clinical-effectiveness evidence, and strong assumptions connecting short-term biomarker data with long-term clinical outcomes. The ERG produced an alternative base case for etelcalcetide versus cinacalcet, with an ICER of £22,400 per QALY gained, also subject to uncertainty. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended etelcalcetide as an option for the treatment of SHPT in adults with CKD only if treatment with a calcimimetic is indicated and cinacalcet is not suitable, subject to the company's provision of the agreed PAS discount.

The pattern of prescribing of glucose modulating agents for type 2 diabetes in general practices in England 2016/17.

BACKGROUND: In the financial year 2016/17 there were 52.0 million items prescribed for diabetes at a total net ingredient cost of £983.7 million - up from 28.9 million prescription items and £572.4 million in 2006/07. Anti-diabetes drugs (British National Formulary section 6.1.2) make up 45.1 per cent of the total £983.7 million net ingredient cost of drugs used in diabetes and account for 72.0 per cent of prescription items for all diabetes prescribing. METHODS: We examined the way that agents licensed to treat type 2 diabetes were used across GP practices in England in the year 2016/2017. Analysis was at a GP practice level not at the level of patient data. RESULTS: Annual prescribing costs / patient / medication type for monotherapy varied considerable from £11/year for gliclazide and glimepiride to £885/year for Liraglutide. The use of SGLT-2i agents grew strongly at 70% per annum to around 100,000 DDD with prescriptions seen in 95% of GP practices. Liraglutide expenditure (11% of total) was high for a relatively small number of patients (1.3% of Defined Daily Doses), with still significant spend on exenatide. Liraglutide use significantly exceeded that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates the significant cost of medication to modulate tissue glucose levels in type 2 diabetes and the dominance of some non-generic preparations in terms of number of prescriptions and overall spend. There are some older sulphonylureas in use, which should not generally be prescribed. Regular audit of patient treatment at a general practice level will ensure appropriate targeted use of licensed medications and of their cost effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on therapies to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg (both added to basal insulin) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Sweden. METHODS: The Swedish Institute for Health Economics cohort model for T2D was used to compare liraglutide and lixisenatide (both added to basal insulin), with a societal perspective and with comparative treatment effects derived by indirect treatment comparison (ITC). Drug prices were 2016 values, and all other costs 2015 values. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin was also assessed, under different sets of assumptions. RESULTS: From the ITC, decreases in HbA1c were -1.32% and -0.43% with liraglutide and lixisenatide, respectively; decreases in BMI were -1.29 and -0.65 kg/m2, respectively. An estimated 2348 cases of retinopathy, 265 of neuropathy and 991 of nephropathy would be avoided with liraglutide compared with lixisenatide in a cohort of 10,000 patients aged over 40 years. In the base-case analysis, total direct costs were higher with liraglutide than lixisenatide, but costs associated with complications were lower. The cost/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for liraglutide added to basal insulin was SEK30,802. Base-case findings were robust in sensitivity analyses, except when glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) differences for liraglutide added to basal insulin were abolished, suggesting these benefits were driving the cost/QALY. With liraglutide 1.2 mg instead of liraglutide 1.8 mg (adjusted for efficacy and cost), liraglutide added to basal insulin was dominant over lixisenatide 20µg.IDegLira was dominant versus lixisenatide plus basal insulin when a defined daily dose was used in the model. CONCLUSIONS: The costs/QALY for liraglutide, 1.8 or 1.2 mg, added to basal insulin, and for IDegLira (all compared with lixisenatide 20 µg added to basal insulin) were below the threshold considered low by Swedish authorities. In some scenarios, liraglutide and IDegLira were cost-saving.

A Decision-Analytic Model to Assess the Cost-Effectiveness of Etelcalcetide vs. Cinacalcet.

INTRODUCTION: Etelcalcetide is a novel intravenous calcimimetic for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in haemodialysis patients. The clinical efficacy and safety of etelcalcetide (in addition to phosphate binders and vitamin D and/or analogues [PB/VD]) was evaluated in three phase III studies, including two placebo-controlled trials and a head-to-head study versus the oral calcimimetic cinacalcet. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a decision-analytic model for economic evaluation of etelcalcetide compared with cinacalcet. METHODS: We developed a life-time Markov model including potential treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fractures, and subjects' persistence. Long-term efficacy of etelcalcetide was extrapolated from the reduction in parathyroid hormone (PTH) in the phase III trials and the available data from the outcomes study in cinacalcet (EVOLVE trial). Etelcalcetide was compared with cinacalcet, both in addition to PB/VD. We applied unit costs averaged from five European countries and a range of potential etelcalcetide pricing options assuming parity price to weekly use of cinacalcet and varying it by a 15 or 30% increase. RESULTS: Compared with cinacalcet, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of etelcalcetide was €1,355 per QALY, €24,521 per QALY, and €47,687 per QALY for the three prices explored. The results were robust across the probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Our modelling approach enabled cost-utility assessment of the novel therapy for SHPT based on the observed and extrapolated data. This model can be used for local adaptations in the context of reimbursement assessment.

Health Care Resource Use and Costs Pre- and Post-Treatment Initiation With Linaclotide: Retrospective Analyses of a U.S. Insured Population.

As expected, pharmacy costs increased with the introduction of this new treatment in a market dominated by over-the-counter and generic treatments. On the other hand, outpatient GI-related and irritable bowel disease health care resource use and costs substantially decreased among commercial and Medicare patients following linaclotide treatment initiation.

Cost Effectiveness of Exenatide Once Weekly Versus Insulin Glargine and Liraglutide for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Greece.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of exenatide once weekly (ExQW) versus insulin glargine (IG) or liraglutide 1.2 mg (Lira1.2mg) for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) therapy in Greece. METHODS: The published and validated Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over a patient's lifetime. Clinical data were retrieved from a head-to-head clinical trial (DURATION 3) and a published network meta-analysis comparing ExQW with IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively. Following a Greek third-party payer perspective, direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, consumables, developed micro- and macrovascular complications, maintenance treatment, as well as treatment-related adverse events were considered. Cost and utility data were extracted from literature and publicly available official sources and assigned to model parameters to calculate total quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, ExQW was associated with 0.458 or 0.039 incremental QALYs compared with IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively, at additional costs of €2061 or €110, respectively. The ICER for ExQW was €4499/QALY compared with IG and €2827/QALY compared with Lira1.2mg. Results were robust across various one-way and scenario analyses. At the defined willingness-to-pay threshold of €36,000/QALY, probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ExQW had a 100 or 88.2% probability of being cost effective relative to IG or Lira1.2mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ExQW was estimated to be cost effective relative to IG or Lira1.2mg for the treatment of T2DM in adults not adequately controlled on OAD therapy in Greece.

Exploring the potential value of improved care for secondary hyperparathyroidism with a novel calcimimetic therapy.

AIMS: This study explored the use of a value-based pricing approach for the new calcimimetic etelcalcetide indicated for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) in patients receiving hemodialysis. It used the US payer perspective and applied the cost-effectiveness framework. Because etelcalcetide is an intravenous therapy that can be titrated for individual patients, and because its utilization is yet to be assessed in real world settings, a range of plausible doses were estimated for etelcalcetide to define a range of prices. These were either in relation to the existing oral calcimimetic cinacalcet or compared to no calcimimetic treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The value-based price of etelcalcetide was determined via a Markov model. This model combined data from the etelcalcetide trials and previously published cost-effectiveness models in SHPT, and allowed extrapolation of treatment effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, fracture, and parathyroidectomy. Several dosing scenarios were explored covering the dose ranges of 30.0-64.18 mg per day for cinacalcet and 1.07-3.11 mg per day for etelcalcetide. These included the mean dose from the etelcalcetide trials, the preliminary defined daily dose, and the expected most common dose in real world. An acceptable price range for etelcalcetide was assessed by comparing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios obtained with the willingness-to-pay threshold range of $100,000-$300,000/quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness analysis supported value-based prices for etelcalcetide ranging from $21.15-$49.97/mg vs cinacalcet, and $13.79-$119.45/mg vs no calcimimetics. LIMITATIONS: There is uncertainty around what the real-world dosing will be for etelcalcetide. Another important nuance is that no studies have examined etelcalcetide effects on hard outcomes and, therefore, this modeling exercise relied on an extrapolation approach. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis, including scenarios to address uncertainties, allowed estimation of a value-based price range to aid reimbursement decisions in the US.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Two GLP-1 Receptor Agonists for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the Italian Setting: Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide.

PURPOSE: Maintaining glycemic control is the key treatment target for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be associated with other favorable treatment characteristics, such as reduction in body weight and reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with traditional diabetes interventions. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 µg (both administered once daily), in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin monotherapy in the Italian setting. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term clinical outcomes and subsequent costs (in 2015 Euros [€]) associated with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg treatment in a cohort with baseline characteristics derived from the open-label LIRA-LIXI trial (Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; NCT01973231) over patient lifetimes from the perspective of a health care payer. Efficacy data were taken from the 26-week end points of the same trial, including changes in glycated hemoglobin, body mass index, serum lipid levels, and hypoglycemic event rates. Outcomes projected included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative incidence and time to onset of diabetes-related complications, and direct medical costs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (14.07 vs 13.96 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.18 vs 9.06 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared with lixisenatide 20 µg. These improvements were mostly attributable to a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin level with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 µg, leading to reduced incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Compared with lixisenatide 20 µg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs over patient lifetimes (€41,623 vs €41,380), but this was offset by lower costs of treating diabetes-related complications (€26,682 vs €27,476). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2001 per QALY gained versus lixisenatide 20 µg. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, liraglutide 1.8 mg had a probability of 77.2% of being cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS: Based on long-term projections, liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 µg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.

Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States.

AIMS: Bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to recommended glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) treatment targets can reduce the risk of developing diabetes-related complications. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg vs once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg as an add-on to metformin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US by assessing the cost per patient achieving HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Percentages of patients achieving recommended targets were obtained from the LIRA-LIXI trial, which compared the efficacy and safety of once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg and once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin. Annual costs were estimated from a healthcare payer perspective. An economic model was developed to evaluate the annual cost per patient achieving target (cost of control) with liraglutide 1.8 mg vs lixisenatide 20 µg for five end-points. RESULTS: Annual treatment costs were higher with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg, but this was offset by greater clinical efficacy, and the cost of control was lower with liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg for all five end-points. The annual cost of control was USD 3,850, USD 11,404, USD 3,807, USD 4,299, and USD 6,901 lower for liraglutide 1.8 mg than lixisenatide 20 µg for targets of HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0% and no weight gain, HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and no confirmed hypoglycemia, and HbA1c < 7.0% with no weight gain and systolic blood pressure <140 mmHg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with greater clinical efficacy than once-daily lixisenatide 20 µg, which resulted in a lower annual cost of control for HbA1c-focused and composite treatment targets.

$850 Per Bowel Movement?! Hard To Justify That Cost.

Constipation can be a serious and painful problem, and we shouldn't dismiss other people's suffering. On the other hand there's a danger when new medications are compared against placebo rather than against over-the-counter products with a history of effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents in patients with type 2 diabetes in China.

AIMS: To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily as add-on therapy to oral antidiabetic agents (OADs) for Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). METHODS: The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effects of exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. Patient profiles and treatment effects required for the model were obtained from literature reviews (English and Chinese databases) and from a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials comparing exenatide twice daily with insulin glargine once daily add-on to OADs for T2DM in China. Medical expenditure data were collected from 639 patients with T2DM (aged ≥18 years) with and without complications incurred between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2015 from claims databases in Shandong, China. Costs (2014 Chinese Yuan [¥]) and benefits were estimated, from the payers' perspective, over 40 years at a discount rate of 3%. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Patients on exenatide twice daily + OAD had a lower predicted incidence of most cardiovascular and hypoglycaemic events and lower total costs compared with those on insulin glargine once daily + OAD. A greater number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs; 1.94) at a cost saving of ¥117 706 gained was associated with exenatide twice daily vs insulin glargine once daily. (i.e. cost saving of ¥60 764/QALY) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: In Chinese patients with T2DM inadequately controlled by OADs, exenatide twice daily is a cost-effective add-on therapy alternative to insulin glargine once daily, and may address the problem of an excess of medical needs resulting from weight gain and hypoglycaemia in T2DM treatment.

Evaluating drug cost per responder and number needed to treat associated with lixisenatide on top of glargine when compared to rapid-acting insulin intensification regimens on top of glargine, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK, Italy, and Spain.

OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the cost per responder and number needed to treat (NNT) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients for lixisenatide compared to insulin intensification regimens using composite endpoints in the UK, Italy, and Spain. METHODS: Efficacy and safety outcomes were obtained from GetGoal Duo-2, a 26-week phase 3 trial comparing lixisenatide vs insulin glulisine (IG) once daily (QD) and three times daily (TID). Response at week 26 was extrapolated to 52 weeks, assuming a maintained treatment effect, based on long-term evidence in other T2DM populations. Responders were defined using composite end-points, based on an HbA1c threshold and/or no weight gain and/or no hypoglycemia. The HbA1c threshold was varied in sensitivity analyses. Annual treatment costs were estimated in euros (1 GBP = 1.26 EUR), including drug acquisition and resource use costs. Cost per responder was computed by dividing annual treatment costs per patient by the proportion of responders. RESULTS: Lixisenatide was associated with the lowest cost per responder for all composite end-points that included a weight-related component. For the main composite end-point of HbA1c ≤7.5% AND no weight gain AND no symptomatic hypoglycemia, cost per responder results were: UK: 6,867€, 8,746€, and 12,410€; Italy: 7,057€, 9,160€, and 12,844€; Spain: 8,370€, 11,365€, and 17,038€, for lixisenatide, IG QD, and TID, respectively. The NNT analysis showed that, for every 6.85 and 5.86 patients treated with lixisenatide, there was approximately one additional responder compared to IG QD and TID, respectively. LIMITATIONS: A limitation of the clinical inputs is the lack of 52-week trial data from GetGoal Duo-2, which led to the assumption of a maintained treatment effect from week 26 to 52. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests lixisenatide is an efficient economic resource allocation in the UK, Italy, and Spain.