Johnston Stephen S, Nguyen Hiep, Cappell Katherine, Nelson James K, Chu Bong-Chul, Kalsekar Iftekhar
a a Truven Health Analytics , Bethesda , MD , USA.
J Med Econ. 2015;18(9):666-77. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2015.1039539. Epub 2015 Jun 12.
To compare healthcare costs and utilization between commercially insured patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in the United States newly initiating exenatide once weekly (QW) or liraglutide.
This retrospective cohort study used US administrative claims data to study patients with T2DM initiating exenatide QW or liraglutide (initiated therapy = index therapy). Patients were included if they had T2DM, were glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) naïve, initiated exenatide QW or liraglutide from 1 February 2012 to 1 October 2012 (date of initiation = index), were ≥18 years at index, and had continuous enrollment for 12 months before (baseline) to 6 months after index (follow-up). Study outcomes were overall and diabetes-specific healthcare utilization and costs. Multivariable regressions compared the study outcomes between exenatide QW and liraglutide, adjusting for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess liraglutide by dose (1.2 mg/1.8 mg).
The study sample included 9106 liraglutide (4188, 1.2 mg; 4918, 1.8 mg) patients and 2445 exenatide QW patients. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, compared with liraglutide patients, exenatide QW patients had statistically significantly lower odds of overall inpatient admissions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.80, p = 0.046) and diabetes-specific (OR = 0.83, p = 0.026) inpatient admissions, similar overall total costs ($7833 exenatide QW, $8296 liraglutide, p = 0.069) and diabetes-specific total costs ($3610 exenatide QW, $3736 liraglutide, p = 0.298), and statistically significantly lower overall medical costs ($3939 exenatide QW, $4652 liraglutide, p = 0.008) and diabetes-specific medical costs ($1161 exenatide QW, $1469 liraglutide, p = 0.007). Sensitivity analyses assessing liraglutide by dose were directionally consistent. Unadjusted exploratory analyses showed that exenatide QW patients obtained a greater median number of days supplied for their GLP-1RA during follow-up (141 days) than liraglutide patients (124 days).
In this 6 month follow-up study, patients receiving exenatide QW had similar total healthcare costs but lower odds of inpatient admission and lower medical costs compared with patients receiving liraglutide.
比较美国新开始使用每周一次艾塞那肽(QW)或利拉鲁肽的商业保险2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者的医疗保健成本和利用率。
这项回顾性队列研究使用美国行政索赔数据,研究开始使用艾塞那肽QW或利拉鲁肽(起始治疗=索引治疗)的T2DM患者。纳入标准为患有T2DM、未使用过胰高血糖素样肽-1受体激动剂(GLP-1RA)、在2012年2月1日至2012年10月1日期间开始使用艾塞那肽QW或利拉鲁肽(起始日期=索引)、索引时年龄≥18岁,且在索引前12个月(基线)至索引后6个月(随访)连续参保。研究结局为总体和糖尿病特异性医疗保健利用率及成本。多变量回归比较了艾塞那肽QW和利拉鲁肽之间的研究结局,并对潜在混杂因素进行了调整。进行敏感性分析以按剂量(1.2mg/1.8mg)评估利拉鲁肽。
研究样本包括9106名利拉鲁肽患者(4188名,1.2mg;4918名,1.8mg)和2445名艾塞那肽QW患者。在多变量调整分析中,与利拉鲁肽患者相比,艾塞那肽QW患者总体住院入院的几率在统计学上显著更低(优势比[OR]=0.80,p=0.046),糖尿病特异性住院入院几率(OR=0.83,p=0.026)更低,总体总成本相似(艾塞那肽QW为7833美元,利拉鲁肽为8296美元,p=0.069),糖尿病特异性总成本也相似(艾塞那肽QW为3610美元,利拉鲁肽为3736美元,p=0.298),且总体医疗成本在统计学上显著更低(艾塞那肽QW为3939美元,利拉鲁肽为4652美元,p=0.008),糖尿病特异性医疗成本也更低(艾塞那肽QW为1161美元,利拉鲁肽为1469美元,p=0.007)。按剂量评估利拉鲁肽的敏感性分析在方向上是一致的。未调整的探索性分析表明,艾塞那肽QW患者在随访期间其GLP-1RA的供应天数中位数(141天)比利拉鲁肽患者(124天)更多。
在这项6个月的随访研究中,与接受利拉鲁肽的患者相比,接受艾塞那肽QW的患者总医疗保健成本相似,但住院入院几率更低,医疗成本也更低。