PURPOSE: Maintaining glycemic control is the key treatment target for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In addition, the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists may be associated with other favorable treatment characteristics, such as reduction in body weight and reduced risk of hypoglycemia compared with traditional diabetes interventions. The aim of the present analysis was to compare the long-term cost-effectiveness of 2 GLP-1 receptor agonists, liraglutide 1.8 mg and lixisenatide 20 μg (both administered once daily), in the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycemic control with metformin monotherapy in the Italian setting.
METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term clinical outcomes and subsequent costs (in 2015 Euros [€]) associated with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg treatment in a cohort with baseline characteristics derived from the open-label LIRA-LIXI trial (Efficacy and Safety of Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide as Add-on to Metformin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes; NCT01973231) over patient lifetimes from the perspective of a health care payer. Efficacy data were taken from the 26-week end points of the same trial, including changes in glycated hemoglobin, body mass index, serum lipid levels, and hypoglycemic event rates. Outcomes projected included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, cumulative incidence and time to onset of diabetes-related complications, and direct medical costs. Outcomes were discounted at 3% annually, and sensitivity analyses were performed.
FINDINGS: Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improved discounted life expectancy (14.07 vs 13.96 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (9.18 vs 9.06 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) compared with lixisenatide 20 μg. These improvements were mostly attributable to a greater reduction in glycated hemoglobin level with liraglutide 1.8 mg versus lixisenatide 20 μg, leading to reduced incidence and increased time to onset of diabetes-related complications. Compared with lixisenatide 20 μg, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with increased total costs over patient lifetimes (€41,623 vs €41,380), but this was offset by lower costs of treating diabetes-related complications (€26,682 vs €27,476). Liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2001 per QALY gained versus lixisenatide 20 μg. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained, liraglutide 1.8 mg had a probability of 77.2% of being cost-effective.
IMPLICATIONS: Based on long-term projections, liraglutide 1.8 mg is likely to be considered cost-effective compared with lixisenatide 20 μg for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes in Italy.
