Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Plus Liraglutide (IDegLira) in a Fixed Combination for Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Sweden
Patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are a priority group for intensified therapy without weight gain and with low risk of hypoglycaemia. This study evaluates the cost effectiveness of insulin degludec plus liraglutide (IDegLira, Xultophy®) compared with six potential intensification treatment options for patients withT2DM that is uncontrolled with basal insulin.
The Swedish Institute for Health Economics (IHE) Cohort Model of Type 2 Diabetes was used with Swedish input data, a 40-year time frame and a societal perspective. The comparators for treatment intensification included insulin glargine, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, insulin aspart plus either glargine or NPH, and liraglutide plus either glargine or NPH. Clinical data for all comparators (except NPH insulin) were based on an indirect treatment comparison of several studies. Prices were obtained from the 2014 Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket [TLV]) database, and utility values were obtained from published studies. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken.
Overall incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were Swedish krona (SEK) 70,000 or lower per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). IDegLira compared with intensified basal insulin showed an ICER of SEK 28,000 per QALY versus insulin glargine, SEK70,000 per QALY versus NPH insulin and SEK 60,000 per QALY versus NPH insulin plus liraglutide. IDegLira was dominant over insulin glargine plus liraglutide and insulin aspart plus insulin glargine or NPH insulin. Results were driven by the difference in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) reduction between treatments, as confirmed by sensitivity analyses. IDegLira is estimated to be a cost-effective treatment in Sweden compared with commonly used intensification treatments for patients with T2DM uncontrolled with basal insulin.
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 2017; 15: 237-248