IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/pharmo/v4y2020i2d10.1007_s41669-019-0171-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Exenatide versus GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Author

Listed:
  • Margarita Capel

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Andreea Ciudin

    (Hospital Universitari Vall d´Hebron)

  • María Mareque

    () (Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB))

  • Raquel María Rodríguez-Rincón

    (Hospital Universitari Son Espases)

  • Susana Simón

    (AstraZeneca)

  • Itziar Oyagüez

    (Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB))

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of exenatide 2 mg/week compared with other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week, liraglutide 1.2 mg/day, liraglutide 1.8 mg/day and lixisenatide 20 μg/day) in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) not adequately controlled on metformin alone from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System (NHS). Methods Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained and total costs of each assessed drug combined with metformin (2 g/day) were estimated over a 40-year time horizon using the Cardiff Diabetes Model (based on UK Prospective Diabetes Study [UKPDS] 68 equations), which simulates disease progression considering the T2DM-related micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia, nausea, body mass index (BMI) changes and treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects (AEs). Drug efficacy derived from an indirect comparison performed in a network meta-analysis. Patient characteristics were obtained from the literature. The baseline utility value (0.80) was derived from the PANORAMA study, applying utility decrements to micro- and macrovascular complications, hypoglycaemia episodes and changes in BMI. Treatment discontinuation due to AEs or poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c > 7.5%) involved switching to second-line (basal insulin) or third-line (basal-bolus insulin) treatment. Total cost (€, 2018) included the costs of drug acquisition, hypoglycaemia, weight gain, micro- and macrovascular complications, nausea and treatment discontinuation due to AEs. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed. Results In base-case, exenatide 2 mg/week resulted in more QALYs (8.26) than dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week (8.19 QALYs), liraglutide 1.2 mg/day (8.10 QALYs), liraglutide 1.8 mg/day (8.20 QALYs) and lixisenatide 20 μg/day (8.13 QALYs). Total cost/patient was €20,423.27 (exenatide 2 mg/week), €22,611.94 (dulaglutide 1.5 mg/week), €21,065.97 (liraglutide 1.2 mg/day), €24,865.69 (liraglutide 1.8 mg/day) and €21,334.58 (lixisenatide 20 μg/day). Deterministic SA confirmed the robustness of the model. In the probabilistic SA, 95–99% of the 1000 Monte Carlo iterations performed were under a hypothetical willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY gained. Conclusions Exenatide 2 mg/week would be a dominant strategy (more effective and less costly) versus the other GLP-1 receptor agonists assessed for the treatment of T2DM patients who are not adequately controlled on metformin alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Margarita Capel & Andreea Ciudin & María Mareque & Raquel María Rodríguez-Rincón & Susana Simón & Itziar Oyagüez, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Exenatide versus GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 277-286, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0171-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-0171-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41669-019-0171-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Chris Sampson’s journal round-up for 1st June 2020
      by Chris Sampson in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-06-01 11:00:00

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s41669-019-0171-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.