COST-UTILITY ANALYSIS OF LIRAGLUTIDE VERSUS GLIMEPIRIDE AS ADD-ON TO METFORMIN IN TYPE 2 DIABETES PATIENTS IN CHINA

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Gao ◽  
Fei-Li Zhao ◽  
Shu-Chuen Li
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
System Perspective ◽  
Healthcare System Perspective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-utility of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), based on the results of clinical trial conducted in Asian population.Methods: The validated UKPDS Outcomes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incidence of diabetes-related complication and cost of complications in patients receiving those regimens. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from an Asian study. China-specific complication costs and utility score were taken from local studies. Patients’ outcomes were modeled for 30 years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for liraglutide compared with glimepiride from the healthcare system perspective. Both future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3 percent. Sensitivity analyses were performed.Results: Over a period of 30 years, compared with glimepiride, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy (0.1 year) and quality adjusted life-year (0.168 QALY), and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained versus glimepiride of CNY 25,6871 (DEC 2010, 1 USD = 6.6227 CNY).Conclusions: Long-term projections indicated that liraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy, QALYs, and reduced complication incidences comparing with glimepiride. When the UK cost of liraglutide was discounted by 38 percent, liraglutide would be a cost-effective option in China from the healthcare system perspective using the 3X GDP/capita per QALY as the WTP threshold.

scholarly journals Once-weekly semaglutide for patients with type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis in the Netherlands

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000705 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barnaby Hunt ◽  
Samuel J P Malkin ◽  
Robert G J Moes ◽  
Eline L Huisman ◽  
Tom Vandebrouck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Societal Perspective ◽  
Receptor Agonist ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

ObjectiveChoosing therapies for type 2 diabetes that are both effective and cost-effective is vital as healthcare systems worldwide aim to maximize health of the population. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist) versus insulin glargine U100 (the most commonly used basal insulin) and versus dulaglutide (an alternative once-weekly GLP-1 receptor agonist), from a societal perspective in the Netherlands.Research design and methodsThe IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus insulin glargine U100, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg, and once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Clinical data were taken from the SUSTAIN 4 and SUSTAIN 7 clinical trials. The analysis captured direct and indirect costs, mortality, and the impact of diabetes-related complications on quality of life.ResultsProjections of outcomes suggested that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg was associated with improved quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus insulin glargine U100 and 0.07 QALYs versus dulaglutide 0.75 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.27 QALYs versus insulin glargine U100 and 0.13 QALYs versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Improvements came at an increased cost versus insulin glargine U100, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios from a societal perspective of €4988 and €495 per QALY gained for once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, respectively, falling below Netherlands-specific willingness-to-pay thresholds. Improvements versus dulaglutide came at a reduced cost from a societal perspective for both doses of once-weekly semaglutide.ConclusionsOnce-weekly semaglutide is cost-effective versus insulin glargine U100, and dominant versus dulaglutide 0.75 and 1.5 mg for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and represents a good use of healthcare resources in the Netherlands.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mafalda Ramos ◽  
Peng Men ◽  
Xu Wang ◽  
Anastasia Ustyugova ◽  
Mark Lamotte
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Treatment Comparison

Abstract Background In several cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor), sitagliptin (DPP-4 inhibitor) and liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC based on the respective CVOT. Methods The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (HbA1c, BMI, blood pressure, lipids) were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk adjustments to calibrate the CDM were obtained after a trial and error process to match as closely the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until HbA1c reached 8.5% and treatment switch occurred. After this switch, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system applying 3% discounting. The time horizon was lifelong. Results Empagliflozin + SoC provides additional Quality Adjusted Life years (QALY + 0.564) for an incremental cost of 42,497RMB (US$6053) compared to sitagliptin + SoC, resulting in an Incremental Cost Utility Ratio of 75,349RMB (US$10,732), thus below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB, corresponding to three times the Gross Domestic Product in China (2019). Compared to liraglutide + SoC, empagliflozin + SoC use leads to 0.211QALY gained and cost savings of 71,427RMB (US$10,173) and is as such dominant. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results. Conclusion Results suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB ($30,292)/QALY.

scholarly journals Short And Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness Of Starting Insulin Detemir In Insulin-Naïve People With Type-2 Diabetes

2013 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. A164
Author(s):  
P.D. Home ◽  
G.G. Gálvez ◽  
R. Malek ◽  
E. Hammerby ◽  
A. Nikolajsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Detemir ◽  
Short And Long Term
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document