IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v24y2023i6d10.1007_s10198-022-01514-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Adie Viljoen

    (Lister Hospital (East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust))

  • Barrie Chubb

    (Novo Nordisk Ltd)

  • Samuel J. P. Malkin

    (Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH)

  • Sasha Berry

    (Novo Nordisk Ltd)

  • Barnaby Hunt

    (Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH)

  • Stephen C. Bain

    (Swansea University Medical School)

Abstract

Aims Once-weekly semaglutide and dulaglutide represent two highly efficacious treatment options for type 2 diabetes. A recent indirect treatment comparison (ITC) has associated semaglutide 1 mg with similar and greater improvements in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and body weight, respectively, vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg. The present study aimed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK. Materials and methods The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (v9.0) was used to project outcomes over patients’ lifetimes. Baseline cohort characteristics were sourced from SUSTAIN 7, with changes in HbA1c and body mass index applied as per the ITC. Modelled patients received semaglutide or dulaglutide for 3 years, after which treatment was intensified to basal insulin. Costs (expressed in 2020 pounds sterling [GBP]) were accounted from a healthcare payer perspective. Results Semaglutide 1 mg was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.05 and 0.04 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively, due to a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications with semaglutide. Direct costs were estimated to be GBP 76 lower and GBP 8 higher in the comparisons with dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg, respectively. Overall outcomes were similar, but favoured semaglutide, and based on modelled mean outcomes it was considered dominant vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GBP 228 per QALY gained vs. dulaglutide 4.5 mg. Conclusions Semaglutide 1 mg represents a cost-effective treatment vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg for type 2 diabetes from a healthcare payer perspective in the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Adie Viljoen & Barrie Chubb & Samuel J. P. Malkin & Sasha Berry & Barnaby Hunt & Stephen C. Bain, 2023. "The long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg vs. dulaglutide 3 mg and 4.5 mg in the UK," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 24(6), pages 895-907, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01514-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01514-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-022-01514-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-022-01514-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cost; Cost-effectiveness; Semaglutide; Dulaglutide; UK;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D61 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Allocative Efficiency; Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • I19 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Other

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:24:y:2023:i:6:d:10.1007_s10198-022-01514-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.