The economic burden of obesity in 4 south-eastern European countries associated with obesity-related co-morbidities.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an assessment of the cost burden of obesity across a spectrum of obesity-related comorbidities (ORCs) for four countries in South-Eastern Europe (SEE). METHODS: A micro-costing analysis from the public payer perspective was conducted to estimate direct healthcare costs associated with ten obesity-related comorbidities (ORCs) in Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, and Romania. A survey was administered to obtain healthcare resource use and unit cost data. Cost estimates were validated by local steering committees which comprised at least one public sector clinician and a panel of independent industry experts. RESULTS: Chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular diseases were the costliest ORCs across all 4 countries, where annual cost burden per ORC exceeded 1,500 USD per patient per year. In general, costs were driven by the tertiary care resources allocated to address treatment-related adverse events, disease complications, and associated inpatient procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm that the high prevalence of obesity and its comorbidities result in substantial financial burden to all 4 SEE public payers. By quantifying the burden of obesity from a public healthcare perspective, our study aims to support policy efforts that promote health education and promotion in combating obesity in the region.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes in Spain based on real-world clinical evidence.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus comparator regimens for type 2 diabetes in Spain, based on real-world evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data were taken from the European Xultophy Treatment Retrospective Audit (EXTRA) real-world evidence study in which patients failing to meet glycaemic targets were switched to IDegLira. Baseline regimens (prior to IDegLira treatment) were categorized as: multiple daily insulin injections (MDI; 28%); glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in combination with insulin (24%); basal insulin (19%); GLP-1 receptor agonists (10%); and non-injectable medications (19%). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term outcomes for patients switching to IDegLira or continuing their baseline regimens (excluding non-injectable regimens). Costs were accounted from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy versus all four comparators. IDegLira reduced direct medical costs versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with insulin, and versus GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, and was therefore considered dominant (cost saving while improving outcomes). IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus MDI and basal insulin with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 3013 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and EUR 6890 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on real-world evidence indicated that IDegLira is likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs or be cost-effective compared with other injectable regimens in people with type 2 diabetes in Spain.

The Economic Impact of Obesity in Turkey: A Micro-Costing Analysis.

Background: Turkey currently has the highest obesity prevalence among its European counterparts. 32% and 61% of the population live with obesity and overweight, respectively. Overweight and obesity are linked to non-communicable diseases that incur incremental health and economic costs. The significant public health concern warrants an assessment of the cost of obesity. Methods: A micro-costing approach from the public payer perspective was conducted to estimate direct healthcare costs associated with ten obesity-related comorbidities (ORCs) in Turkey. Clinical practice guidelines and a systematic literature review informed ORCs and the respective cost categories. This was subsequently validated by a steering committee comprising seven experts. Seventy public sector physicians were surveyed to estimate healthcare resource use. Unit costs were derived from Social Security Institute's Healthcare Implementation Communique. Cost items were summed to determine the annual cost per patient per ORC, which was validated by the steering committee. Medical inflation was considered in a scenario analysis that varied resource unit costs. Results: Chronic kidney disease, heart failure and type 2 diabetes are the costliest ORCs, incurring an annual cost of 28,600 TRY, 16,639 TRY and 11,993 TRY, respectively. Individuals in Turkey with any ORC triggered direct healthcare costs ranging 1857-28,600 TRY annually. Costs were driven by tertiary care resources arising from treatment-related adverse events, disease complications and inpatient procedures. In the scenario analysis, medical resource unit costs were inflated by 18.7% and 39.4%, triggering an average increase in cost across all ORCs of 1998 TRY and 4210 TRY, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings confirm that obesity and its complications result in significant financial burden to the public healthcare system. By quantifying the burden of obesity across a comprehensive spectrum of ORCs, our study aims to support the economic case for investing in appropriate obesity interventions.

Semaglutide versus tirzepatide for people with type 2 diabetes: cost of glycemic control in Austria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the United Arab Emirates.

OBJECTIVES: The glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist semaglutide and the dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide tirzepatide have proven to significantly reduce glucose levels in people with type 2 diabetes. However, the costs needed to achieve a sustained decrease in HbA1c level and disease control with semaglutide and tirzepatide, respectively, are unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the cost of treatment with semaglutide with the cost of treatment with tirzepatide for type 2 diabetes in Austria, the Netherlands, Lithuania, and the United Arab Emirates in order to determine their respective value for money. METHODS: The primary outcome of this analysis was the cost in euros needed to achieve disease control in one person with type 2 diabetes based on the composite endpoint of HbA1c <7%, ≥5% weight loss, and no hypoglycemic events. In addition, analyses regarding the cost needed to reach relevant HbA1c endpoints were performed. Clinical data were obtained from the SURPASS 2 trial, registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03987919), and drug cost was based on wholesale acquisition cost or pharmacy purchase prices from public domains obtained in Q1 of 2023. RESULTS: The cost needed to achieve disease control in one person with type 2 diabetes (HbA1c <7%, ≥5% weight loss, and no hypoglycemic events) was up to three times lower using semaglutide compared with all three doses of tirzepatide in most markets. In the HbA1c analyses, semaglutide was also found to be the least expensive treatment option. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide provides better value for money than tirzepatide for HbA1c-lowering endpoints.

Post-Basal Insulin Intensification and Healthcare Resource Use in Type 2 Diabetes: A Web-Based Physician Survey in the United States and United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is limited knowledge of the healthcare resources and time needed to intensify patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with basal insulin to more complex treatment regimens. The purpose of the study was to investigate physicians' perspectives on the time and healthcare resources required for post-basal insulin intensification to basal-bolus and to basal in combination with a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) regimens. The study also examined referrals to specialists for intensification and patient challenges with intensification. METHODS: A web-based survey of physicians was conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (USA). RESULTS: A total of 458 physicians completed the survey, including general practitioners (58.5%) and specialists (endocrinologists/diabetologists; 41.5%). On average, 7.0 healthcare provider (HCP) visits (SD 3.7) over 30.1 weeks (SD 17.4) were required to intensify to a basal-bolus regimen, while 5.7 HCP visits (SD 3.8) over 23.5 weeks (SD 15.2) were needed to intensify to basal insulin in combination with GLP-1. Referral to a specialist for intensification required on average an additional 8 weeks of wait time before intensification. Physicians reported that the complexity of the basal-bolus regimen and frequent injections were key challenges for T2D patients intensifying to basal-bolus, while frequent injections and side effects were key challenges for those intensifying with GLP-1. CONCLUSION: Less complex regimens for intensification following basal insulin may help reduce the time and healthcare resources required for intensification and address some of the challenges T2D patients face when intensifying to basal-bolus or basal with GLP-1. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, A/S.

Diabetes Management and Healthcare Resource Use When Intensifying from Basal Insulin to Basal-Bolus: A Survey of Type 2 Diabetes Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, there is limited knowledge about the experiences and challenges type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients face when intensifying from basal insulin to more complex regimens. The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences of adults with T2D who have been intensified to a basal-bolus insulin regimen, including challenges related to intensification, medication adherence issues, non-persistence, and healthcare resource use related to intensification. METHODS: A web-based survey of adults diagnosed with T2D and currently treated with basal insulin was conducted in the UK and the USA. The analysis sample was restricted to respondents with current/recent basal-bolus treatment (n = 398) and divided into three analysis groups: (1) "basal-bolus adherent" (current basal-bolus treatment with at least 90% adherence); (2) "basal-bolus non-adherent" (current basal-bolus treatment with less than 80% adherence); and (3) "stopped bolus" (discontinued bolus in past 12 months). RESULTS: Basal-bolus non-adherent respondents reported fewer discussions with their healthcare providers (HCPs) before starting bolus and more frequent difficulties with and worries about taking bolus insulin compared to basal-bolus adherent and stopped bolus groups. The most frequently reported reasons for discontinuing bolus were related to the complicated nature of regimen, including too complicated to calculate bolus doses (25.7%), too complicated to regulate food in relation to bolus (20.7%), and too complicated to keep track of taking two different insulins (18.6%). Respondents who stopped bolus reported more frequent HCP visits related to diabetes compared to the basal-bolus adherent and basal-bolus non-adherent groups. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the complicated nature of basal-bolus therapy contributes to the difficulties that T2D patients have with the regimen and to non-persistence. Physician and patient education may help patients address these treatment challenges to improve basal-bolus adherence and persistence, which could reduce healthcare resource use and costs. Less complex regimens may be appropriate for patients with persistent treatment difficulties. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Physicians' real-world experience with IDegLira: results of a European survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to build on the current clinical findings and investigate physicians' experiences and level of satisfaction in using insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) to treat patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicountry, European online survey included respondents from primary (n=132) and secondary (n=103) care and examined physicians' use, confidence and satisfaction with IDegLira. To standardize responses, 24 of 28 questions pertained to an 'average patient' with T2D who has no major comorbidities, aged 35-70 years, with average cognitive ability/normal mental status and body mass index ≥25 kg/m2. RESULTS: The majority (70%) of respondents prescribe IDegLira in the same visit they first mention it, with uncontrolled glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) (44%) and weight gain (22%) being the most common reasons. On average, physicians reported that patients weighed 95 kg and the HbA1c level was 9.0% at initiation. Physicians also reported the average HbA1c target set was 7.1%; 76% of patients achieved their target. On average, patients achieved their HbA1c target in <6 months, and the average dose of IDegLira in patients in glycemic control was 28 dose steps. Respondents were more satisfied with IDegLira than basal-bolus therapy across all parameters assessed, including reaching HbA1c targets (59%), number of injections (77%) and avoiding weight gain (84%). Correspondingly, 77% of physicians reported that IDegLira had more potential to improve patient motivation compared with basal-bolus to reach target blood glucose levels. CONCLUSIONS: Real-world experience of IDegLira is consistent with previous trials/studies, with no major differences between primary and secondary care. Importantly, the majority of respondents were more/much more satisfied with IDegLira than with basal-bolus therapy.