Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

2024 ASCO Annual Meeting

Keep up to date with all the top stories and latest evidence with our hub page, including official congress videos and expert takeaways.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
PharmacoEconomics - Open
Published in: PharmacoEconomics - Open 4/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Dulaglutid | Original Research Article

Cost Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Canada

Authors: Pierre Johansen, Jonas Håkan-Bloch, Aiden R. Liu, Peter G. Bech, Sofie Persson, Lawrence A. Leiter

Published in: PharmacoEconomics - Open | Issue 4/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of semaglutide versus dulaglutide, as an add-on to metformin monotherapy, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D), from a Canadian societal perspective.

Methods

The Swedish Institute for Health Economics Cohort Model of T2D was used to assess the cost effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 or 1.0 mg) versus once-weekly dulaglutide (0.75 or 1.5 mg) over a 40-year time horizon. Using data from the SUSTAIN 7 trial, which demonstrated comparatively greater reductions in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), body mass index and systolic blood pressure with semaglutide, compared with dulaglutide, a deterministic base-case and scenario simulation were conducted. The robustness of the results was evaluated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses and 15 deterministic sensitivity analyses.

Results

The base-case analysis indicated that semaglutide is a dominant treatment option, compared with dulaglutide. Semaglutide was associated with lower total costs (Canadian dollars [CAN$]) versus dulaglutide for both low-dose (CAN$113,287 vs. CAN$113,690; cost-saving: CAN$403) and high-dose (CAN$112,983 vs. CAN$113,695; cost-saving: CAN$711) comparisons. Semaglutide resulted in increased quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and QALY gains, compared with dulaglutide, for both low-dose (11.10 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.04 QALYs) and high-dose (11.12 vs. 11.07 QALYs; + 0.05 QALYs) comparisons. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that for 66–73% of iterations, semaglutide was either dominant or was considered cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAN$50,000.

Conclusions

From a Canadian societal perspective, semaglutide may be a cost-effective treatment option versus dulaglutide in patients with T2D who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(1):143–52.PubMed
4.
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2013 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2013;37:S1–212.
5.
6.
O’Brien JA, Patrick AR, Caro JJ. Cost of managing complications resulting from type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003;3(1):7.PubMedPubMedCentral
7.
American Diabetes Association. Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(9):2262–5.
8.
Govan L, Wu O, Lindsay R, Briggs A. How do diabetes models measure up? A review of diabetes economic models and ADA guidelines. J Health Econ Outcomes Res. 2015;3(2):132–52.
9.
McEwan P, Foos V, Palmer JL, Lamotte M, Lloyd A, Grant D. Validation of the IMS CORE diabetes model. Value Health. 2014;17(6):714–24.PubMed
10.
Palmer AJ, Roze S, Valentine WJ, Minshall ME, Foos V, Lurati FM, et al. The CORE diabetes model: projecting long-term clinical outcomes, costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions in diabetes mellitus (types 1 and 2) to support clinical and reimbursement decision-making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20(Suppl 1):S5–26.PubMed
11.
Willis M, Johansen P, Nilsson A, Asseburg C. Validation of the economic and health outcomes model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). Pharmacoeconomics. 2017;35(3):375–96.PubMed
12.
Willis M, Asseburg C, He J. Validation of economic and health outcomes simulation model of type 2 diabetes mellitus (ECHO-T2DM). J Med Econ. 2013;16(8):1007–21.PubMed
13.
Clarke PM, Gray AM, Briggs A, Farmer AJ, Fenn P, Stevens RJ, et al. A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68). Diabetologia. 2004;47(10):1747–59.PubMed
14.
Hayes AJ, Leal J, Gray AM, Holman RR, Clarke PM. UKPDS outcomes model 2: a new version of a model to simulate lifetime health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using data from the 30 year United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study: UKPDS 82. Diabetologia. 2013;56(9):1925–33.PubMed
15.
McEwan P, Ward T, Bennett H, Bergenheim K. Validation of the UKPDS 82 risk equations within the Cardiff Diabetes Model. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2015;13:12.PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
McEwan P, Peters JR, Bergenheim K, Currie CJ. Evaluation of the costs and outcomes from changes in risk factors in type 2 diabetes using the Cardiff stochastic simulation cost-utility model (DiabForecaster). Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(1):121–9.PubMed
17.
18.
Lundqvist A, Steen Carlsson K, Johansen P, Andersson E, Willis M. Validation of the IHE cohort model of type 2 diabetes and the impact of choice of macrovascular risk equations. PloS One. 2014;9(10):e110235.PubMedPubMedCentral
19.
20.
21.
Sorli C, Harashima SI, Tsoukas GM, Unger J, Karsbøl JD, Hansen T, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide monotherapy versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 1): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multinational, multicentre phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(4):251–60.PubMed
22.
Rodbard HW, Lingvay I, Reed J, de la Rosa R, Rose L, Sugimoto D, et al. Semaglutide added to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 5): a randomized, controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2018;103(6):2291–301.PubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Pratley RE, Aroda VR, Lingvay I, Ludemann J, Andreassen C, Navarria A, et al. Semaglutide versus dulaglutide once weekly in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 7): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2018;6(4):275–86.PubMed
24.
Marso SP, Bain SC, Consoli A, Eliaschewitz FG, Jodar E, Leiter LA, et al. Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(19):1834–44.PubMed
25.
Aroda VR, Bain SC, Cariou B, Piletic M, Rose L, Axelsen M, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily insulin glargine as add-on to metformin (with or without sulfonylureas) in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 4): a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, multicentre, multinational, phase 3a trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):355–66.PubMed
26.
Ahrén B, Masmiquel L, Kumar H, Sargin M, Karsbol JD, Jacobsen SH, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus once-daily sitagliptin as an add-on to metformin, thiazolidinediones, or both, in patients with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 2): a 56-week, double-blind, phase 3a, randomised trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(5):341–54.PubMed
27.
Ahmann AJ, Capehorn M, Charpentier G, Dotta F, Henkel E, Lingvay I, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-weekly semaglutide versus exenatide ER in subjects with type 2 diabetes (SUSTAIN 3): a 56-week, open-label, randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Care. 2018;41(2):258–66.PubMed
28.
Kiadaliri AA, Gerdtham UG, Nilsson P, Eliasson B, Gudbjornsdottir S, Carlsson KS. Towards renewed health economic simulation of type 2 diabetes: risk equations for first and second cardiovascular events from Swedish register data. PloS One. 2013;8(5):e62650.
29.
Bagust A, Hopkinson PK, Maier W, Currie CJ. An economic model of the long-term health care burden of Type II diabetes. Diabetologia. 2001;44(12):2140–55.PubMed
30.
Brown JB, Russell A, Chan W, Pedula K, Aickin M. The global diabetes model: user friendly version 3.0. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2000;50(Suppl 3):S15–46.PubMed
31.
Eastman RC, Javitt JC, Herman WH, Dasbach EJ, Zbrozek AS, Dong F, et al. Model of complications of NIDDM. I. Model construction and assumptions. Diabetes Care. 1997;20(5):725–34.PubMed
32.
Ericsson Å, Lundqvist A. Cost effectiveness of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira) in a fixed combination for uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus in Sweden. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2017;15(2):237–48.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Ericsson Å, Glah D, Lorenzi M, Jansen JP, Fridhammar A. Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus lixisenatide as add-on therapies to basal insulin in type 2 diabetes. PloS One. 2018;13(2):e0191953.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Steen Carlsson K, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin. J Med Econ. 2014;17(9):658–69.PubMed
35.
Kiadaliri AA, Gerdtham UG, Eliasson B, Carlsson KS. Cost-utility analysis of glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or neutral protamine Hagedorn basal insulin as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5(2):591–607.PubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Palmer AJ, Si L, Tew M, Hua X, Willis MS, Asseburg C, et al. Computer modeling of diabetes and its transparency: a report on the Eighth Mount Hood challenge. Value Health. 2018;21(6):724–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS)—explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013;16(2):231–50.PubMed
42.
43.
Hunt B, Vega-Hernandez G, Valentine WJ, Kragh N. Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide vs lixisenatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK setting. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(6):842–9.PubMed
44.
Mezquita-Raya P, Ramirez de Arellano A, Kragh N, Vega-Hernandez G, Pohlmann J, Valentine WJ, et al. Liraglutide versus lixisenatide: long-term cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Spain. Diabetes Ther. 2017;8(2):401–15.PubMedPubMedCentral
45.
Hunt B, Kragh N, McConnachie CC, Valentine WJ, Rossi MC, Montagnoli R. Long-term cost-effectiveness of two GLP-1 receptor agonists for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Italian setting: liraglutide versus lixisenatide. Clin Ther. 2017;39(7):1347–59.PubMed
46.
Kahn SE, Haffner SM, Heise MA, Herman WH, Holman RR, Jones NP, et al. Glycemic durability of rosiglitazone, metformin, or glyburide monotherapy. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(23):2427–43.PubMed
47.
Willis M, Neslusan C, Nilsson A, Asseburg C. Assessing the value of canagliflozin (CANA) vs. sitagliptin (SITA) as second-line therapy in the U.S.—the importance of considering evidence from the CANVAS program. Diabetes. 2018;67(Suppl 1):1272-P.
48.
49.
50.
Willis M, Asseburg C, Nilsson A, Johnsson K, Kartman B. Multivariate prediction equations for HbA1c lowering, weight change, and hypoglycemic events associated with insulin rescue medication in type 2 diabetes mellitus: informing economic modeling. Value Health. 2017;20(3):357–71.PubMed
51.
Bagust A, Beale S. Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. Health Econ. 2005;14(3):217–30.PubMed
52.
Ward A, Alvarez P, Vo L, Martin S. Direct medical costs of complications of diabetes in the United States: estimates for event-year and annual state costs (USD 2012). J Med Econ. 2014;17(3):176–83.PubMed
53.
Eckert KA, Carter MJ, Lansingh VC, Wilson DA, Furtado JM, Frick KD, et al. A simple method for estimating the economic cost of productivity loss due to blindness and moderate to severe visual impairment. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2015;22(5):349–55.PubMed
54.
Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Diabetes Canada 2018 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes. 2018;42:S1–325.
55.
Willis M, Neslusan C, Johansen P, Nilsson A. The importance of considering the evolving evidence base on cardiovascular (CV) effects of antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) on estimates of “value for money”. Presented at American Diabetes Association (ADA) 77th scientific sessions, San Diego, CA, USA, 9–13 June 2017.
56.
Holman RR, Paul SK, Bethel MA, Matthews DR, Neil HA. 10-year follow-up of intensive glucose control in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(15):1577–89.PubMed
57.
Evans M, Johansen P, Vraziv H. Incorporating cardioprotective effects of once-weekly semaglutide in estimates of health benefits for patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes. 2018;67(Suppl 1):1273-P.
58.
59.
60.
Basu S, Sussman JB, Berkowitz SA, Hayward RA, Yudkin JS. Development and validation of risk equations for complications of type 2 diabetes (RECODe) using individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2017;5(10):788–98.PubMedPubMedCentral
61.
Shao H, Fonseca V, Stoecker C, Liu S, Shi L. Novel risk engine for diabetes progression and mortality in USA: building, relating, assessing, and validating outcomes (BRAVO). Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(9):1125–34.PubMed
62.
Viljoen A, Hoxer CS, Johansen P, Malkin S, Hunt B, Bain SC. Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide versus dulaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019;21(3):611–21.PubMed
63.
Tikkanen C, Johansen P, Hunt B, Malkin S, Pollock R. Once-weekly semaglutide provides better health outcomes compared to dulaglutide as dual therapy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Presented at the EASD 54th annual meeting, Berlin, Germany, 1–5 October 2018.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
Fenwick EK, Xie J, Ratcliffe J, Pesudovs K, Finger RP, Wong TY, et al. The impact of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema on health-related quality of life in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53(2):677–84.
69.
70.
Currie CJ, McEwan P, Poole C, Valentine WJ, Palmer AJ, Lammert M, et al. Comments on: long-term clinical and cost outcomes of treatment with biphasic insulin aspart 30/70 versus insulin glargine in insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients: cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22(5):967–9.PubMed
71.
Sørensen J, Ploug U. The cost of diabetes-related complications: registry-based analysis of days absent from work. Econ Res Int. 2013;8:article ID 618039.
72.
73.
Johansen P, Håkan-Bloch J, Liu AD, Persson S, Toresson Grip E. Cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1.0 mg vs. dulaglutide 1.5 mg as add-on to metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes in Canada. Diabetes. 2018;67(Suppl 1):136-LB.
Metadata
Title
Cost Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide Versus Once-Weekly Dulaglutide in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Canada
Authors
Pierre Johansen
Jonas Håkan-Bloch
Aiden R. Liu
Peter G. Bech
Sofie Persson
Lawrence A. Leiter
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics - Open / Issue 4/2019
Print ISSN: 2509-4262
Electronic ISSN: 2509-4254
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-019-0131-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2019

PharmacoEconomics - Open 4/2019 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

A Cost Analysis of Haemodialysis and Peritoneal Dialysis for the Management of End-Stage Renal Failure At an Academic Hospital in Pretoria, South Africa

Review Article

A Comparison of Pharmaceutical Budget Impact Analysis (BIA) Recommendations Amongst the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), Public and Private Payers

Original Research Article

Person-Centred Care in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial

Acknowledgement to Referees

Acknowledgement to Referees

Original Research Article

National Health Insurance Databases in Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines

Original Research Article

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy Versus Standard Combination Antiretroviral Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients with Viral Suppression in France (ANRS 140 DREAM)