Evaluation of the Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Dulaglutide and Sitagliptin in the Spanish Setting.

Introduction: Healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population, but must work within constrained budgets. Therefore, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. The present analysis assessed the cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus once-weekly dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus once daily sitagliptin 100 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes from a healthcare payer perspective in the Spanish setting. Methods: Cost and clinical outcomes were projected over patient lifetimes using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects on initiation of semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg, dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg were based on the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 7 and 2). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projected outcomes were discounted at 3.0% annually. Results: Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.02 and 0.11 years, respectively, and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg. Compared with sitagliptin, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.17 and 0.24 years, respectively and discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg from a healthcare payer perspective. Conclusions: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were considered dominant (more effective and less costly) versus sitagliptin 100 mg and dulaglutide 1.5 mg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting. Plain Language Summary: Since healthcare systems aim to maximize the health of the population but must work within constrained budgets, choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is paramount. We assessed the cost-effectiveness, from a Spanish healthcare payer perspective, of the newly marketed once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg versus two established therapies (dulaglutide 1.5 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg) for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications over patient lifetimes. Outcomes were projected using a computer simulation model, based on two trials conducted as part of the once-weekly semaglutide clinical trial program (SUSTAIN 2 and SUSTAIN 7). Captured costs included treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications. Projections of long-term clinical outcomes indicated that once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.03 and 0.11 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg, and 0.16 and 0.23 QALYs, respectively, versus sitagliptin 100 mg. The increased duration and quality of life with once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg resulted from a reduced cumulative incidence and delayed time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Avoided complications resulted in once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg being cost-saving versus dulaglutide 1.5 mg and versus sitagliptin 100 mg. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were more effective and less costly and therefore were considered dominant in both comparisons, and are likely to be a good use of healthcare resources in the Spanish setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]