GLPwatch

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus liraglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain in patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m<sup>2</sup>.

J Med Econ · 2017

Last updated 2026-05-28

A study in Spain compared the cost and effectiveness of two GLP-1 drugs, dulaglutide (1.5 mg once weekly) and liraglutide (1.8 mg once daily), for treating type 2 diabetes in people with a BMI of 30 or higher. Over a lifetime, dulaglutide was both less expensive (€108,489 vs. €109,653) and slightly more effective (10.281 vs. 10.259 quality-adjusted life years) than liraglutide. The results held true even when testing different assumptions in the analysis.

AI summary of the abstract below.

JournalJ Med Econ, 2017
Citations16
Relative citation ratio0.85
NIH percentile45
Molecules liraglutide, dulaglutide
Conditions studied Type 2 Diabetes, Obesity

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Dulaglutide 1.5 mg once weekly is a novel glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, for the treatment of type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide once weekly vs liraglutide 1.8 mg once daily for the treatment of T2DM in Spain in patients with a BMI ≥30 kg/m. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate costs and outcomes from the perspective of Spanish National Health System, capturing relevant direct medical costs over a lifetime time horizon. Comparative safety and efficacy data were derived from direct comparison of dulaglutide 1.5 mg vs liraglutide 1.8 mg from the AWARD-6 trial in patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m. All patients were assumed to remain on treatment for 2 years before switching treatment to basal insulin at a daily dose of 40 IU. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were conducted to explore the sensitivity of the model to plausible variations in key parameters and uncertainty of model inputs. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, dulaglutide 1.5 mg was less costly and more effective vs liraglutide 1.8 mg (total lifetime costs €108,489 vs €109,653; total QALYS 10.281 vs 10.259). OWSA demonstrated that dulaglutide 1.5 mg remained dominant given plausible variations in key input parameters. Results of the PSA were consistent with base case results. LIMITATIONS: Primary limitations of the analysis are common to other cost-effectiveness analyses of chronic diseases like T2DM and include the extrapolation of short-term clinical data to the lifetime time horizon and uncertainty around optimum treatment durations. CONCLUSION: The model found that dulaglutide 1.5 mg was more effective and less costly than liraglutide 1.8 mg for the treatment of T2DM in Spain. Findings were robust to plausible variations in inputs. Based on these results, dulaglutide may result in cost savings to the Spanish National Health System.

Verbatim abstract via PubMed 28008768 ↗

Related research