title: Cost-effectiveness of liraglutide versus rosiglitazone, both in combination with glimepiride in treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are not able to maintain adequate HbA(1c) control (<7.0%), even at maximal dosage levels of one or two oral agents, and are at increased risk for diabetes-related complications.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a once-daily GLP-1 analog Victoza [Novo Nordisk] versus a thiazolidinedione (TZD), rosiglitazone in patients with T2DM. Both treatment groups included background therapy with glimepiride.
  
  
  METHODS
  The CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to project and compare 35-year clinical and economic outcomes associated with liraglutide 1.2 mg + glimepiride and liraglutide 1.8 mg + glimepiride versus rosiglitazone 4 mg + glimepiride. Baseline cohort characteristics (HbA(1c) (8.4%), age, duration of disease, sex, body-mass index (BMI), blood pressure, and lipids) were based on the Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes-1 (LEAD-1) trial.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Primary outcomes included life expectancy (LE), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), total costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). results: When compared to rosiglitazone, liraglutide 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg increased mean LE by 0.968 and 1.041 years, and QALYs by 0.764 and 0.837, respectively. Total lifetime costs increased by $26,094 for liraglutide 1.2 mg versus rosiglitazone, and by $47,041 for liraglutide 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone. ICERs for liraglutide 1.2 mg versus rosiglitazone and 1.8 mg versus rosiglitazone were $34,147 and $56,190, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Compared to rosiglitazone 4 mg plus glimepiride, liraglutide (particularly at the 1.2-mg dose) plus glimepiride is a cost-effective treatment option for improving glucose control in T2DM. Limitations include the projection of short term efficacy results from randomized control trials to longer time horizons. In addition, clinical acceptance and overall use of rosiglitazone in the treatment of diabetes has continued to fall since publication of the clinical trial upon which this modeling analyses was based.
authors.affiliation: Health Economics & Outcomes Research, IMS Health, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA. wclee@us.imshealth.com
authors.forename: W C
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Lee
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Conner
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Hammer
mesh_terms: D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003924:Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 / Q000188:drug therapy / Q000191:economics; D004359:Drug Therapy, Combination / Q000191:economics; D005260:Female; D052216:Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000031:analogs & derivatives* / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D000069450:Liraglutide; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011788:Quality of Life; D000077154:Rosiglitazone; D013453:Sulfonylurea Compounds / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D045162:Thiazolidinediones / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D014481:United States
chemical_list: D007004:Hypoglycemic Agents; D013453:Sulfonylurea Compounds; D045162:Thiazolidinediones; D000077154:Rosiglitazone; C057619:glimepiride; D000069450:Liraglutide; D052216:Glucagon-Like Peptide 1