Objectives: The objective of this analysis was to determine the cost-effectiveness of exenatide vs. insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes failing to achieve glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic agents, in the German setting, from a third-party payer perspective.
Methods: Data from a published randomized controlled trial were used in combination with a published, validated computer simulation model of type 2 diabetes to project clinical and cost outcomes over a time horizon of 10 years. Cost data were obtained from published literature and expert opinion. Clinical and cost outcomes were discounted at 5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed to establish key drivers and parameters.
Results: Treatment with exenatide compared with insulin glargine was projected to be associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.016 years and quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.280 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), increased lifetime direct medical costs of euro 3854 (euro 22 095 vs. euro 18 242) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of euro 13 746 per QALY. If quality of life was not taken into account, exenatide was associated with an ICER of euro 238 201 per life year gained vs. insulin glargine. Sensitivity analyses revealed that outcomes were most sensitive to changes in assumptions for (dis)utility values relating to weight change and the rate of self-monitored blood glucose testing.
Conclusions: Exenatide was projected to be associated with similar clinical outcomes and increased costs compared with insulin glargine. Analysis of cost-effectiveness from a third-party perspective suggests that exenatide is likely to represent good value for money in the German setting.