Dataset Information

The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin compared to DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

When glycaemic control for people with type 2 diabetes is not achieved with metformin and sulfonylurea alone, adding another oral anti-diabetes drug, such as a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) or dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor, is an alternative to starting insulin. The aim of this study is to determine the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin (an SGLT2 inhibitor) compared with DPP-4 inhibitors when added to metformin and sulfonylurea in people with type 2 diabetes in the Netherlands.

Methods

A cost-utility analysis is performed using the Cardiff diabetes model, a fixed-time increment stochastic simulation model informed by 'United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 68' risk equations. The base-case analysis uses a 40-year time horizon, a Dutch societal perspective and differential discounting (4% for costs, 1.5% for effects). Inputs are obtained from the literature and Dutch price lists. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis are performed.

Results

Dapagliflozin is dominant compared with DPP-4 inhibitors, resulting in a €990 cost saving and a 0.28 quality-adjusted life year gain over 40 years. Cost savings are associated mainly with treatment costs and a reduced incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications, among others nephropathy, myocardial infarction and stroke. Results are robust to changes in input parameters.

Conclusions

Dapagliflozin is a cost-saving alternative to DPP-4 inhibitors when added to metformin and sulfonylurea. The incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications is lower for people treated with dapagliflozin. Uncertainty around this outcome is low.

SUBMITTER: Van der Linden N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8048925 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTo date there is a lack of economic analysis comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) to sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Liraglutide and dapagliflozin are the most commonly prescribed GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i in the UK. This analysis investigated the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg/day compared to dapagliflozin 10 mg/day for the treatment of T2DM in the UK in patients on dual and triple antidiabetic therapy.MethodsCost-effectiveness analysis was conducted in the QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM). The model estimated expected costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon using the UK national payer perspective. Liraglutide efficacy estimates and patient characteristics were sourced from a trial in patients on prior metformin monotherapy, and from a trial in patients on prior combination therapy. Comparative efficacy data for the other interventions were derived from a network meta-analysis. Utility inputs were extracted from a systematic literature review. Costs are presented in Great British Pound (GBP), 2016 values.ResultsIn dual and triple therapy, liraglutide 1.2 mg was less costly and more effective compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg, providing a QALY gain of 0.04 and cost savings of GBP 11 per patient in dual therapy, and a QALY gain of 0.06 and cost savings of GBP 71 per patient in triple therapy. For liraglutide 1.8 mg, increased efficacy and costs compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg were observed in both dual and triple therapy. In dual therapy, a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional costs of GBP 888 per patient yielded an ICER of GBP 13,227, whereas in triple therapy a QALY gain of 0.07 and additional cost of GBP 791 per patient gave an ICER of 11,857.ConclusionThis long-term modelling analysis found that both dosages of liraglutide may be cost-effective treatment alternatives as part of a dual or a triple antidiabetic therapy in patients for whom an SGLT-2i therapy is considered.FundingNovo Nordisk.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Insulin analogues may be associated with fewer episodes of hypoglycemia than conventional insulins. However, they are costly alternatives. We compared the cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues and conventional insulins used to treat type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in adults. METHODS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness evaluation of insulin analogues versus conventional insulins using the Center for Outcomes Research Diabetes Model. We compared rapid-acting analogues (insulin aspart and insulin lispro) with regular human insulin, and long-acting analogues (insulin glargine and insulin detemir) with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. We derived clinical information for the comparisons from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. We obtained cost and utility estimates from published sources. We performed sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our results. RESULTS: For type 1 diabetes, insulin aspart was more effective and less costly than regular human insulin. Insulin lispro was associated with an incremental cost of Can$28,996 per quality-adjusted life-year. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year was Can$87,932 for insulin glargine and Can$387,729 for insulin detemir, compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin. For type 2 diabetes, insulin aspart was associated with an incremental cost of Can$22,488 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with regular human insulin. For insulin lispro, the incremental cost was Can$130,865. Compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin, insulin detemir was less effective and more costly. Insulin glargine was associated with an incremental cost of Can$642,994 per quality-adjusted life-year. The model was sensitive to changes in the effect size of hemoglobin A(1c) and to decrements applied to utility scores when fear of hypoglycemia was included as a factor. INTERPRETATION: The cost-effectiveness of insulin analogues depends on the type of insulin analogue and whether the patient receiving the treatment has type 1 or type 2 diabetes. With the exception of rapid-acting insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes, routine use of insulin analogues, especially long-acting analogues in type 2 diabetes, is unlikely to represent an efficient use of finite health care resources.