A Lifetime Modelled Economic Evaluation Comparing Pioglitazone and Rosiglitazone for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK

IntroductionAdding pioglitazone or rosiglitazone to existing therapy are alternative treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy. Our objective was to develop a lifetime model of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its sequelae in order to compare the costs and benefits of pioglitazone versus rosiglitazone in combination with metformin.MethodsA decision-analytic model employing a first order Monte Carlo simulation of a Markov process was constructed. The model incorporated surrogate outcome measures from a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) [n = 802] that compared the glycaemic and lipid control of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone monotherapy. These efficacy data were used with a recently validated and peer-reviewed UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) algorithm to simulate the progression of these surrogate outcomes to final health outcomes, including quality of life (QOL) and mortality, and to calculate the risks of diabetic complications and death. The model perspective was of the UK NHS and included direct healthcare costs only (£, 2004/5 values). Patient outcomes measured in the model included life-expectancy (LE) and QALYs. The base-case analysis was run for 56-year-old male Caucasions with a haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 7.57% and a body mass index of 33.14 kg/m2.ResultsPatients treated with pioglitazone experienced a reduction in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (TC: HDL-C) ratio of 0.34, whereas the TC: HDL-C ratio increased by 0.65 in those receiving rosiglitazone (p <0.001>). The HbA1c profile was similar between the treatment groups (p = 0.13), as were other known risk factors for diabetes complications. The lifetime healthcare costs per patient estimated by the model were £9585 for pioglitazone and £10 299 for rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone had a discounted LE of 8.83 years versus 8.79 years for those treated with rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone also gained additional QALYs (6.8070 vs 6.7686). With improved health outcomes and lower costs, treatment with pioglitazone dominated rosiglitazone treatment.ConclusionEvidence from the only large head-to-head RCT comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone suggests that more favourable changes in serum lipid profiles in patients treated with pioglitazone translate into improved health outcomes in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality and greater gains in QOL. In addition, this analysis indicates that treatment with pioglitazone is associated with lower costs than rosiglitazone. Therefore, in the UK, adjunctive pioglitazone may represent a cost-effective treatment choice for patients with type 2 diabetes who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy.

[1]  A. Cohen,et al.  Interplay of diabetes and coronary heart disease on cardiovascular mortality , 2004, Heart.

[2]  H. King,et al.  Global Burden of Diabetes, 1995–2025: Prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[3]  M. Hanefeld,et al.  Long-term efficacy and tolerability of add-on pioglitazone therapy to failing monotherapy compared with addition of gliclazide or metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes , 2005, Diabetologia.

[4]  Ping Zhang,et al.  Guidelines for computer modeling of diabetes and its complications , 2004 .

[5]  Diabetes Uk,et al.  JBS 2: Joint British Societies9 guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice , 2005 .

[6]  R. Holman,et al.  A model to estimate the lifetime health outcomes of patients with Type 2 diabetes: the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Outcomes Model (UKPDS no. 68) , 2004, Diabetologia.

[7]  R. Holman,et al.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin in overweight patients with Type II diabetes (UKPDS No. 51) , 2001, Diabetologia.

[8]  V. Bittner Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. , 2003 .

[9]  A. Bagust,et al.  Modelling EuroQol health-related utility values for diabetic complications from CODE-2 data. , 2005, Health economics.

[10]  T. Cvetković,et al.  Quality of Life in Type 2 Diabetic Patients , 2014 .

[11]  Erland Erdmann,et al.  Secondary prevention of macrovascular events in patients with type 2 diabetes in the PROactive Study (PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events): a randomised controlled trial , 2005, The Lancet.

[12]  B. Staels,et al.  Therapeutic roles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonists. , 2005, Diabetes.

[13]  Rury R Holman,et al.  Sulfonylurea inadequacy: efficacy of addition of insulin over 6 years in patients with type 2 diabetes in the U.K. Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS 57). , 2002, Diabetes care.

[14]  S. Wannamethee,et al.  Cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality in older men with diabetes and in men with coronary heart disease , 2004, Heart.

[15]  John B. Buse,et al.  A Comparison of Lipid and Glycemic Effects of Pioglitazone and Rosiglitazone in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Dyslipidemia , 2005 .

[16]  M. Harris,et al.  Mortality in Adults With and Without Diabetes in a National Cohort of the U.S. Population, 1971–1993 , 1998, Diabetes Care.

[17]  M. Sculpher,et al.  Probabilistic sensitivity analysis for NICE technology assessment: not an optional extra. , 2005, Health economics.

[18]  D. Matthews,et al.  Coefficient of failure: a methodology for examining longitudinal beta-cell function in Type 2 diabetes. , 2002, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[19]  B. Manns,et al.  Illustrating the impact of including future costs in economic evaluations: an application to end-stage renal disease care. , 2003, Health economics.

[20]  B. Sobel,et al.  Cardiovascular complications in diabetes mellitus. , 2005, Current opinion in pharmacology.

[21]  D. Panagiotakos,et al.  Non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol is the best discriminator of myocardial infarction in young individuals. , 2005, Atherosclerosis.

[22]  Alastair Gray,et al.  Estimating Utility Values for Health States of Type 2 Diabetic Patients Using the EQ-5D (UKPDS 62) , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[23]  R. Holman,et al.  Cost-utility analyses of intensive blood glucose and tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 72) , 2005, Diabetologia.

[24]  R Legood,et al.  The impact of diabetes‐related complications on healthcare costs: results from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS Study No. 65) , 2003, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[25]  S. Grundy,et al.  Diabetes and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. , 1999, Circulation.

[26]  Alfonso T. Perez,et al.  Effects of pioglitazone on lipid and lipoprotein profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes and dyslipidaemia after treatment conversion from rosiglitazone while continuing stable statin therapy , 2006, Diabetes & vascular disease research.

[27]  A. Morris,et al.  Changes in treatment after the start of oral hypoglycaemic therapy in Type 2 diabetes: a population‐based study , 2002, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[28]  M. Hanefeld,et al.  Anti-inflammatory effects of pioglitazone and/or simvastatin in high cardiovascular risk patients with elevated high sensitivity C-reactive protein: the PIOSTAT Study. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.