Analysis of pharmacoeconomic value of sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disease which has an adverse impact on the quality of patient's life, so patients often need to receive treatment for a long time. Selection of medications with high therapeutics effects and low cost is very important for patients to take medicine for a longer period of time. Sitagliptin is a drug which is widely used in clinics and can effectively control blood glucose level. This article explores the pharmacoeconomic value of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients with diabetes mellitus treated were recruited in this study. The patients were randomly divided into 4 groups with 25 cases in each group. Patients in group A were treated with pioglitazone, group B with Sitagliptin, group C with metformin and group D with glimepiride. The cost of the drugs, the treatment results and adverse effects were compared. RESULTS: Compared with group A, C and D, the cost-effectiveness ratio of group B was low (p<0.05), and the therapeutic effect was high (p<0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions in group B was lower than that in group A, C and D (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in patients among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in group B were significantly lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). Finally, there was no significant difference in waist circumference and BMI among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the waist circumference and BMI in group B were lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The application of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetic patients can effectively enhance the therapeutic effect. The cost effectiveness is satisfactory, and the blood glucose level can be maintained at a stable state.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 Inhibitors Added to Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Purpose: Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, including linagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in China. This study assessed the economic outcomes of different DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the Chinese context. Materials and Methods: In this study, the validated Chinese Outcomes Model for T2DM (COMT) was conducted to project economic outcomes from the perspective of Chinese healthcare service providers. Efficacy and safety, medical expenditure, and utility data were derived from the literature, which were assigned to model variables. The primary outputs of the model included the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the potential uncertainties of parameters. Results: Of the five competing strategies, alogliptin 25 mg strategy yielded the most significant health outcome, which associated with improvements in discounted QALY of 0.007, 0.014, 0.011, and 0.022 versus linagliptin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and vildagliptin50 mg, respectively. The sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was the cheapest option. The ICER of alogliptin 25 mg against sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was $6,952 per additional QALY gained, and the rest of the strategies were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the cost of DPP-4 inhibitors and their treatment efficacy. Conclusions: These results suggested that alogliptin was a preferred treatment option compared with other DPP-4 inhibitors for Chinese patients whose T2DM are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Pharmacoeconomic Analysis of Sitagliptin/Metformin for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of sitagliptin/metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus compared to those of glibenclamide/metformin in a semiprivate hospital and to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost utility of sitagliptin/metformin in a semiprivate hospital to those in the public health system (PHS) of Ecuador in 2019. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study considering the probability of cardiovascular death as the outcome and quality-adjusted life-year as a measure of utility, estimating direct medical costs in US dollars by a model case from the perspective of the third payer. The results will be presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. One-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses with tornado diagrams were performed. RESULTS: Direct medical costs were lower at the hospital than from the PHS in Ecuador. Considering the drugs metformin/sitagliptin, the total cost was $35.69 less in the hospital ($880.38) than from the comparator ($916.07). The highest percentage of direct medical costs corresponded to drugs (between 63.94% and 84.65%). An ICER of -$19 131.61 was obtained at the Hospital Un Canto a la Vida and -$1621.85 at PHS. In addition, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year earned was $611.11. Sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of drug use and the relative risk of cardiovascular death associated with such prescription were parameters that most affected the model. CONCLUSIONS: The combination therapy metformin/sitagliptin compared to metformin/glibenclamide was shown not to be cost-effective in the Hospital Un Canto a la Vida, and highly cost-effective in the PHS.

Using Data From Routine Care to Estimate the Effectiveness and Potential Limitations of Outcomes-Based Contracts for Diabetes Medications.

OBJECTIVES: Outcomes-based contracts tie rebates and discounts for expensive drugs to outcomes. The objective was to estimate the utility of outcomes-based contracts for diabetes medications using real-world data and to identify methodologic limitations of this approach. METHODS: A population-based cohort study of adults newly prescribed a medication for diabetes with a publicly announced outcomes-based contract (ie, exenatide microspheres ["exenatide"], dulaglutide, or sitagliptin) was conducted. The comparison group included patients receiving canagliflozin or glipizide. The primary outcome was announced in the outcomes-based contract: the percentage of adults with a follow-up hemoglobin A1C <8% up to 1 year later. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of patients diagnosed with hypoglycemia and the cost of a 1-month supply. RESULTS: Thousands of adults newly filled prescriptions for exenatide (n = 5079), dulaglutide (n = 6966), sitagliptin (n = 40 752), canagliflozin (n = 16 404), or glipizide (n = 59 985). The percentage of adults subsequently achieving a hemoglobin A1C below 8% ranged from 83% (dulaglutide, sitagliptin) to 71% (canagliflozin). The rate of hypoglycemia was 25 per 1000 person-years for exenatide, 37 per 1000 person-years for dulaglutide, 28 per 1000 person-years for sitagliptin, 18 per 1000 person-years for canagliflozin, and 34 per 1000 person-years for glipizide. The cash price for a 1-month supply was $847 for exenatide, $859 for dulaglutide, $550 for sitagliptin, $608 for canagliflozin, and $14 for glipizide. CONCLUSION: Outcomes-based pricing of diabetes medications has the potential to lower the cost of medications, but using outcomes such as hemoglobin A1C may not be clinically meaningful because similar changes in A1C can be achieved with generic medications at a far lower cost.

Association between physician adoption of a new oral anti-diabetic medication and Medicare and Medicaid drug spending.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, there is well-documented regional variation in prescription drug spending. However, the specific role of physician adoption of brand name drugs on the variation in patient-level prescription drug spending is still being investigated across a multitude of drug classes. Our study aims to add to the literature by determining the association between physician adoption of a first-in-class anti-diabetic (AD) drug, sitagliptin, and AD drug spending in the Medicare and Medicaid populations in Pennsylvania. METHODS: We obtained physician-level data from QuintilesIMS Xponent™ database for Pennsylvania and constructed county-level measures of time to adoption and share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in its first year post-introduction. We additionally measured total AD drug spending for all Medicare fee-for-service and Part D enrollees (N = 125,264) and all Medicaid (N = 50,836) enrollees with type II diabetes in Pennsylvania for 2011. Finite mixture model regression, adjusting for patient socio-demographic/clinical characteristics, was used to examine the association between physician adoption of sitagliptin and AD drug spending. RESULTS: Physician adoption of sitagliptin varied from 44 to 99% across the state's 67 counties. Average per capita AD spending was $1340 (SD $1764) in Medicare and $1291 (SD $1881) in Medicaid. A 10% increase in the share of physicians adopting sitagliptin in a county was associated with a 3.5% (95% CI: 2.0-4.9) and 5.3% (95% CI: 0.3-10.3) increase in drug spending for the Medicare and Medicaid populations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In a medication market with many choices, county-level adoption of sitagliptin was positively associated with AD spending in Medicare and Medicaid, two programs with different approaches to formulary management.

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

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

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs and utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dapagliflozin (DAPA) with costs and utilization in those who initiated sitagliptin (SITA) in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of health plan enrollees in two US commercial claims databases or Medicare Part D. The study population comprised adult patients with T2D who initiated DAPA or SITA between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015. DAPA and SITA initiators were propensity-score-matched, and healthcare utilization and costs during the 1-year follow-up period were compared. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with evidence of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy use at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2722 patients were included in each matched cohort. Follow-up unadjusted all-cause costs ($16 065 and $17 281; P = 0.135) and diabetes-related costs ($9697 and $9354; P = 0.539) were similar in the DAPA and SITA cohorts. Higher office and outpatient visit costs in the SITA group were offset by higher pharmacy costs in the DAPA group. In the subgroup of 1804 patients with OAD monotherapy use at baseline, patients in the SITA group had higher total all-cause costs compared with those in the DAPA group ($14 884 vs. $12 353; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated DAPA or SITA had similar all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs over 1 year of follow-up. In the subgroup of patients treated with OAD monotherapy at baseline (84% metformin monotherapy), those who initiated DAPA as add-on therapy had lower costs than patients who added SITA.

Switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide to manage patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK: A long-term cost-effectiveness analysis.

AIMS: The recent LIRA-SWITCH trial showed that switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg led to statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1C) and body mass index (BMI). Based on these findings, the aim of the present study was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model Version 8.5+ was used to project costs and clinical outcomes over patients' lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from the LIRA-SWITCH trial. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. Costs were accounted in pounds sterling (GBP) and expressed in 2016 values. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Model projections showed improved quality-adjusted life expectancy for patients with poorly controlled HbA1c upon switching from sitagliptin to liraglutide, compared with continuing sitagliptin treatment (9.18 vs 9.02 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Treatment switching was associated with increased overall costs (GBP 24737 vs GBP 22362). Higher pharmacy costs were partially offset by reduced diabetes-related complication costs in patients who switched to liraglutide. Switching to liraglutide was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 15423 per QALY gained vs continuing with sitagliptin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from sitagliptin 100 mg to liraglutide 1.8 mg in patients with poor glycaemic control was projected to improve clinical outcomes and is likely to be considered cost-effective in the UK setting and, therefore, a good use of limited NHS resources.

Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS).

AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Adherence, Persistence, and Health Care Costs for Patients Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are among the newer, yet more established, classes of diabetes medications. OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence, persistence, and health care costs among patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors. METHODS: Claims were extracted from Humana Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) or commercial plans for patients aged > 18 years with ≥ 1 prescription filled for a DPP-4 inhibitor between July 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013. The first prescription claim for a DPP-4 inhibitor established the index date and index medication; 12-month pre-index and post-index data were analyzed. The Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) was used to assess a level of baseline diabetes-related comorbidities. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 80%) and persistence (< 31-day gap) measures were compared before and after, adjusting for DCSI, pre-index insulin, age, and gender. Post-index costs (in 2013 U.S. dollars) were compared using general linear modeling (GLM) to adjust for pre-index costs, DCSI, pre-index insulin, age, and gender. RESULTS: Based on study criteria, 22,860 patients with MAPD coverage (17,292 sitagliptin, 4,282 saxagliptin, and 1,286 linagliptin) and 3,229 patients with commercial coverage (2,368 sitagliptin, 643 saxagliptin, and 218 linagliptin) were included. For MAPD patients, the mean age was 70-72 years, and females represented 50%-52% of patients. For commercial patients, mean age was 55-56 years, and females represented 44% of patients. Clinical indicators for patients on linagliptin showed a higher comorbidity level than sitagliptin or saxagliptin cohorts (MAPD DCSI 3.0 vs 2.4 and 2.2, P < 0.001; commercial DCSI 1.2 vs. 0.9 and 0.9, P < 0.001); a higher use of pre-index insulin (MAPD 22% vs. 15% and 14%, P < 0.001; commercial 18% vs. 11% and 10%, P = 0.003); and higher mean pre-index costs (MAPD $14,448 vs. $11,818 and $10,399, P < 0.001; commercial $13,868 vs. $9,357 and $8,223, P = 0.016). For the MAPD cohort, the unadjusted PDC was lower for linagliptin patients (67%) compared with saxagliptin (72%) or sitagliptin (72%) patients (P < 0.001). Significant differences were still seen when adjusted for covariates. Linagliptin patients were more likely to be nonpersistent (73%) than those on saxagliptin (65%) or sitagliptin (67%; P < 0.01 for adjusted and unadjusted comparisons). For the commercial population, there were no significant differences in mean PDC between the 3 groups (linagliptin 70%, saxagliptin 72%, and sitagliptin 74%; P = 0.096). Dichotomized comparisons of nonpersistence were significantly different (linagliptin 65%, saxagliptin 62%, and sitagliptin 57%; P = 0.010), although upon adjustment using a Cox proportional hazard model, no significant differences were found. When controlling for other factors, post-index adjusted health care costs were similar between the medication cohorts (MAPD: sitagliptin = $13,913, saxagliptin = $13,651, and linagliptin = $13,859; commercial: sitagliptin = $11,677, saxagliptin = $12,059, and linagliptin = $11,163; all P > 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: For MAPD and commercial populations, baseline patient demographics were similar between the 3 DPP-4 inhibitor groups, but the linagliptin group may have had more complex patients (higher pre-index costs, higher DCSI, and more use of insulin). For the MAPD population, patients on linagliptin were less adherent and persistent than patients taking sitagliptin or saxagliptin for all unadjusted and adjusted comparisons. For the commercial population, which was notably smaller, these differences were in the same direction, but not all were statistically significant. When controlling for baseline factors, 12-month post-index direct medical health care costs were similar between index DPP-4 inhibitors. DISCLOSURES: No external funding was provided for this research. The project was done as part of internal work by Humana employees. Rascati received no compensation. None of the authors have any financial disclosures or conflicts of interests to report. Worley and Everhart are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a subsidiary of Humana, and Meah is an employee of Humana. Discussion of the adherence and persistence data was presented as a poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus Conference, October 2015. Cost data were presented as a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 18th Annual European Congress, November 2015. Study concept and design were contributed by Rascati, Worley, and Meah, along with Everhart. Rascati took the lead in data collection, assisted by Meah, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Rascati, along with Worley, Everhart, and Meah, and revised by Rascati, Everhart, and Worley, with assistance from Meah.

Cost-effectiveness of Canagliflozin versus Sitagliptin When Added to Metformin and Sulfonylurea in Type 2 Diabetes in Canada.

BackgroundCanagliflozin, an agent that inhibits sodium glucose co-transporter 2, is approved as add-on to metformin plus sulfonylurea for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Canada. Canagliflozin offers greater glycemic control, as well as important additional benefits such as weight loss and blood pressure reductions, versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors such as sitagliptin.  ObjectiveThis analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin 300 mg and canagliflozin 100 mg versus sitagliptin 100 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin plus sulfonylurea from the perspective of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. MethodsA 40-year cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the validated Economic and Health Outcomes Model of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). Patient characteristics, treatment effects, and rates of hypoglycemia and adverse events were sourced from the canagliflozin clinical program. Canada-specific costs and utilities were applied. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative values for key model inputs. ResultsBoth canagliflozin 300 and 100 mg dominated sitagliptin 100 mg over 40 years, providing quality-adjusted life-year gains of 0.31 and 0.28, and cost offsets of $2,217 and $2,560, respectively. Both canagliflozin doses dominated sitagliptin in each of the sensitivity analyses. ConclusionsSimulation results suggested that canagliflozin 300 and 100 mg provided better health outcomes and lower costs than sitagliptin 100 mg as a third-line therapy added-on to metformin and sulfonylurea in patients with type 2 diabetes in Canada.

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.

Healthcare Costs Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Initiating DPP-4 Inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: Oral antidiabetes medications, including dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) saxagliptin and sitagliptin, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D). The study objective was to compare all-cause and diabetes-related costs following initiation of saxagliptin or sitagliptin. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years initiating saxagliptin or sitagliptin between January 1, 2009 and January 31, 2012 in the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases were identified. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment for ≥ 365 days before and ≥ 365 days after the index date (date of the first saxagliptin or sitagliptin claim). Additionally, patients were required to have a claim with a T2D diagnosis (ICD-9-CM 250.×0, 250.×2) and no claims for a DPP-4i medication before the index date. All-cause and diabetes-related medical costs and total costs (including pharmacy costs) were captured over the 1-year follow-up period. Generalized linear models with log link and gamma distribution were fit to compare costs between the two cohorts using cost ratios, controlling for patient baseline characteristics. Recycled prediction methods were used to generate adjusted predicted costs and confidence intervals. RESULTS: The final sample comprised 3354 saxagliptin initiators and 26,895 sitagliptin initiators. The average age of saxagliptin and sitagliptin initiators was 57 years and just over 50% were males. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, saxagliptin patients had significantly lower average all-cause medical costs (cost ratio = 0.901, P < 0.001; predicted mean costs: $8687 vs. $9646) compared with sitagliptin patients over the 1-year follow-up. Findings were consistent for diabetes-related medical costs (cost ratio = 0.890, P < 0.001; predicted mean costs: $2180 vs. $2450). Total costs were also lower for saxagliptin initiators (cost ratio = 0.950, P = 0.002; predicted mean costs: $13,911 vs. $14,651) over the 1-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Initiation of treatment with saxagliptin was associated with lower medical costs over 1 year compared with initiation of sitagliptin among adults with T2D. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources.

AIMS: To assess resource utilization associated with severe hypoglycaemia across three insulin regimens in a large phase 3a clinical programme involving people with Type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin, people with Type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections and people with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal-oral therapy. METHODS: Data relating to severe hypoglycaemia events (defined as episodes requiring external assistance) from the insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart programme (15 trials) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparators included insulin glargine, biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and sitagliptin. Mealtime insulin aspart was used in some regimens. This analysis used the serious adverse events records, which documented the use of ambulance/emergency teams, a hospital/emergency room visit ≤ 24 h, or a hospital visit > 24 h. RESULTS: In total, 536 severe hypoglycaemia events were analysed, of which 157 (29.3%) involved an ambulance/emergency team, 64 (11.9%) led to hospital/emergency room attendance of ≤ 24 h and 36 (6.7%) required hospital admission (> 24 h). Although there were fewer events in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with Type 1 diabetes, once a severe episode occurred, the tendency to utilize healthcare resources was higher in Type 2 diabetes vs. Type 1 diabetes. A higher proportion (47.6%) in the basal-oral therapy group required hospital treatment for > 24 h versus the Type 1 diabetes (5.0%) and Type 2 diabetes multiple daily injections (5.3%) groups. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that severe hypoglycaemia events often result in emergency/ambulance calls and hospital treatment, incurring a substantial health economic burden, and were associated with all insulin regimens.

Liraglutide vs. sitagliptin add-on to metformin treatment for type 2 diabetes mellitus: Short-term cost-per-controlled patient in Italy.

AIM: To estimate the short-term cost-per-controlled-patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus with liraglutide 1.2mg/day vs. sitagliptin 100mg/day as add-on treatment to metformin in Italy. METHODS: The percentage of controlled patients, i.e. with "HbA1c<7% without hypoglycemia and weight gain", at 26 and 52 weeks with liraglutide and sitagliptin, as well as at 78 weeks for patients switching at 52 weeks from sitagliptin to liraglutide or hypothetically continuing on sitagliptin were obtained from randomized clinical trials (RCT) and a meta-analysis. The treatment cost-per-controlled-patient was calculated from the perspective of the National Health System over a 26, 52- and 78-week time horizon. RESULTS: Despite the higher acquisition cost of liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, at 26 weeks liraglutide resulted in a lower cost-per-controlled-patient (€1460 vs. €1820 - with efficacy from RCT - and €1593 vs. €2234 - with efficacy from a meta-analysis), as well as at 52 weeks (€2627 vs. €2649). At 78 weeks, in patients who have switched from sitagliptin to liraglutide at 52 weeks, the cost-per-controlled-patient is also lower than that of patients continuing sitagliptin for 78 weeks (€2889 vs. €3970). CONCLUSIONS: Due to higher efficacy, liraglutide is associated with better cost-benefit than sitagliptin at 26, 52 and 78 weeks.

Economic simulation of canagliflozin and sitagliptin treatment outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycemic control.

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the association between changes in diabetes-related quality measures (QMs) (HbA1c, systolic and diastolic blood pressure [BP], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], and body weight) and healthcare costs in Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients. It also performs an economic simulation that evaluates the cost implications of the changes in QMs and of the incidence rates (IRs) of adverse events (AEs) associated with canagliflozin (CANA) and sitagliptin (SITA) treatments in a real-world setting. METHODS: Health-insurance claims and electronic medical records from the Reliant Medical Group database (2007-2011) were used to identify adult patients with T2DM receiving metformin and sulfonylurea who did not achieve adequate glycemic control. The association between the changes in QMs and healthcare costs was evaluated using multivariate regression and non-parametric bootstrap methods. AE-related costs were taken from the literature. The cost impact of CANA and SITA outcomes was evaluated using the aforementioned costs and the changes in QMs and the IRs of AEs observed in a recent phase 3 trial comparing CANA and SITA as third oral agent (DIA3015). RESULTS: Eight hundred and fifty-six T2DM patients were identified (mean age = 65.8; female 45.4%). The regression analysis found that increases of 1 percentage point in HbA1C and 1% in systolic and diastolic BP, LDL-C, or weight were associated with a per patient per year (PPPY) cost increase of $4476 (p = 0.028) and $566 (p = 0.006), a decrease of $362 (p = 0.070) and $7 (p = 0.817), and an increase of $241 (p = 0.481), respectively. The economic simulation showed that changes in QMs and IRs of AEs equivalent to those reported in DIA3015 would be associated with a reduction in PPPY healthcare costs of $6061 (p = 0.036) for CANA and $2190 (p = 0.098) for SITA. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that integrated approaches that manage to control a combination of quality measures are most successful at reducing downstream healthcare costs.

The study of once- and twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) with sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin, in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on sitagliptin and metformin-The Sit2Mix trial.

AIMS: Investigate efficacy and tolerability of intensifying diabetes treatment with once- or twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) added to sitagliptin, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on sitagliptin. METHODS: Open-label, three-arm, 24-week trial; 582 insulin-naïve patients were randomized to twice-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp BID+Sit), once-daily BIAsp 30+sitagliptin (BIAsp QD+Sit) or twice-daily BIAsp 30 without sitagliptin (BIAsp BID), all with metformin. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, HbA1c reduction (%) was superior with BIAsp BID+Sit vs. BIAsp QD+Sit (BIAsp BID+Sit minus BIAsp QD+Sit difference: -0.36 [95% CI -0.54; -0.17], P<0.001) and BIAsp BID (BIAsp BID minus BIAsp BID+Sit difference: 0.24 [0.06; 0.43], P=0.01). Observed final HbA1c values were 6.9%, 7.2% and 7.1% (baseline 8.4%), and 59.8%, 46.5% and 49.7% of patients achieved HbA1c <7.0%, respectively. Confirmed hypoglycaemia was lower with BIAsp QD+Sit vs. BIAsp BID (P=0.015); rate: 1.17 (BIAsp QD+Sit), 1.50 (BIAsp BID+Sit) and 2.24 (BIAsp BID) episodes/patient-year. Difference in bodyweight change favoured BIAsp QD+Sit vs. both BID groups (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adding BIAsp 30 to patients with T2D poorly controlled with sitagliptin and metformin is efficacious and well tolerated; however, while BIAsp BID+Sit showed superior glycaemic control, BIAsp QD+Sit had a lower rate of hypoglycaemia and showed no weight gain.

Cost efficiency of canagliflozin versus sitagliptin for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVES: To compare 1-year clinical outcomes and cost efficiency of treating adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with canagliflozin (300 mg/day) or sitagliptin (100 mg/day), both added on a background of metformin and sulfonylurea. STUDY DESIGN: An economic model integrated data from an active-controlled, randomized trial, claims database analyses, and published literature. METHODS: The model adopted a US managed care payer perspective and included the clinical and economic impact of achieving specific clinical quality goals. The model was run separately for 2 single clinical quality metrics, glycated hemoglobin (A1C) < 7% (used as base case) or < 8%, and 4 composite metrics (A1C < 7% or < 8% combined with body mass index < 30 kg/m2 and blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < 100 mg/dL). Cost savings of achieving versus not achieving metrics were derived from a claims database analysis. Drug and adverse event costs were included. RESULTS: In the base case, compared with sitagliptin 100 mg, treatment with canagliflozin 300 mg resulted in $215 in annual cost savings and 12.3 absolute percentage points more patients achieving goal. Similar findings were found across all other quality metrics (difference in proportion achieving goal ranging from 6.7% to 19.0% and annual savings ranging from $1 to $669). Canagliflozin remained cost saving versus sitagliptin in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Canagliflozin 300 mg may represent a cost-efficient T2DM treatment option versus sitagliptin 100 mg for patients on metformin plus sulfonylurea due to lower overall costs and better achievement of A1C and quality composite goals.