RESUMO
Purpose: Globally, the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise, with the number of affected individuals predicted to cross 700 million by 2045. In Greece, in 2015, almost 700,000 people received prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes. The CELESTIA study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared to branded sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients both with and without established cardiovascular disease in Greece from a third payer perspective. Methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used and analyses were conducted from the Greek healthcare payer perspective. Patients received either empagliflozin or sitagliptin until HbA1c threshold of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) was exceeded. Subsequently, patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from clinical trial data. Literature data were used for input (utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications costs). A lifetime time horizon (50 years) was applied, and costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%. Results: Over a lifetime horizon, for empagliflozin, the estimated ICER was of 6,587 and 966 per quality-adjusted life years gained versus sitagliptin, in patients without established cardiovascular disease and in patients with established cardiovascular disease, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the analysis. Conclusion: The analysis demonstrated that for type 2 diabetes patients, empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option versus branded sitagliptin in Greece.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) accounts for approximately 95% of all diabetes cases and is associated with a substantially elevated risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) that is 2- to 4-times higher in patients with T2DM compared to those without. The aim of present study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of empagliflozin compared to dapagliflozin for the treatment of patients with T2DM and established CVD in Greece. METHODS: A published health economic model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes of T2DM patients receiving empagliflozin compared to those receiving dapagliflozin. Individual patient-level discrete-event simulation was conducted to predict time-to-event for CV, renal, and adverse events over patients' lifetimes. Hazard ratios for dapagliflozin versus empagliflozin on each clinical event was estimated from DECLARE-TIMI 58 and EMPA-REG OUTCOME trials' data using an indirect treatment comparison. Following a public payer perspective, only direct medical costs related to drug acquisition, fatal/non-fatal diabetes-related complications and adverse events were considered (2020). Model extrapolated outcomes included life years (LY), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data. RESULTS: Over a patient's lifetime, empagliflozin was associated with longer mean survival (17.23 LY with empagliflozin vs 16.07 LY with dapagliflozin) and reduced rate of CV mortality resulting in 0.48 more QALYs (9.27 vs 8.79), at additional costs of 462. The generated ICER of empagliflozin was 965 per QALY gained. Deterministic sensitivity analysis confirmed empagliflozin's cost-effective profile. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that the probability of empagliflozin being cost effective over dapagliflozin was 100%, at the defined threshold of 36,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Empagliflozin was estimated to be a highly cost-effective treatment option compared to dapagliflozin for the treatment of T2DM patients with established CVD in Greece.