The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.

Early use of oral semaglutide in the UK: A cost-effectiveness analysis versus continuing metformin and SGLT-2 inhibitor therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Many people with type 2 diabetes experience clinical inertia, remaining in poor glycaemic control on oral glucose-lowering medications rather than intensifying treatment with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, despite an efficacious, orally administered option, oral semaglutide, being available. The present study evaluated the long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating oral semaglutide versus continuing metformin plus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor therapy in the UK. DESIGN: Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (V.9.0). Clinical data were taken from the oral semaglutide and placebo arms of the patient subgroup receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in PIONEER 4. Costs, expressed in 2021 Pounds sterling (GBP), were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. INTERVENTIONS: Modelled patients received oral semaglutide immediately (in the first year of the analysis) or after a 2-year delay, after which all physiological parameters were brought to values observed in the immediate therapy arm. During the simulation, patients intensified with the addition of basal insulin and, subsequently, by switching to basal-bolus insulin. RESULTS: Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.17 (95% CIs 0.16 to 0.19) years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15 (0.14 to 0.16) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus a 2-year delay. Benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 1423 (1349 to 1496) higher with immediate oral semaglutide therapy versus a 2-year delay, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Immediate oral semaglutide therapy was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 9404 (8380 to 10 538) per QALY gained versus a 2-year delay. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate oral semaglutide is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment in people with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02863419.

Calibration of the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model to the stroke outcomes from the SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial of once-weekly semaglutide.

AIMS: In the SUSTAIN 6 cardiovascular outcomes trial, once-weekly semaglutide was associated with a statistically significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo. To date, no studies have assessed how accurately existing diabetes models predict the outcomes observed in SUSTAIN 6. The aims of this analysis were to investigate the performance of the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model when used to predict the SUSTAIN 6 trial outcomes, to calibrate the model such that projected outcomes reflected observed outcomes, and to examine the impact of calibration on the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide from a UK healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was calibrated to ensure that the projected non-fatal stroke event rates reflected the non-fatal stroke event rates observed in SUSTAIN 6 over a two-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness analyses of once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo plus standard of care were conducted over a lifetime horizon using the uncalibrated and calibrated models to assess the impact on cost-effectiveness outcomes. RESULTS: To replicate the non-fatal stroke event rate in SUSTAIN 6, calibration of the model through the application of relative risks for stroke of 1.07 and 1.65 with once-weekly semaglutide and placebo, respectively, was required. In the long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, the uncalibrated model projected an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for once-weekly semaglutide versus placebo plus standard of care of GBP 22,262 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, which fell to GBP 17,594 per QALY gained when the calibrated model was used. CONCLUSIONS: The requirement for calibration to replicate the outcomes observed in SUSTAIN 6 suggests that the reductions in risk of cardiovascular complications observed with once-weekly semaglutide cannot be solely explained by differences in conventional risk factors. Accurate estimation of the risk of diabetes-related complications using methods such as calibration is important to ensure accurate cost-effectiveness analyses are conducted.

Evaluating the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Liraglutide 1.8 mg: A Health Economic Analysis in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists represent highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. Liraglutide was amongst the first authorised for use in 2010, but once-weekly semaglutide represents the most efficacious GLP-1 analogue currently available for type 2 diabetes. The aim of the present analysis was therefore to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus liraglutide 1.8 mg with a lowered acquisition cost in the UK, as potentially lower cost liraglutide formulations may soon be developed. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (v9.0). Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 2, with changes in HbA1c, blood pressure and body mass index applied from a network meta-analysis, in which SUSTAIN 2 was used to inform the semaglutide arm. Modelled patients received semaglutide or liraglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective and expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP). The acquisition cost of liraglutide was reduced by 33% compared with the currently marketed formulation. RESULTS: Life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy were projected to improve with once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg, by 0.05 years and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years, respectively, versus liraglutide 1.8 mg. Clinical benefits were due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 280 lower with semaglutide, entirely because of avoidance of diabetes-related complications versus liraglutide. Semaglutide 1 mg was therefore considered dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg is likely to represent a dominant treatment option versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK, even with the liraglutide price reduced by 33%.

Evaluating the Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated with Poor Glycemic Control in People with Type 1 Diabetes in the Netherlands.

Introduction: Achieving and maintaining glycemic control is the cornerstone of type 1 diabetes management, with the aim of reducing the incidence of diabetes-related complications over the long term. However, many individuals fail to reach glycemic targets. The present study evaluated the clinical and economic burden associated with poor glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands, and the improvements in outcomes that can be achieved by improving treatment. Methods: Immediate glycemic control, defined as achieving a glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) target of 7.0% at the start of the analysis, was compared with delays in achieving control of 1, 3 and 7 years, with outcomes projected using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and direct and indirect costs (expressed in 2021 euros [EUR]) were made at a patient level and extrapolated to the population level. Results: Improving HbA1c from 8.0% to 7.0% and 9.0% to 7.0% resulted in gains of up to 0.66 and 1.37 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient over a lifetime, respectively. At a population level, achieving immediate glycemic control was associated with gains of 9438, 27,171 and 72,717 QALYs and cost savings of up to EUR 224 million, EUR 556 million and EUR 1.3 billion compared with remaining in poor control for 1, 3 and 7 years, respectively. Conclusion: The clinical and economic burden of poor glycemic control in people with type 1 diabetes in the Netherlands was projected to be substantial, but considerable gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy and cost savings could be achieved through early and effective treatment.

Once-weekly semaglutide versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis based on SUSTAIN 11.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus insulin aspart in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Long-term outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (vers 9.0). SUSTAIN 11 was used to inform baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects. Patients were modelled to receive once-weekly semaglutide plus basal insulin for 3 years before intensifying to basal-bolus insulin, compared with basal-bolus insulin for lifetimes in the aspart arm. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK, expressed in 2021 pounds sterling (GBP). RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.18 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin aspart, due to a reduced incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 800 higher with semaglutide, with higher treatment costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was therefore associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4457 per QALY gained versus insulin aspart. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP 20 000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be highly cost-effective versus insulin aspart for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

The challenges and pitfalls of incorporating evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials in health economic modelling of type 2 diabetes.

The clinical evidence base for evaluating modern type 2 diabetes interventions has expanded greatly in recent years, with numerous efficacious treatment options available (including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors). The cardiovascular safety of these interventions has been assessed individually versus placebo in numerous cardiovascular outcomes trials (CVOTs), statistically powered to detect differences in a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events. There have been growing calls to incorporate these data in the long-term modelling of type 2 diabetes interventions because current diabetes models were developed prior to the conduct of the CVOTs and therefore rely on risk equations developed in the absence of these data. However, there are numerous challenges and pitfalls to avoid when using data from CVOTs. The primary concerns are around the heterogeneity of the trials, which have different study durations, inclusion criteria, rescue medication protocols and endpoint definitions; this results in significant uncertainty when comparing two or more interventions evaluated in separate CVOTs, as robust adjustment for these differences is difficult. Analyses using CVOT data inappropriately can dilute clear evidence from head-to-head clinical trials, and blur healthcare decision making. Calibration of existing models may represent an approach to incorporating CVOT data into diabetes modelling, but this can only offer a valid comparison of one intervention versus placebo based on a single CVOT. Ideally, model development should utilize patient-level data from CVOTs to prepare novel risk equations that can better model modern therapies for type 2 diabetes.

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK.

AIMS: Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. RESULTS: Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Oral Semaglutide in Spain: A Long-Term Health Economic Analysis Based on the PIONEER Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist oral semaglutide has demonstrated greater improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus oral medications empagliflozin and sitagliptin, and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide, in the PIONEER clinical trial program. Based on these data, the present analysis aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin and liraglutide in Spain. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 3.0% annually. Cohort characteristics and treatment effects were sourced from PIONEER 2 and 4 for the comparisons of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, and PIONEER 3 for oral semaglutide 7 and 14 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Costs were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective in 2020 euros (EUR). Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5% and then treatment-intensified to basal insulin. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.13, 0.19 and 0.06 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with direct costs EUR 168 higher versus empagliflozin and EUR 236 and 1415 lower versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, respectively. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of EUR 1339 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and was considered dominant (clinically superior and cost saving) versus sitagliptin and liraglutide. Additional analyses demonstrated that oral semaglutide 7 mg was associated with improvements of 0.11 QALYs and increased costs of EUR 226 versus sitagliptin and was therefore associated with an ICER of EUR 2011 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was dominant versus sitagliptin and liraglutide, and cost-effective versus empagliflozin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain.

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

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

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide in Portugal.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog that has been associated with improvements in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin and injectable GLP-1 receptor agonist dulaglutide in the PIONEER 2 clinical trial and in a recent network meta-analysis (NMA), respectively. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide 14 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in Portugal. METHODS: In two separate analyses, outcomes were projected over patients' lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0), discounted at 4% per annum. Clinical data were sourced from the PIONEER 2 trial and the NMA for the comparisons versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, respectively. Patients were assumed to receive initial therapies until HbA1c exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to solely basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a National Healthcare Service perspective in Portugal and expressed in 2021 euros (EUR). Utilities were taken from published sources. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.10 and 0.03 years, and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.11 and 0.03 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. Improved clinical outcomes were due to a reduced cumulative incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications with oral semaglutide. Total costs were projected to be EUR 2548 and EUR 814 higher with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin and dulaglutide, with higher acquisition costs partially offset by cost savings from avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Oral semaglutide 14 mg was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 23,571 and EUR 23,927 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Portugal.

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

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

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

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

The long-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide in the Netherlands based on the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analog oral semaglutide versus sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor empagliflozin, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin and injectable GLP-1 analog liraglutide in the Netherlands, based on the results of the PIONEER clinical trials. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical data were derived from PIONEER 2, 3 and 4. Patients were assumed to receive initial treatments until glycated hemoglobin exceeded 7.5%, then treatment-intensified to basal insulin therapy. Costs were accounted from a societal perspective in 2019 euros (EUR). RESULTS: Oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.15, 0.22 and 0.09quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg, respectively, with combined costs EUR1,032 higher, EUR115 higher and EUR1,267 lower. Oral semaglutide was therefore associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR7,061 and EUR516 per QALY gained versus empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on long-term projections, oral semaglutide 14 mg was considered cost-effective versus empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and dominant versus liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands.

Evaluating the Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg Versus Empagliflozin 25 mg for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes represents a continuing healthcare challenge, and choosing cost-effective treatments is crucial to ensure that healthcare resources are used efficiently. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control on metformin monotherapy from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK. METHODS: Outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects of initiation of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg were based on an indirect comparison conducted using patient-level data, as there is currently no head-to-head clinical trial comparing these therapies. Modelled patients received treatments until glycated haemoglobin exceeded 7.5% (58 mmol/mol), at which point patients initiated basal insulin. The analysis captured pharmacy costs and costs of diabetes-related complications, expressed in 2019 pounds sterling (GBP). Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Scenario analyses were prepared to assess uncertainty around projected outcomes. RESULTS: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with increases in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 years and 0.23 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, compared with empagliflozin 25 mg. Projected improvements in quality and duration of life resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and a delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with increased pharmacy costs, but this was partially offset by avoided costs of treating complications. Once-weekly semaglutide was associated with an increase in costs of GBP 1017 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 4439 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was projected to be a cost-effective treatment option from a healthcare payer perspective compared with empagliflozin 25 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK setting.

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

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

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

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

Lower Drug Cost of Successfully Treating Patients with Type 2 Diabetes to Targets with Once-Weekly Semaglutide versus Once-weekly Dulaglutide in Japan: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In the head-to-head trial (SUSTAIN 7), the novel, injectable, once-weekly GLP-1 analogue semaglutide showed superiority in both glycemic outcomes and body weight reduction, compared with once-weekly dulaglutide in the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, no economic evaluation using these data has yet been conducted in the Japanese setting. The objective of this analysis was to assess the short-term cost-effectiveness in Japan of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg (the approved maintenance dose in Japan) compared with once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg (the only licensed dose in Japan) over a 1-year period using Japanese cost data. METHODS: Responder endpoints were obtained from the SUSTAIN 7 trial to assess the cost of successfully treating patients to these targets ("cost of control"). Responder endpoint definitions consisted of single, dual, and triple composite endpoints related to glycemic control, body weight, and hypoglycemia outcomes. The cost of treatment was accounted from a healthcare payer perspective, capturing drug costs only. RESULTS: Treatment with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg was associated with a lower cost and a lower cost per patient treated to target for all endpoints, compared with once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg. For each JPY 1 spent on bringing patients to target with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg, JPY 1.58, JPY 1.44, JPY 1.60, JPY 2.10, and JPY 2.33 would need to be spent on once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg to achieve an equivalent outcome for endpoints of HbA1c ≤ 6.5%, HbA1c < 7.0%, HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia, and no weight gain, weight loss ≥ 5%, and ≥ 1.0% HbA1c reduction and ≥ 3.0% weight loss, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that once-weekly semaglutide is a cost-effective treatment option compared with once-weekly dulaglutide for patients with T2D in Japan. In the future, this finding should be extrapolated to traditional long-term cost-effectiveness analysis, using common outcomes such as quality-adjusted life years.

Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Sitagliptin in the Spanish Setting.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population, but must work within constrained budgets. Therefore, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus once daily sitagliptin 100 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes from a healthcare payer perspective in the Spanish setting. METHODS: Cost and clinical outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects on initiation of semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg were based on the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 7 and 2). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.0% annually. RESULTS: Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.02 and 0.11 years, respectively, and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.17 and 0.24 years, respectively and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg from a healthcare payer perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were considered dominant (more effective and less costly) versus sitagliptin 100 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting.

Since healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population but must work within constrained budgets, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. We assessed the cost-effectiveness, from a Spanish healthcare payer perspective, of the newly marketed once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus two established therapies (dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes.Outcomes were projected using a computer simulation model, based on two trials conducted as part of the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 2 and SUSTAIN 7). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications.Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg, and 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs, respectively, versus sitagliptin 100 mg. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg.Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were more effective and less costly and therefore were considered dominant in both comparisons, and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting.