Evaluation of the long-term cost-effectiveness of liraglutide therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes in France

Abstract

Calculated ICERs for both comparisons fell below the commonly quoted willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000 per QALY gained. Therefore, liraglutide is likely to be cost-effective vs sitagliptin and glimepiride from a healthcare payer perspective in France.

Liraglutide Versus Lixisenatide: Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Therapy for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Spain

“…Diabetes and its complications affect the quality of life, and this was captured by applying published event disutilities in the year when the complication occurred and published state utilities in all subsequent years [40–43]. All values have been used in published cost-effectiveness analyses of liraglutide [19, 44, 45]. …”

Evaluation of the long‐term cost‐effectiveness of liraglutide vs lixisenatide for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK setting

“…16,[34][35][36][37] All values have been applied in previously published cost-effectiveness analyses of liraglutide. [38][39][40]…”

A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

“…44 The only iDPP-4 which was compared with an aGLP-1 was sitagliptin, but no conclusive results in only one way were obtained: it was not cost-effective versus albiglutide 35 and there were converse results versus exenatide 43,44 and liraglutide. 21,37,[50][51][52][53][54] Nor were the results conclusive for the glitazones. 26,43,45,55,56,[69][70][71] At the group level, glitazones were a non-cost-effective option compared with the group of iDPP-4, 69,70 and rosiglitazone was an option dominated by sitagliptin, 56 but pioglitazone was dominant over sitagliptin, 71 and there were conflicting results in the comparison with vildagliptin.…”

“…44 In terms of cost-effectiveness, the results for liraglutide were favourable versus dapagliflozin, 33 but the results compared with other aGLP-1 were inconclusive: it was a dominated option versus dulaglutide 46 and cost-effective or dominant versus lixisenatide, [47][48][49]67 but with divergent results versus exenatide. [36][37][38][39][40][41] Liraglutide was cost-effective versus sitagliptin (iDPP-4) in 8 of the 9 comparisons found, 21,37,[50][51][52][53][54] and was a cost-effective option versus glimepiride in 3 of the 4 comparisons, 21,50,53 but not versus rosiglitazone. 55 Lixisenatide did not appear to be a more cost-effective option than other analogues such as exenatide 36 or liraglutide.…”

“…39,[47][48][49] Dulaglutide was dominant over liraglutide, 46 but contradictory results were obtained versus exenatide. 36,42 For the iDPP-4, no conclusive results were obtained, 20,21,24,[26][27][28]34,35,37,43,44,[50][51][52][53][54]56,[68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77] except when they were compared with the iSGLT-2. In this case, their results were favourable in all comparisons made at group and individual level.…”