Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt.

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients' benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.

Twenty-year trends in the prescription costs of Type 2 diabetes: Real world data and empirical analysis in Greece.

AIMS: To estimate and compare the prescription costs for the management of patients with diabetes over a period of 20 years in Greece, based on real world data. METHODS: The records of outpatients with T2D, monitored at three diabetes centres, were examined in four cross-sections (1998, 2006, 2012, 2018). Prescribed medicines per patient, along with a set of clinical indicators were recorded. Annual costs of pharmaceutical treatment per patient were calculated by using each year's nominal retail prices, as well as by adjusting for 2018 price levels, in order to account for price differences over time. RESULTS: 4066 patients were included in the analysis. Prescription patterns indicate a quick uptake of the new classes of glucose-lowering drugs and a reduction in the proportional use of sulfonylurea and glitazone. Adjusting for 2018 prices, the average total annual prescription cost per patient was 381.54 Euros (s.d. 297.44) in 1998 and 1147.21 Euros (s.d. 814.39) in 2018. Glucose-lowering drug costs per patient increase from 1998 onwards, whereas the costs of antihypertensive, antiplatelet and lipid-lowering treatment declined gradually, especially after 2006. CONCLUSIONS: Per patient prescription costs for glucose-lowering drugs present a steep increase, in Greece over the last 20 years. Real-world evidence studies that compare this increase with the changes in patient outcomes are essential in order to examine whether a costs-vs-outcomes balance is optimal.

Reducing the Burden of Diabetes Treatment: A Review of Low-cost Oral Hypoglycemic Medications.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of individuals diagnosed with diabetes are low/middle income and may have access to only three of the 11 oral hypoglycemic medications (OHMs) due to cost: metformin intermediate release (IR) or extended release (ER), sulfonylureas (glimepiride, glipizide, glyburide), and pioglitazone. Sulfonylureas and pioglitazone have had significant controversy related to potential adverse events, but it remains unclear whether these negative outcomes are class, drug, or dose-related. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a narrative review of low-cost OHMs. METHODS: We evaluated the maximum recommended (MAX) compared to the most effective (EFF) daily dose, time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels, and adverse events of low-cost oral hypoglycemic medications. RESULTS: We found that the MAX was often greater than the EFF: metformin IR/ER (MAX: 2,550/2,000 mg, EFF: 1,500-2,000/1,500-2,000 mg), glipizide IR/ER (MAX: 40/20 mg, EFF: 20/5 mg), glyburide (MAX: 20 mg, EFF: 2.5-5.0 mg), pioglitazone (MAX: 45 mg, EFF: 45 mg). Time-to-peak change in HbA1c levels occurred at weeks 12-20 (sulfonylureas), 25-39 (metformin), and 25 (pioglitazone). Glimepiride was not associated with weight gain, hypoglycemia, or negative cardiovascular events relative to other sulfonylureas. Cardiovascular event rates did not increase with lower glyburide doses (p<0.05). Glimepiride and pioglitazone have been successfully used in renal impairment. CONCLUSION: Metformin, glimepiride, and pioglitazone are safe and efficacious OHMs. Prescribing at the EFF rather than the MAX may avoid negative dose-related outcomes. OHMs should be evaluated as individual drugs, not generalized as a class, due to different dosing and adverse-event profiles; Glimepiride is the preferred sulfonylurea since it is not associated with the adverse events as others in its class.

Sex and BMI Alter the Benefits and Risks of Sulfonylureas and Thiazolidinediones in Type 2 Diabetes: A Framework for Evaluating Stratification Using Routine Clinical and Individual Trial Data.

OBJECTIVE: The choice of therapy for type 2 diabetes after metformin is guided by overall estimates of glycemic response and side effects seen in large cohorts. A stratified approach to therapy would aim to improve on this by identifying subgroups of patients whose glycemic response or risk of side effects differs markedly. We assessed whether simple clinical characteristics could identify patients with differing glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 22,379 patients starting sulfonylurea or thiazolidinedione therapy in the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify features associated with increased 1-year HbA1c fall with one therapy class and reduced fall with the second. We then assessed whether prespecified patient subgroups defined by the differential clinical factors showed differing 5-year glycemic response and side effects with sulfonylureas and thiazolidinediones using individual randomized trial data from ADOPT (A Diabetes Outcome Progression Trial) (first-line therapy, n = 2,725) and RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) (second-line therapy, n = 2,222). Further replication was conducted using routine clinical data from GoDARTS (Genetics of Diabetes Audit and Research in Tayside Scotland) (n = 1,977). RESULTS: In CPRD, male sex and lower BMI were associated with greater glycemic response with sulfonylureas and a lesser response with thiazolidinediones (both P < 0.001). In ADOPT and RECORD, nonobese males had a greater overall HbA1c reduction with sulfonylureas than with thiazolidinediones (P < 0.001); in contrast, obese females had a greater HbA1c reduction with thiazolidinediones than with sulfonylureas (P < 0.001). Weight gain and edema risk with thiazolidinediones were greatest in obese females; however, hypoglycemia risk with sulfonylureas was similar across all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patient subgroups defined by sex and BMI have different patterns of benefits and risks on thiazolidinedione and sulfonylurea therapy. Subgroup-specific estimates can inform discussion about the choice of therapy after metformin for an individual patient. Our approach using routine and shared trial data provides a framework for future stratification research in type 2 diabetes.

Drug-class-specific changes in the volume and cost of antidiabetic medications in Poland between 2012 and 2015.

AIM: to investigate the drug-class-specific changes in the volume and cost of antidiabetic medications in Poland in 2012-2015. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was conducted based on the National Health Fund database covering an entire Polish population. The volume of antidiabetic medications is reported according to ATC/DDD methodology, costs-in current international dollars, based on purchasing power parity. RESULTS: During a 4-year observational period the number of patients, consumption of antidiabetic drugs and costs increased by 17%, 21% and 20%, respectively. Biguanides are the basic diabetes medication with a 39% market share. The insulin market is still dominated by human insulins, new antidiabetics (incretins, thiazolidinediones) are practically absent. Insulins had the largest share in diabetes medications expenditures (67% in 2015). The increase in antidiabetic medications costs over the analysed period of time was mainly caused by the increased use of insulin analogues. CONCLUSIONS: The observed tendencies correspond to the evidence-based HTA recommendations. The reimbursement status, the ratio of cost to clinical outcomes and data on the long-term safety have a deciding impact on how a drug is used.

Preventing Unnecessary Costs of Drug-Induced Hypoglycemia in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States and Canada.

BACKGROUND: The costs of drug-induced hypoglycemia are a critical but often neglected component of value-based arguments to reduce tight glycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: An economic (decision-tree) analysis compared rates, costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained associated with mild, moderate and severe hypoglycemic events for 6 glucose-lowering medication classes in type 2 diabetic adults aged 65-79 versus those 80 years and older. The national U.S. (Center for Medicare Services) and Canadian public health payer perspectives were adopted. FINDINGS: Incidence rates of drug-induced hypoglycemia were the highest for basal insulin and sulfonylureas: 8.64 and 4.32 events per person-year in 65-79 year olds, and 12.06 and 6.03 events per person-year for 80 years and older. In both the U.S. and Canada, metformin dominated sulfonylureas, basal insulin and glucagon-like peptide1 receptor agonists. Relative to sulfonylureas, thiazolidinediones had the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in the U.S. and dominated sulfonylureas in Canada for adults 80 years and older. Relative to sulfonylureas, dipeptidyl peptidase4 inhibitors were cost-effective for adults 80 years and older in both countries, and for 65-79 year olds in Canada. Annual costs of hypoglycemia for older adults attaining very tight glycemic control with the use of insulin or sulfonylureas were estimated at U.S.$509,214,473 in the U.S. and CAN$65,497,849 in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing drug therapy for older type 2 diabetic adults through the avoidance of drug-induced hypoglycemia will dramatically improve patient health while also generating millions of dollars by saving unnecessary medical costs.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We utilized Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) 1997-2011, which is derived from the claims of National Health Insurance, a mandatory-enrollment single-payer system that covers over 99% of Taiwan's population. Four metformin-based dual therapy cohorts were used, namely a reference group of metformin plus sulfonylureas (Metformin-SU) and metformin plus acarbose, metformin plus thiazolidinediones (Metformin-TZD), and metformin plus glinides (Metformin-glinides). Using propensity scores, each subject in a comparison cohort was 1:1 matched to a referent. The effectiveness outcome was CVD risk. Only direct medical costs were included. The Markov chain model was applied to project lifetime outcomes, discounted at 3% per annum. The bootstrapping technique was performed to assess uncertainty in analysis. RESULTS: Metformin-glinides was most cost-effective in the base-case analysis; Metformin-glinides saved $194 USD for one percentage point of reduction in CVD risk, as compared to Metformin-SU. However, for the elderly or those with severe diabetic complications, Metformin-TZD, especially pioglitazone, was more suitable; as compared to Metformin-SU, Metformin-TZD saved $840.1 USD per percentage point of reduction in CVD risk. Among TZDs, Metformin-pioglitazone saved $1831.5 USD per percentage point of associated CVD risk reduction, as compared to Metformin-rosiglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: When CVD is considered an important clinical outcome, Metformin-pioglitazone is cost-effective, in particular for the elderly and those with severe diabetic complications.

Impact of rosiglitazone safety alerts on oral antidiabetic sales trends: a countrywide study in Portugal.

Pharmacovigilance systems are important to monitor the safety of on-market drugs after approval. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of rosiglitazone safety alerts on trends in the sale of rosiglitazone and other oral antidiabetic drugs. An ecological study was conducted, using temporally aggregated data and linking safety alerts to countrywide sales of all oral antidiabetic drugs in Portugal from January 2002 to December 2012. Sales figures for oral antidiabetic drugs marketed in Portugal were supplied by IMS Health Portugal with a breakdown by active substance and fixed combinations. The number of defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants per day (DIDs) of each oral antidiabetic drug sold to the estimated diabetic population using oral antidiabetic drugs in Portugal was calculated. Particular attention was paid to the case of rosiglitazone, with the results being adjusted for changes in rosiglitazone reimbursement policies. A total of four safety alerts were issued about rosiglitazone. Rosiglitazone sales registered an increase of 32.9% (0.202 DIDs; P < 0.001) after the first alert (risk of macular oedema or worsening of pre-existent macular oedema) in January 2006. After subsequent alerts about cardiovascular risks, this trend was not, however, repeated and sales fell. Following the January 2006 and January 2008 safety alerts, rosiglitazone sales described a long-term downward trend, with decreases of 3.75% (-0023 DIDs; P > 0.05) and 0.24% (-0.001 DIDs; P > 0.05), respectively. It is important to promote the dissemination and publication of drug safety alerts.

How Did Multiple FDA Actions Affect the Utilization and Reimbursed Costs of Thiazolidinediones in US Medicaid?

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communicated the potential cardiovascular risk of thiazolidinediones (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone) in 2007 and required a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for rosiglitazone in 2010. It also communicated in 2010 the potential risk of bladder cancer with pioglitazone use. This study examined the effects of these multiple FDA actions on utilization and reimbursed costs of thiazolidinediones in state Medicaid programs. METHODS: State Drug Utilization Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were assessed. An interrupted time series design and segmented linear regression models were used to examine changes in market shares according to both prescription volume and reimbursed costs for rosiglitazone and pioglitazone in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States after multiple FDA actions. FINDINGS: Compared with expected rates, there were relative reductions of 65.84% (Northeast region) and 55.09% (Midwest region) in the use of rosiglitazone at 1 year after the 2007 FDA actions for thiazolidinediones and cardiac risk. At the same time, relative increases of 7.30% and 9.28% in the use of pioglitazone were observed in the Northeast and Midwest regions, respectively. Changes in both use and costs of rosiglitazone after the 2010 REMS program could not be estimated because of the already low rates (~1%) before REMS was implemented. One year after the 2010 FDA actions for pioglitazone and its possible association with bladder cancer, relative reductions in pioglitazone use of 21.41% (Northeast region) and 18.12% (Midwest region) were detected. IMPLICATIONS: The Northeast and Midwest regions reported similar patterns of changes after the FDA actions. Use and costs of rosiglitazone were substantially reduced after the 2007 FDA actions for cardiovascular risk, and this drug was rarely used after the 2010 REMS program. Conversely, use and costs of pioglitazone were substantially reduced after the 2010 FDA actions regarding the drug's possible risk of bladder cancer.

Regional variation in use of a new class of antidiabetic medication among medicare beneficiaries: the case of incretin mimetics.

BACKGROUND: When incretin mimetic (IM) medications were introduced in 2005, their effectiveness compared with other less-expensive second-line diabetes therapies was unknown, especially for older adults. Physicians likely had some uncertainty about the role of IMs in the diabetes treatment armamentarium. Regional variation in uptake of IMs may be a marker of such uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent of regional variation in the use of IMs among beneficiaries and estimate the cost implications for Medicare. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of 2009-2010 claims data from a nationally representative sample of 238 499 Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, who were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and Part D and filled ≥1 antidiabetic prescription. Beneficiaries were assigned to 1 of 306 hospital-referral regions (HRRs) using ZIP codes. The main outcome was adjusted proportion of antidiabetic users in an HRR receiving an IM. RESULTS: Overall, 29 933 beneficiaries (12.6%) filled an IM prescription, including 26 939 (11.3%) for sitagliptin or saxagliptin and 3718 (1.6%) for exenatide or liraglutide. The adjusted proportion of beneficiaries using IMs varied more than 3-fold across HRRs, from 5th and 95th percentiles of 5.2% to 17.0%. Compared with non-IM users, IM users faced a 155% higher annual Part D plan ($1067 vs $418) and 144% higher patient ($369 vs $151) costs for antidiabetic prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Among older Part D beneficiaries using antidiabetic drugs, substantial regional variation exists in the use of IMs, not accounted for by sociodemographics and health status. IM use was associated with substantially greater costs for Part D plans and beneficiaries.

Drug utilization, safety and clinical use of Actos and Avandia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The impetus for this review was recent increased warnings of cardiovascular toxicity, fractures and bladder cancer associated with glitazone use. METHODS: A drug utilization review was performed regarding the use of Actos (pioglitazone) and Avandia (rosiglitazone) at Cooper Green Mercy Hospital (CGMH), an inner city safety net hospital in Birmingham, Alabama. Pharmacy records were reviewed hospital-wide to determine usage patterns of all anti-diabetic medications. Medline and the FDA websites were searched for articles on safety and efficacy of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone. Considerations were relative utilization profile, comparative efficacy, indications, relative cost, and safety profile of the two available medications in this drug class. RESULTS: On the basis of all of these factors, a hospital-wide switch of all rosiglitazone prescriptions to all pioglitazone was implemented, which was estimated to result in savings of $83,000 for the first year. No episodes of worsening of control of diabetes were anticipated, nor were episodes of decreased efficacy or adverse effects as a result of automatically switching patients from rosiglitazone to pioglitazone at the time of prescription filling. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions can be summarized in a number of key points. • Clinicians should follow the American Diabetes Association guidelines [1] for treatment. • The basis for diabetic control is weight loss, diet and exercise. • Initial medication management for type II Diabetes Mellitus includes metformin and insulin. • There are no circumstances in which use of glitazone medications is preferable to other medication groups, and there are no clinical circumstances in which use of glitazone medications is absolutely necessary, as opposed to other classes of diabetic medication. • There are significant contraindications, warnings and precautions to use of glitazones, which must be taken into consideration before use in every individual patient. • Glitazones in particular should not be used in the following circumstances: congestive heart failure (CHF), concurrent bladder cancer or severe osteoporosis.

Willingness to pay for diabetes drug therapy in type 2 diabetes patients: based on LEAD clinical programme results.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the preferences of people with diabetes for liraglutide vs other glucose lowering drugs, based on outcomes of clinical trials. METHODS: Willingness to pay (WTP) for diabetes drug treatment was assessed by combining results from a recent WTP study with analysis of results from the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes (LEAD) programme. The LEAD programme included six randomised clinical trials with 3967 participants analysing efficacy and safety of liraglutide 1.2 mg (LEAD 1-6 trials), rosiglitazone (LEAD 1 trial), glimepiride (LEAD 2-3 trials), insulin glargine (LEAD 5 trial), and exenatide (LEAD 6 trial). The WTP survey used discrete choice experimental (DCE) methodology to evaluate the convenience and clinical effects of glucose lowering treatments. RESULTS: People with type 2 diabetes were prepared to pay an extra €2.64/day for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, an extra €1.94/day compared with glimepiride, an extra €3.36/day compared with insulin glargine, and an extra €0.81/day compared with exenatide. Weight loss was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine. Differences in the administration of the two drugs was the largest component of WTP for liraglutide (once daily anytime) compared with exenatide (twice daily with meals). A limitation of the study was that it was based on six clinical trials where liraglutide was the test drug, but each trial had a different comparator, therefore the clinical effects of liraglutide were much better documented than the comparators. CONCLUSIONS: WTP analyses of the clinical results from the LEAD programme suggested that participants with type 2 diabetes were willing to pay appreciably more for liraglutide than other glucose lowering treatments. This was driven by the relative advantage of weight loss compared with rosiglitazone, glimepiride, and insulin glargine, and administration frequency compared with exenatide.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Pioglitazone and vitamin E for nonalcoholic steatohepatitis: a cost utility analysis.

UNLABELLED: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is the commonest liver disease in developed countries. However, there are no current data on the cost-effectiveness of therapeutic options such as lifestyle modification, pioglitazone, or vitamin E. We undertook a cost utility analysis to compare these strategies. Using a third-party payer perspective, a deterministic Markov model was developed to compare costs and health benefits of lifestyle modification alone or with pioglitazone or vitamin E in a cohort of patients aged 50 years with biopsy-proven NASH and fibrosis level 3 or greater. We assumed an annual cycle length over a lifetime horizon. Probability and utility estimates were derived from a systematic literature review, and uncertainties in parameter estimates were tested using one- and two-way sensitivity analyses. Our outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), with $A50,000 or less considered cost-effective. In comparison with lifestyle modification alone, treatment with either pioglitazone or vitamin E in addition to lifestyle modification was cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $A2748 and $A8475 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, respectively. In a direct comparison, pioglitazone was more cost-effective than vitamin E (ICER $A2,056/QALY gained). Sensitivity analyses indicated that pioglitazone was not cost-effective if either the total drug cost was greater than $A16,000 per annum, or the annual probability of developing cirrhosis in advanced fibrosis was less than 2%. CONCLUSION: Our modeled analyses suggest that in patients with advanced fibrosis due to NASH, pharmacological treatment in addition to standard lifestyle modification is likely to be cost-effective.

Custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário da saxagliptina como terapia adicional à metformina para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo 2 no sistema de saúde suplementar do Brasil / Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the brazilian private health system

OBJETIVOS: Comparar custos e benefícios clínicos de três terapias adicionais à metformina (MF) para pacientes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2). MÉTODOS: Um modelo de simulação de eventos discretos foi construído para estimar a relação custo-utilidade (custo por QALY) da saxagliptina como uma terapia adicional à MF comparada à rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona. Um modelo de impacto orçamentário (BIM - Budget Impact Model) foi construído para simular o impacto econômico da adoção de saxagliptina no contexto do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde brasileiro. RESULTADOS: O custo de aquisição da medicação para o grupo de pacientes hipotéticos analisados, para o horizonte temporal de três anos, foi de R$ 10.850.185,00, R$ 14.836.265,00 e R$ 14.679.099,00 para saxagliptina, pioglitazona e rosiglitazona, respectivamente. Saxagliptina exibiu menores custos e maior efetividade em ambas as comparações, com economias projetadas para os três primeiros anos de -R$ 3.874,00 e -R$ 3.996,00, respectivamente. O BIM estimou uma economia cumulativa de R$ 417.958,00 com o reembolso da saxagliptina em três anos a partir da perspectiva de uma operadora de plano de saúde com 1 milhão de vidas cobertas. CONCLUSÃO: Da perspectiva da fonte pagadora privada, a projeção é de que o acréscimo de saxagliptina à MF poupe custos quando comparado ao acréscimo de rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona em pacientes com DMT2 que não atingiram a meta de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c) com metformina em monoterapia. O BIM, para a inclusão de saxagliptina nas listas de reembolso das operadoras de planos de saúde, indicou uma economia significativa para o horizonte de 3 anos.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Health and economic outcomes for exenatide once weekly, insulin, and pioglitazone therapies in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a simulation analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) are at risk of long-term vascular complications. In trials, exenatide once weekly (ExQW), a GLP-1R agonist, improved glycemia, weight, blood pressure (BP), and lipids in patients with T2DM. We simulated potential effects of ExQW on vascular complications, survival, and medical costs over 20 years versus standard therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Archimedes model was used to assess outcomes for ~25,000 virtual patients with T2DM (NHANES 1999-2006 [metformin ± sulfonylureas, age 57 years, body mass index 33 kg/m(2), weight 94 kg, duration T2DM 9 years, hemoglobin A1c [A1C] 8.1%]). The effects of three treatment strategies were modeled and compared to moderate-adherence insulin therapy: advancement to high-adherence insulin at A1C ≥ 8% (treat to target A1C < 7%) and addition of pioglitazone (PIO) or ExQW from simulation start. ExQW effects on A1C, weight, BP, and lipids were modeled from clinical trial data. Costs, inflated to represent 2010 $US, were derived from Medicare data, Drugstore.com, and publications. As ExQW was investigational, we omitted ExQW, PIO, and insulin pharmacy costs. RESULTS: By year 1, ExQW treatment decreased A1C (~1.5%), weight (~2 kg), and systolic BP (~5 mmHg). PIO and high-adherence insulin decreased A1C by ~1%, increased weight, and did not affect systolic BP. After 20 years, A1C was ~7% with all strategies. ExQW decreased rates of cardiovascular and microvascular complications more than PIO or high-adherence insulin versus moderate-adherence insulin. Over 20 years, ExQW treatment resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of ~0.3 years/person and cost savings of $469/life-year versus moderate adherence insulin. For PIO or high-adherence insulin, QALYs were virtually unchanged, and costs/life-year versus moderate-adherence insulin increased by $69 and $87, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term simulation demonstrated that ExQW treatment may decrease rates of cardiovascular and some microvascular complications of T2DM. Increased QALYs, and decreased costs were also projected.

Rosiglitazone prior authorization safety policy: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorizations (PA) are intended to promote safe and cost-effective medication use. Unwanted outcomes may occur, however, such as a patient forgoing drug therapy after a PA. The label for rosiglitazone was revised in November 2007 to include the warning of contraindicated use with nitrates or insulin, creating an opportunity for a PA directed at safe use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate antidiabetic drug utilization after the implementation of an electronic PA that denied a claim for rosiglitazone if the patient had a history of either insulin or nitrate supply in the previous 60 days. METHODS: This quasi-experimental study used pharmacy claims for 1.4 million commercially insured members who were exposed to a rosiglitazone PA beginning on January 1, 2009, compared with a group of approximately 2 million commercially insured members who did not have this safety PA intervention. Continuously enrolled members were identified who had a rejected (intervention group) or paid (comparison group) claim for rosiglitazone during the period from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2009. Pharmacy claims were assessed for the presence of nitrates, insulin, rosiglitazone, other antidiabetic therapy, or no antidiabetic therapy supply on days 30, 60, 90, and 180 after the rejected/paid claim. A time-series analysis using rosiglitazone claims for all health plan members from January 2008 through December 2009 was used to evaluate the impact of the PA on rosiglitazone utilization overall. RESULTS: At 30 days, there were 134 patients (60.4% of 222) in the comparison group with concurrent supply of rosiglitazone with insulin and/or nitrates versus 4 patients (2.4% of 168, P less than 0.001) in the PA intervention group, and the utilization rate remained significantly higher at 180 days in the comparison group (37.8%, n = 84) versus the PA group (2.4%, n = 4, P less than 0.001). Beginning at 60 days, there was no significant difference in the percentage of members with no antidiabetic therapy in the comparison and PA intervention groups (9.9% vs. 15.5%, respectively, P = 0.133), and the rates remained similar through 180 days (15.3% vs. 13.7%, respectively, P = 0.760). The PA was associated with an absolute decrease of 5.1 average monthly rosiglitazone claims per day per million members (P less than 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This PA, intended to reduce known cardiovascular event risks among health plan members with type 2 diabetes, was associated with a significant reduction in concurrent use of rosiglitazone with nitrates or insulin.

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1(c), 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12 kg/m(2)) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1(c) and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76 ± 0.17 vs 13.48 ± 0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76 ± 0.17 vs 13.59 ± 0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56 ± 0.12 vs 9.28 ± 0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56 ± 0.12 vs 9.32 ± 0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647 ± 2039 vs US$57,862 ± 2159) and US$933 (US$55,647 ± 2039 vs US$56,580 ± 2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications. LIMITATIONS: Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Over a patient's lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.