Cost-Effectiveness of Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) versus Tiotropium Monotherapy in Patients with Symptomatic Moderate-to-Very Severe COPD in the UK.

Purpose: For patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who remain symptomatic despite maintenance treatment, clinical management guidelines recommend a stepwise escalation from monotherapy to dual therapy, and from dual therapy to triple therapy. However, in clinical practice, patients are often escalated directly from monotherapy to triple therapy based on disease severity. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of once-daily, single-inhaler fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium, and vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) triple therapy compared with long-acting muscarinic antagonist monotherapy with once-daily tiotropium (TIO) in patients with symptomatic moderate-to-very severe COPD, from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patients and Methods: The validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model was populated with patient baseline characteristics and treatment effect data from the 12-week GSK Study 207626 comparing FF/UMEC/VI with TIO in patients with moderate-to-very severe COPD. UK unit costs and drug costs (British Pound, 2021) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. The base case analysis was conducted over a lifetime horizon, and costs and health outcomes (except for life years [LYs]) were discounted at 3.5% per year. Model outputs included exacerbation rates, healthcare costs, LYs, quality-adjusted LYs (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Overall, treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in increased clinical benefit (reduction in total exacerbations and increased overall survival and QALYs), coupled with cost savings (derived from lower maintenance and exacerbation healthcare costs) compared with TIO monotherapy. In the base case analysis, FF/UMEC/VI provided an additional 0.393 LYs (95% range: 0.176, 0.655) and 0.443 QALYs (0.246, 0.648), at a cost saving of £880 (£54, £1608) versus TIO. FF/UMEC/VI remained the cost-effective (dominant) treatment option across sensitivity and scenario analyses. Conclusion: FF/UMEC/VI offers greater clinical benefits and is a cost-effective treatment option compared with TIO for the treatment of adult patients with COPD with persistent symptoms and/or who are at risk of exacerbation in the UK.

Patient Preferences for Attributes of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Medications in Germany and Spain: An Online Discrete-Choice Experiment Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding patient preferences for attributes of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medications may help explain how the attributes differentially affect patient perceptions and behaviors. In this survey, we quantified the relative preferences among patients in Germany and Spain in separate analyses. METHODS: A stated-preference, discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was designed to elicit preferences for T2DM treatment attributes among patients with self-reported T2DM and who reported being prescribed T2DM medication for > 2 years. Patients recruited from an online national consumer panel completed an online survey. The survey presented choices between eight pairs of hypothetical T2DM treatments defined by seven attributes: chance of reaching target hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level; reduced risk of serious heart attack or stroke; frequency of hypoglycemia; risk of gastrointestinal (GI) problems; weight change; mode of administration (oral or injectable); dosing frequency. Data were analyzed using random-parameters logit. Minimum acceptable benefit (MAB) was defined as the minimum increase in the probability of reaching target HbA1c for which respondents would accept less desirable levels of other attributes. RESULTS: In Germany and Spain, 474 and 401 respondents completed the survey, respectively. DCE analysis showed that risk of GI problems was most important to German respondents. MAB analysis found that respondents would require a 56 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset a change from 0% to 30% risk of GI problems. For Spanish respondents, mode of administration was the most important attribute. These respondents would require a 59 percentage point increase in the probability of reaching their HbA1c target to offset moving from oral to injectable medications. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents in Germany and Spain were willing to trade efficacy for improvements in side effects and mode of administration. Given the variety of T2DM medications currently available, the results suggest that careful discussion about patient preferences could help improve patient satisfaction with T2DM treatment.

Reasons for discontinuation of GLP1 receptor agonists: data from a real-world cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: Nonadherence to glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1 RAs) is relatively common among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study sought to identify reasons why patients discontinue GLP1 RAs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data from the Adelphi Diabetes Disease Specific Programme were used. Physicians managing patients with T2DM were surveyed via face-to-face interviews, and patients treated for T2DM were surveyed via self-completed questionnaires. Patient data were stratified by current versus prior GLP1 RA use. RESULTS: Physicians (n=443) most frequently reported inadequate blood glucose control (45.6%), nausea/vomiting (43.8%), and gastrointestinal (GI) side effects (36.8%) as reasons for GLP1 RA discontinuation. Patients (n=194) reported the GI-related issues "Made me feel sick" (64.4%) and "Made me throw up" (45.4%) as their top reasons for discontinuation. The most common problems reported (excluding cost) for those currently using GLP1 RAs were "Prefer oral medication over injections" (patients 56%, physicians 32.6%), "Made me feel sick" (patients 38.1%, physicians 16.3%), and "Did not help lose weight" (patients 25.4%, physicians 18%). The most bothersome problems for patients globally (frequency reporting very/extremely bothersome) (excluding cost) were "Difficult to plan meals around" (55.6%), "Made me throw up" (51.6%), and "Caused weight gain" (50%). CONCLUSION: Both patients and physicians reported GI-related issues as a prominent factor, but disparities between patient experiences and physician perceptions were revealed, suggesting gaps in physician-patient communication. Understanding patients' expectations of GLP1 RAs and physicians' patient-management practices may help increase GLP1 RA adherence and thereby potentially enhance diabetes care.

Self-reported Barriers to Adherence and Persistence to Treatment With Injectable Medications for Type 2 Diabetes.

PURPOSE: This study explored the barriers that adult Americans experience when taking injectable medications for type 2 diabetes, from the time of filling the initial prescription through the decision to discontinue the medication. METHODS: An Internet-based survey was conducted in 2 waves among adult patients (N = 2000) who had received a physician prescription for insulin, liraglutide, or exenatide once weekly (QW), regardless of whether the prescription was filled by a pharmacy. In wave 1, patients were surveyed on their medication history and experience and, if relevant, the medication discontinuation process. Those still taking their injectable medication at the time of wave 1 were contacted 6 months later (wave 2, n = 585) to assess any changes in their medication experience. FINDINGS: Among patients who delayed filling their prescription by ≥1 week, cost was a common reason for delay for refilling of liraglutide (63%) and exenatide QW (49%). The most commonly reported barrier to maintaining injectable medication was injection concerns (42%) such as aversion to needles, pain, or needle size. Lack of perceived need was the most common reason for discontinuation for basal (47%) and prandial/premixed (44%) insulin. For liraglutide, the most common reason for discontinuation was experiencing an adverse event (33%); for exenatide QW, it was injection concerns (38%). IMPLICATIONS: The diverse barriers we identified underscore the need for better patient-prescriber communication to ensure that newly prescribed injectable medications are consistent with a patient's ability or willingness to manage them, to appropriately set expectations about medications, and to address new barriers that arise during the course of treatment.

An indirect comparison of HbA1c treatment effect with albiglutide and exenatide 2.0 mg QW using the Bucher method.

No head-to-head comparisons exist between once-weekly (QW) glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists; accordingly, this indirect comparison was conducted to evaluate the comparative efficacy of QW albiglutide vs QW exenatide. Following a systematic literature search, it was determined that HARMONY 7 and DURATION 6, Phase III trials for albiglutide and exenatide, respectively, were similar in study design and baseline characteristics and included a common comparator arm, making them suitable for an indirect comparison using the Bucher method. The primary endpoint of change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) with albiglutide 50 mg QW and exenatide 2.0 mg QW was compared and tested for noninferiority. The indirect comparison showed a treatment difference of 0.0% (95% confidence interval: -0.189% to 0.189%) in mean change in HbA1c from baseline, and albiglutide 50 mg was noninferior to exenatide 2.0 mg QW at the noninferiority margin of 0.3%. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, these results can be used in pharmacoeconomic analysis and to inform health technology assessment and clinical decision making.

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US.

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum. Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources. Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments. Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs. Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.

The economic burden of progressive chronic kidney disease among patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To estimate the rate of progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and calculate medical costs associated with progression. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 25,576 members at Kaiser Permanente who had T2D and at least one serum creatinine measurement in 2005. Using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), we assigned patients to baseline stages of kidney function (stage 0-2, >60ml/min/1.73m(2), n=21,008; stage 3, 30-59, n=3,885; stage 4, 15-29, n=683). We examined all subsequent eGFRs through 2010 to assess progression of kidney disease. Medical costs at baseline and incremental costs during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 60.6years, 51% were men, and mean diabetes duration was 5.3years. At baseline, 17.9% of patients with T2D also had stage 3 or 4 CKD. Incremental adjusted costs that occurred over follow-up (from baseline) was on average $4569, $12,617, and $33,162 per patient per year higher among patients who progressed from baseline stage 0-2, stage 3, and stage 4 CKD, respectively, compared to those who did not progress. Across all stages of CKD, those who progressed to a higher stage of CKD from baseline had follow-up costs that ranged from 2 to 4 times higher than those who did not progress. CONCLUSIONS: Progression of CKD in T2D drives substantial medical care costs. Interventions designed to minimize decline in progressive kidney function, particularly among patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, may reduce the economic burden of CKD in T2D.