Adie Viljoen1, Barrie Chubb2, Samuel J P Malkin3, Sasha Berry2, Barnaby Hunt4, Stephen C Bain5. 1. Borthwick Diabetes Research Centre, Lister Hospital (East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust), Stevenage, UK. 2. Novo Nordisk Ltd, Gatwick, UK. 3. Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH, Bäumleingasse 20, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. malkin@ossianconsulting.com. 4. Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH, Bäumleingasse 20, 4051, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Swansea University Medical School, Swansea, UK.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Anushka Patel; Stephen MacMahon; John Chalmers; Bruce Neal; Laurent Billot; Mark Woodward; Michel Marre; Mark Cooper; Paul Glasziou; Diederick Grobbee; Pavel Hamet; Stephen Harrap; Simon Heller; Lisheng Liu; Giuseppe Mancia; Carl Erik Mogensen; Changyu Pan; Neil Poulter; Anthony Rodgers; Bryan Williams; Severine Bompoint; Bastiaan E de Galan; Rohina Joshi; Florence Travert Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-06-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Faramarz Ismail-Beigi; Timothy Craven; Mary Ann Banerji; Jan Basile; Jorge Calles; Robert M Cohen; Robert Cuddihy; William C Cushman; Saul Genuth; Richard H Grimm; Bruce P Hamilton; Byron Hoogwerf; Diane Karl; Lois Katz; Armand Krikorian; Patrick O'Connor; Rodica Pop-Busui; Ulrich Schubart; Debra Simmons; Harris Taylor; Abraham Thomas; Daniel Weiss; Irene Hramiak Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Christoph Stettler; Sabin Allemann; Peter Jüni; Carole A Cull; Rury R Holman; Matthias Egger; Stephan Krähenbühl; Peter Diem Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Rury R Holman; Sanjoy K Paul; M Angelyn Bethel; David R Matthews; H Andrew W Neil Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simon J Griffin; Knut Borch-Johnsen; Melanie J Davies; Kamlesh Khunti; Guy E H M Rutten; Annelli Sandbæk; Stephen J Sharp; Rebecca K Simmons; Maureen van den Donk; Nicholas J Wareham; Torsten Lauritzen Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Juan P Frias; Enzo Bonora; Luis Nevarez Ruiz; Ying G Li; Zhuoxin Yu; Zvonko Milicevic; Raleigh Malik; M Angelyn Bethel; David A Cox Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Adie Viljoen; Christina S Hoxer; Pierre Johansen; Samuel Malkin; Barnaby Hunt; Stephen C Bain Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 6.577