Rasmus Skovgaard1, Uffe Jon Ploug2, Barnaby Hunt3, William J Valentine3. 1. Novo Nordisk Canada Inc, Ontario, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: rsvg@novonordisk.com. 2. Novo Nordisk A/S, Søborg, Denmark. 3. Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that clinical outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be improved through multifactorial treatment. The key challenges in the successful treatment of type 2 diabetes include maintaining tight glycemic control, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, controlling cardiovascular risk factors, and reducing or controlling weight. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost per patient achieving a composite clinical end point (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with type 2 diabetes in Quebec, Quebec, Canada, receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea, insulin glargine, sitagliptin, or exenatide. METHODS: The proportion of patients achieving control was taken from a meta-analysis that was based on the Phase III trial program of liraglutide. Treatment costs, estimated from a health care payer perspective, were calculated on the basis of the trials included in the meta-analysis and captured the study drug, needles, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips, SMBG lancets, and other antidiabetes medications received. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per patient achieving the composite end point (cost of control) was evaluated with an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. No discounting was applied to cost or clinical outcomes because these were not projected beyond a 1-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with the lowest number needed to treat, with 3 patients needing to be treated to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Pioglitazone was associated with the highest number needed to treat, with 17 patients requiring treatment to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Evaluation of only annual pharmacy costs indicated that liraglutide 1.8 mg was the most costly treatment at Can$2780 per patient per year. Pioglitazone and glimepiride were associated with the lowest direct annual costs. Combining the clinical efficacy data with the annual cost of medications produced cost of control values of Can$6070 (liraglutide 1.2 mg), Can$6949 (liraglutide 1.8 mg), Can$7237 (glimepiride), Can$7704 (exenatide), Can$8297 (insulin glargine), Can$8741 (pioglitazone), and Can$9270 (sitagliptin) per patient achieving the composite end point. IMPLICATIONS: Liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were associated with the lowest cost of control values, driven by the high proportion of patients achieving the composite end point, which offset the higher medication costs. A relatively low cost of control value was achieved for glimepiride, driven by low acquisition costs, despite relatively few patients achieving the composite end point.
PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that clinical outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus can be improved through multifactorial treatment. The key challenges in the successful treatment of type 2 diabetes include maintaining tight glycemic control, minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia, controlling cardiovascular risk factors, and reducing or controlling weight. The aim of the present analysis was to evaluate the cost per patient achieving a composite clinical end point (glycosylated hemoglobin <7%, with no weight gain and no hypoglycemic events) in patients with type 2 diabetes in Quebec, Quebec, Canada, receiving liraglutide 1.2 mg, liraglutide 1.8 mg, thiazolidinedione, sulfonylurea, insulinglargine, sitagliptin, or exenatide. METHODS: The proportion of patients achieving control was taken from a meta-analysis that was based on the Phase III trial program of liraglutide. Treatment costs, estimated from a health care payer perspective, were calculated on the basis of the trials included in the meta-analysis and captured the study drug, needles, self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) test strips, SMBG lancets, and other antidiabetes medications received. Cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per patient achieving the composite end point (cost of control) was evaluated with an economic model developed in Microsoft Excel. No discounting was applied to cost or clinical outcomes because these were not projected beyond a 1-year time horizon. Sensitivity analyses were performed. FINDINGS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with the lowest number needed to treat, with 3 patients needing to be treated to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Pioglitazone was associated with the highest number needed to treat, with 17 patients requiring treatment to bring 1 patient to the composite end point. Evaluation of only annual pharmacy costs indicated that liraglutide 1.8 mg was the most costly treatment at Can$2780 per patient per year. Pioglitazone and glimepiride were associated with the lowest direct annual costs. Combining the clinical efficacy data with the annual cost of medications produced cost of control values of Can$6070 (liraglutide 1.2 mg), Can$6949 (liraglutide 1.8 mg), Can$7237 (glimepiride), Can$7704 (exenatide), Can$8297 (insulinglargine), Can$8741 (pioglitazone), and Can$9270 (sitagliptin) per patient achieving the composite end point. IMPLICATIONS: Liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg were associated with the lowest cost of control values, driven by the high proportion of patients achieving the composite end point, which offset the higher medication costs. A relatively low cost of control value was achieved for glimepiride, driven by low acquisition costs, despite relatively few patients achieving the composite end point.
Authors: Josep Vidal; Samuel J P Malkin; Barnaby Hunt; Virginia Martín; Nino Hallén; Francisco Javier Ortega Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 2.945