David Bruhn

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract Objective: To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK). Research design and methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups. Main outcome measures: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine. Results: At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2 mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35 kg/m2) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained. Conclusions: At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.

Treatment outcomes after initiation of exenatide twice daily or insulin in clinical practice: 12-month results from CHOICE in six European countries

Objective: The CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy (CHOICE) study assessed time to, and reasons for, significant treatment change after patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) initiated their first injectable glucose-lowering therapy (exenatide twice daily [BID] or insulin) in routine clinical practice, and these patients’ clinical outcomes, in six European countries. This paper reports interim data from the first 12 months of the study. Research design and methods: CHOICE (NCT00635492) is a prospective, noninterventional, observational study. Clinical data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy and after approximately 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Of 2497 patients enrolled in CHOICE, 1096 in the exenatide BID and 1239 in the insulin cohorts had ≥1 post-baseline assessment and were included in this analysis. Overall, 32.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 29.1% of the insulin cohort (Kaplan–Meier estimates) had significant treatment change during the first 12 months, most commonly discontinuing injectable therapy or adding new T2DM therapy, respectively. Glycemic control improved in both cohorts, but weight loss occurred only in the exenatide BID cohort (mean change −3.3 kg). Hypoglycemia occurred in 13.2% of the exenatide BID cohort and 28.6% of the insulin cohort (82.8% and 55.6% of these patients, respectively, received sulfonylureas). The post hoc endpoint of glycated hemoglobin < 7%, no weight gain, and no hypoglycemia was attained at 12 months by 24.3% and 10.3% of patients who had data at 12 months and who were receiving exenatide BID and insulin, respectively. Conclusion: About 30% of patients in CHOICE changed treatment in the first 12 months after initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide BID or insulin). Overall, both cohorts achieved improved glycemic control, which was accompanied by a mean weight loss in the exenatide BID cohort.

The economic value of reducing medication dosing frequency with drug delivery technologies: an evidence assessment.

Objective: To critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness studies of novel drug products requiring less-frequent medication dosing compared to conventional formulations of the same drug substance. Methods: A search was conducted in the Medline and Embase databases for cost-effectiveness studies published before May 2009 that compared two or more drug delivery technologies formulated with the same active drug substance. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) grading criteria for cost-effectiveness studies was applied to the selected publications. Results: The literature search identified approximately 907 articles of which six cost-effectiveness studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies spanned four chronic conditions, were conducted from various international perspectives and used decision-analytic models to project economic outcomes. The base-case results of all six studies indicated that the drug product with sustained therapeutic efficacy was either more effective and less costly (‘dominant’) or more cost effective than the conventional formulation of the same drug substance. Quality scores ranging from 70 to 84 (scale 0 to 100) were assigned to the studies, with a mean of 78. Limitations: This review likely did not capture all relevant drug delivery technologies and drug products. Only one reviewer critically evaluated the cost-effectiveness studies and independently assigned quality scores using the QHES grading criteria, which may be limited in its ability to identify poorly analyzed studies. Conclusion: Evaluation of the published literature suggests that drug products with less-frequent medication dosing can be cost effective when compared to conventional formulations, but assessments are challenging because of complex relationships among therapeutic drug levels, dosing frequency, medication adherence, and health outcomes. Additional product-specific, comparative, pragmatic studies in this area are needed.