Skip to main content
main-content
Top

05-04-2017 | Insulin degludec/Liraglutide | Article

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Continued Up-Titration of Insulin Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the USA

Journal: Advances in Therapy

Authors: Barnaby Hunt, Michelle Mocarski, William J. Valentine, Jakob Langer

Publisher: Springer Healthcare

share
SHARE

Abstract

Introduction

Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, many patients fail to reach glycemic targets, often because of adverse effects of treatment (including hypoglycemia or weight gain). The present analysis evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus continued up-titration of insulin glargine U100 in patients with T2DM failing to achieve glycemic control on basal insulin in the US setting.

Methods

The cost per patient achieving treatment target (cost of control) was assessed for various single and composite endpoints for the entire trial population and in patients with baseline glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >8.0% and HbA1c >9.0%. The proportions of patients achieving treatment targets were analyzed using data obtained in the DUAL V study. Costs were accounted based on published wholesale acquisition costs.

Results

When assessing the full trial population, IDegLira was associated with lower annual cost of control than continued up-titration of insulin glargine U100 for patients achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% without confirmed hypoglycemia (by $10,608), HbA1c ≤6.5% without weight gain (by $29,215), and HbA1c ≤6.5% without confirmed hypoglycemia and weight gain (by $57,351). A similar pattern was observed when multifactorial treatment targets were based on achieving a glycemic target of 7.0%. When only HbA1c was considered, IDegLira was associated with a lower cost per patient achieving HbA1c ≤6.5% (by $3306) but cost of control was equivalent for a target of HbA1c <7.0%. In patients with baseline HbA1c >8.0% and HbA1c >9.0%, IDegLira was associated with a lower cost of control for all treatment targets.

Conclusion

The significantly greater clinical efficacy in terms of bringing patients to treatment targets identified in the DUAL V study results in lower cost of control values for IDegLira versus continued up-titration of insulin glargine U100 in the USA. This suggests IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the USA.

Funding

Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk Inc.
Literature
1.
American Diabetes Association. Economic costs of diabetes in the U. in 2012. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:1033–46. CrossRefPubMedCentral
2.
Zhuo X, Zhang P, Hoerger TJ. Lifetime direct medical costs of treating type 2 diabetes and diabetic complications. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(3):253–61. CrossRefPubMed
3.
UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). Lancet. 1998;352:837–53. CrossRef
4.
Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1577–89. CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ismail-Beigi F, Craven T, Banerji MA, et al. Effect of intensive treatment of hyperglycaemia on microvascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes: an analysis of the ACCORD randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376:419–30. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Patel A, MacMahon S, Chalmers J, et al. Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:2560–72. CrossRefPubMed
7.
Duckworth W, Abraira C, Moritz T, et al. Glucose control and vascular complications in veterans with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:129–39. CrossRefPubMed
8.
Stettler C, Allemann S, Jüni P, et al. Glycemic control and macrovascular disease in types 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J. 2006;152(1):27–38. CrossRefPubMed
9.
Turnbull FM, Abraira C, Anderson RJ, et al. Intensive glucose control and macrovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2009;52(11):2288–98. CrossRefPubMed
10.
Gaede P, Vedel P, Larsen N, Jensen GV, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Multifactorial intervention and cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(5):383–93. CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gaede P, Lund-Andersen H, Parving HH, Pedersen O. Effect of a multifactorial intervention on mortality in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(6):580–91. CrossRefPubMed
12.
American Diabetes Association. 5. Glycemic targets. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:S39–46. CrossRef
13.
American Diabetes Association. 6. Obesity management for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:S47–51. CrossRef
14.
American Diabetes Association. 7. Approaches to glycemic treatment. Diabetes Care. 2016;39:S52–9. CrossRef
15.
Russell-Jones D, Khan R. Insulin-associated weight gain in diabetes–causes, effects and coping strategies. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2007;9(6):799–812. CrossRefPubMed
16.
Nathan DM. Clinical practice. Initial management of glycemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(17):1342–9. CrossRefPubMed
17.
Lingvay I, Manghi FP, García-Hernández P, et al. Effect of insulin glargine up-titration vs insulin degludec/liraglutide on glycated hemoglobin levels in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes: the DUAL V randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(9):898–907. CrossRefPubMed
18.
Langer J, Tian Y, Weng W, Gamble C, Mocarski M. Assessing unmet needs for type 2 diabetes patients treated with basal insulin in the United States. Endocr Pract. 2016;22(S2):78–9.
19.
National Committee for Quality Assurance. Diabetes Care. https://​www.​ncqa.​org/​Portals/​0/​Programs/​Recognition/​DRP_​web.​pdf. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
20.
Medi-Span Price Rx. http://​www.​wolterskluwercdi​.​com/​price-rx/​. Accessed 16 Dec 2016.
21.
Yeaw J, Lee WC, Aagren M, Christensen T. Cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose in the United States among patients on an insulin regimen for diabetes. J Manag Care Pharm. 2012;18(1):21–32. PubMed
22.
Tarride JE, Hopkins R, Blackhouse G, et al. A review of methods used in long-term cost-effectiveness models of diabetes mellitus treatment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(4):255–77. CrossRefPubMed
23.
American Diabetes Association Consensus Panel. Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(9):2262–5. CrossRef
24.
Langer J, Hunt B, Valentine WJ. Evaluating the short-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus sitagliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes failing metformin monotherapy in the United States. J Manag Care Pharm. 2013;19(3):237–46. PubMed
25.
Lopez JM, Macomson B, Ektare V, Patel D, Botteman M. Evaluating drug cost per response with SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2015;8(6):309–18. PubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Skovgaard R, Jon Ploug U, Hunt B, Valentine WJ. Evaluating the cost of bringing people with type 2 diabetes mellitus to multiple targets of treatment in Canada. Clin Ther. 2015;37(8):1677–88. CrossRefPubMed

New additions to the Adis Journal Club

A selection of topical peer-reviewed articles from the Adis journals, curated by the editors.

ADA 2022 coverage

Access the latest news and expert insight from the ADA 82nd Scientific Sessions