Cost–Utility of Liraglutide Plus Standard of Care Versus Standard of Care in People with Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk in Thailand

Introduction Liraglutide has demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary major composite cardiovascular (CV) outcome (CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke). This study aimed to determine the cost–utility of adding liraglutide to the standard of care (SoC) for treating type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Thailand for three cohorts: people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with no ASCVD, and all people with T2D. Methods A Markov model was developed to capture the long-term costs and outcomes under the perspective of the healthcare system. Costs were based on local data, the transitional probabilities were derived from the LEADER trial, and utilities were derived from published studies. Future costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Compared to SoC, adding liraglutide incurred higher costs and gained more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of above 1 million Thai baht (THB) for the three cohorts. The most influential parameter was the discount rate. When the annual cost of liraglutide reduced from 87,874 to 30,340 THB, 30,116 THB, and 31,617 THB for all people with T2D, people with ASCVD, and people without ASCVD, respectively, the ICER fell below the local threshold of 160,000 THB/QALY. Compared to the SoC treatment, the liraglutide group acquired more clinical benefit in terms of fewer CVD. Sensitivity analyses revealed that with an increase in the level of willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold, adding liraglutide had an increased chance of being a cost-effective strategy. Conclusion Compared to the SoC treatment, adding liraglutide at the current cost is not cost-effective at the local WTP. People with T2D with ASCVD would have the most potential gain from adding liraglutide treatment compared to other populations.