Search

Aim: Insulin icodec is a first once‐weekly administration basal insulin analogue for type 2 diabetes. This study aimed to investigate the price range of icodec for type 2 diabetes in the Chinese market, taking insulin degludec as reference. Materials and Methods: Long‐term health outcomes and costs for icodec and degludec were simulated using the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model (version 2.1) over 40 years from the Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. The efficacy and safety data were obtained from the ONWARDS 2 trial (Switching to once‐weekly insulin icodec versus once‐daily insulin degludec in individuals with basal insulin‐treated type 2 diabetes (ONWARDS 2): a phase 3a, randomised, open label, multicentre, treat‐to‐target trial). Cost–utility analysis and a binary search were used to investigate the price range of icodec. Sensitivity analyses were performed to verify the robustness of the base‐case analysis results. Results: After a 40‐year simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years (QALY) of icodec and degludec were 10.32 and 10.28 years, respectively. At the initial assumption of the same annual costs of icodec and degludec of $455.40, icodec was the dominant therapy compared with degludec, with higher QALYs and lower total cost. After the binary search, we observed that the annual cost range of icodec was $625.17–$855.25. This cost range was finally adjusted to be $597.66–$736.34 using one‐way sensitivity analysis and confirmed using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The scenario analysis revealed that the annual cost range of icodec could be $506.70–$736.34 if the price of degludec decreased by 20% in the future. Conclusion: Insulin icodec appears to be more cost effective than degludec if the annual cost of icodec ranges from $597.66 to $736.34 for patients with type 2 diabetes in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the most matchable price of tirzepatide (TIRZ) compared with semaglutide (SEMA) in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in China. Methods: The patient cohort and clinical efficacy data were derived from the SURPASS‐2 trial. Cost‐utility analysis and a binary search were performed to identify the most matchable price of TIRZ from a Chinese healthcare provider's perspective. Results: After lifetime simulation, the quality‐adjusted life years of TIRZ 5, 10, 15 mg and SEMA 1 mg were 11.17, 11.21, 11.27 and 11.12 years, respectively. Despite an initial assumption that the annual cost of TIRZ equals that of SEMA, our analysis revealed that TIRZ is probably more cost‐effective than SEMA. A thorough evaluation of pricing showed that the cost ranges for TIRZ at doses of 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1628.61‐$1846.23, $1738.40‐$2140.95 and $1800.30‐$2430.81, respectively. After adjustment in the univariate sensitivity analysis, the cost ranges for TIRZ 5, 10 and 15 mg were $1542.68‐$1757.57, $1573.00‐$1967.16 and $1576.54‐$2133.96, respectively. These cost intervals were validated through robust probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis, except for the cost range for TIRZ 5 mg. Conclusions: This study shows that, using SEMA as a reference, the annual costs for TIRZ 10 and 15 mg are $1573.00‐$1967.16 and $1576.54‐$2133.96, respectively, for patients with type 2 diabetes in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The main research purpose is to compare the long‐term cost‐effectiveness of semaglutide (SEMA) with that of dulaglutide (DULA) for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes throughout their lifetime. If necessary, the second aim is to investigate a further price cut for SEMA to provide sound advice for government drug price adjustments. Methods: Cost‐utility analysis was performed by the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model 2 (UKPDS OM2) from the perspective of health care providers in China. Baseline characteristics and clinical efficacy of SEMA and DULA were sourced from the high‐dose comparison in the SUSTAIN‐7 trial. A binary search was used to identify the scope for further reduction in the price of SEMA. The impact of individual parameters was assessed with sensitivity analyses. Results: Main analysis (SEMA vs. DULA) revealed a mean difference in quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.04 QALYs and costs of $1132.29. The incremental cost‐utility ratio was $26 957.44/QALY, showing that SEMA was a better option compared with DULA. In sensitivity analyses, the discount rate made the greatest contribution to the incremental cost‐utility ratio. In the binary search, there was still scope to reduce the SEMA cost further by approximately 6.83% to be cost‐effective, taking DULA as a reference. Conclusion: After its addition to the National Medical Insurance System in China, SEMA is expected to be a cost‐effective choice compared with DULA for patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequately controlled from the cost‐utility analysis. However, there is still scope to reduce the annual cost of SEMA further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The substantial financial burden associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) over a lifetime cannot be neglected. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacoeconomic value of three once-weekly GLP-1 RAs, namely subcutaneous semaglutide (sc. SEMA), dulaglutide (DULA), and extended-release exenatide (e-r EXEN), in treating patients with T2D that cannot be controlled with metformin-based background therapy, and to find a suitable price reduction for non-cost-effective medications, to provide reasonable recommendations to the administration for adjusting drug prices. Methods: The baseline characteristics of the simulation patient cohort were sourced from a comprehensive meta-analysis synthesizing 453 trials evaluating 21 hypoglycemic agents from nine categories of drugs. The UKPDS OM2 was applied to project the long-term effectiveness and costs from a Chinese health care provider's perspective. After cost-utility analysis, the reasonable price adjustment of non-cost-effective options was explored via binary search. Uncertainty was measured by means of sensitivity analysis. Results: After a 40-year simulation, the sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN groups yielded 9.6315, 9.5968, and 9.5895 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively. In terms of expenditure, the total costs for the sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN groups were $42012.47, $24931.27, and $40264.80, respectively. DULA was dominant over e-r EXEN due to the higher QALYs and lower total costs. The ICURs of sc. SEMA vs. DULA and sc. SEMA vs. e-r EXEN were $492994.72/QALY and $41622.69/QALY (ICUR > λ), respectively, indicating that sc. SEMA was not more cost-effective than DULA or e-r EXEN. The INMB and absolute NMB yielded the same conclusions which were robust to one-way, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. After several assumptions in the binary search, sc. SEMA and e-r EXEN appear to become cost-effective when their annual costs are decreased by 57.67% and 70.34%, respectively, with DULA as a counterpart. Conclusion: From the cost-utility analysis, DULA appears to be the most cost-effective option among sc. SEMA, DULA, and e-r EXEN for the treatment of patients with T2D receiving metformin-based background therapy. With a 57.67% or 70.34% reduction in cost, sc. SEMA or e-r EXEN, respectively, would become as cost-effective as DULA in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]