Pharmacogenetic-guided glimepiride therapy in type-2 diabetes mellitus: a cost-effectiveness study.

The demonstration of the link between certain genetic variations and drug response has allowed the emergence of pharmacogenetics, which offers many opportunities to improve patient care. Type-2 diabetes mellitus is a disease for which several gene polymorphisms have been reported to be associated with drug response. Sulfonylureas are commonly used for the management of this disease. Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2C9, the main enzyme involved in the metabolism of sulfonylureas, have been associated with the risk of severe hypoglycaemia, particularly in poor metabolizers carrying CYP2C9 *3/*3 genotype, and especially in the case of patients treated with glimepiride. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the potential clinical and economic outcomes of using CYP2C9 genotype data to guide the management of SU regimen in patients initiating glimepiride therapy, and to identify factors affecting the cost-effectiveness of this treatment scheme. The analysis was conducted using a decision tree, considering a 1-year time horizon, and taking as perspective that of the French national health insurance system. With pharmacogenetic-guided therapy, the cost to avoid an episode of severe hypoglycaemia event per 100 000 patients treated was €421 834. Genotyping cost was the most influential factor on the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. In conclusion, the potential cost of CYP2C9 genotype-guided dosing for glimepiride therapy is relatively high, and associated with modest improvements with respect to the number of hypoglycaemia avoided, as compared with standard dosing. Additional economic studies are required to better specify the usefulness of CYP2C9 genotyping prior to glimepiride regimen initiation.

[Medical expenses for diabetes care in Japan: Analysis of inter-prefecture differences].

Objectives　Medical expenses for diabetes differ between Japan's 47 prefectures. The medical care expenditure regulation plan aims to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs through prevention of severe diabetes, promotion of specific health checkups and specific health guidance, promotion of generic drugs, and proper use of medicines. To achieve this goal, we need to conduct an in-depth analysis of inter-prefecture differences in diabetes care expenses. This study analyzed regional differences in prescription fees for dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors and the use of generic sulfonylureas (SUs), glinides, biguanides, α-glucosidase inhibitors (α-GIs), and thiazoline derivatives, using the National Database of Health Insurance Claims and Specific Health Checkups of Japan (NDB). Furthermore, we analyzed regional differences in consultancy fees for dialysis prevention.Methods　We analyzed the 2nd NDB Open Data Japan website of the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to evaluate the relationship between the medical costs of diabetes and each factor. The correlation coefficient was analyzed with Student's t-test, and a P-value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results　Regarding oral hypoglycemic drugs, prefectures with a large number of DPP-4 inhibitors tended to have higher medical costs of diabetes (r=0.40, P=0.0048). Furthermore, such expenses tended to be low in prefectures where the use of generic SU drugs was high (r=-0.43, P=0.0023).Conclusions　In conclusion, the results revealed regional differences in the use of DPP-4 inhibitors and generic SU drugs, which may contribute to the regional differences in medical expenses for diabetes. This study suggests that NDB open data are useful for policy making to reduce regional differences in outpatient medical costs of diabetes.

Cost Utility of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Metformin Monotherapy Failed Type 2 Diabetes Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and associated ailments are leading economic burdens to society. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are recent antidiabetic medications with beneficial clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis was conducted to quantitatively pool the incremental net benefit of SGLT2 inhibitors in T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy. METHODS: Relevant economic evaluation studies of T2DM patients were identified from PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, and the Tufts Cost-Effective Analysis Registry until June 2018. Studies were eligible if they studied T2DM patients who failed metformin monotherapy and assessed the cost-effectiveness/utility between SGLT2 inhibitors and other treatments. Details of the study characteristics, economic model inputs, costs, and outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the biases in economic studies (ECOBIAS) checklist. The incremental net benefit was calculated with monetary units adjusting for purchasing power parity for 2017 US dollars. This was then pooled across studies stratified by the country's level of income using a random-effect model if heterogeneity was present and with a fixed-effect model otherwise. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I2 statistic. RESULTS: A total of 13 studies with 22 comparisons, mainly from high-income countries, were eligible. Six and 4 studies compared SGLT2 with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) and sulfonylureas, respectively. The pooled incremental net benefits (95% confidence interval) for these corresponding comparisons were $164.95 (-$534.71 to $864.61; I2 = 0%) and $3675.09 ($1656.46-$5693.71; I2 = 85.4%), respectively. These results indicate that SGLT2s were cost-effective in comparison with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. CONCLUSION: SGLT2s were cost-effective as compared with sulfonylureas but not DPP4i. Most of the evidence was from high-income countries with few comparative drug groups, and the results might not be representative of the actual global scenario. Further studies from middle and lower economies and other comparators are still required.

Pharmaceutical quality evaluation of different glimepiride brands marketed in Karachi (Pakistan): In pursuance to global issue of availability and affordability of quality medicines.

Availability of economical quality medicines is always required for chronic disease management. Price differences among multiple brands of a product do not essentially displays low quality for the more affordable brand, however in a few occurrences it appears. Glimepiride, an oral anti-diabetic drug, is produced by several national and multinational industries in Pakistan with considerable cost variation. The study aimed to evaluate the quality and economy of various Glimepiride brands available in Karachi, specifically of public sector hospitals. For this, eight glimepiride brands were collected and analyzed for the pharmaceutical quality using physical parameters, disintegration test, dissolution profile, spectrophotometric assay and content uniformity. Pharmacoeconomic assessment was also carried out such as availability, affordability and price variation. A profound discrepancy was observed among the prices of selected brands. All of the products found to be equivalent to the reference product except G5, the most inexpensive and highest consumed product of a public sector hospital. Study concludes that products with higher quality and lesser price can be used as a substitute to the costly brands while availability of a substandard product looks for consideration of pertinent authorities to assure the distribution of quality medicines.

Trends in Diabetes Treatment and Monitoring among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a costly and common condition, but little is known about recent trends in diabetes management among Medicare beneficiaries. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of diabetes medications and testing supplies among Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective cohort analysis of Medicare claims from 2007 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of diabetes in the current or any prior year. MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed choices of first diabetes medication for those new to medication and patterns of adding medications. We also examined the use of testing supplies, use of statins and ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and spending. KEY RESULTS: Diagnosed diabetes increased from 28.7% to 30.2% of beneficiaries from 2007 to 2014. The use of metformin as the most commonly prescribed first medication increased from 50.2% in 2007 to 70.2% in 2014, whereas long-acting sulfonylureas decreased from 16.6% to 8.2%. The use of thiazolidinediones fell considerably, while the use of new diabetes medication classes increased. Among patients prescribed insulin, long-acting insulin as the first choice increased substantially, from 38.9% to 56.8%, but short-acting or combination regimens remained common, particularly among older or sicker beneficiaries. Prescriptions of testing supplies for more than once-daily testing were also common. The mean total cost of diabetes medications per patient increased over the period due to the increasing use of high-cost drugs, particularly by those patients with costs above the 90th percentile of spending, although the median costs decreased for both medications and testing supplies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of metformin and long-acting insulin have increased substantially among elderly Medicare patients with diabetes, but a substantial subgroup continues to receive costly and complex treatment regimens.

The pattern of prescribing of glucose modulating agents for type 2 diabetes in general practices in England 2016/17.

BACKGROUND: In the financial year 2016/17 there were 52.0 million items prescribed for diabetes at a total net ingredient cost of £983.7 million - up from 28.9 million prescription items and £572.4 million in 2006/07. Anti-diabetes drugs (British National Formulary section 6.1.2) make up 45.1 per cent of the total £983.7 million net ingredient cost of drugs used in diabetes and account for 72.0 per cent of prescription items for all diabetes prescribing. METHODS: We examined the way that agents licensed to treat type 2 diabetes were used across GP practices in England in the year 2016/2017. Analysis was at a GP practice level not at the level of patient data. RESULTS: Annual prescribing costs / patient / medication type for monotherapy varied considerable from £11/year for gliclazide and glimepiride to £885/year for Liraglutide. The use of SGLT-2i agents grew strongly at 70% per annum to around 100,000 DDD with prescriptions seen in 95% of GP practices. Liraglutide expenditure (11% of total) was high for a relatively small number of patients (1.3% of Defined Daily Doses), with still significant spend on exenatide. Liraglutide use significantly exceeded that of other glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists. CONCLUSIONS: Our work demonstrates the significant cost of medication to modulate tissue glucose levels in type 2 diabetes and the dominance of some non-generic preparations in terms of number of prescriptions and overall spend. There are some older sulphonylureas in use, which should not generally be prescribed. Regular audit of patient treatment at a general practice level will ensure appropriate targeted use of licensed medications and of their cost effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin+dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors compared to metformin+sulfonylureas for treatment of type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically use several drug treatments during their lifetime. There is a debate about the best second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure due to the increasing number of available antidiabetic drugs and the lack of comparative clinical trials of secondary treatment regimens. While prior research compared the cost-effectiveness of two alternative drugs, the literature assessing T2D treatment pathways is scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) compared to sulfonylureas (SU) as second-line therapy in combination with metformin in patients with T2D. METHODS: A Markov model was developed with four health states, 1 year cycle, and a 25-year time horizon. Clinical and cost data were collected from previous studies and other readily available secondary data sources. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated from the US third party payer perspective. Both, costs and outcomes, were discounted at a 3% annual discount rate. One way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainty on the base-case results. RESULTS: The discounted incremental cost of metformin+DPP-4i compared to metformin+SU was $11,849 and the incremental life-years gained were 0.61, resulting in an ICER of $19,420 per life-year gained for patients in the metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway. The ICER estimated in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis was $19,980 per life-year gained. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results of the study were not sensitive to changes in the parameters used in base-case. CONCLUSIONS: The metformin+DPP-4i treatment pathway was cost-effective compared to metformin+SU as a long-term second-line therapy in the treatment of T2D from the US health care payer perspective. Study findings have the potential to provide clinicians and third party payers valuable evidence for the prescription and utilization of cost-effective second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy failure in the treatment of T2D.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of glimepiride combined with other drugs in the treatment of diabetes.

The goal of diabetic drug treatment is to stabilize the blood sugar for a long time to close to the normal level, to correct the metabolic disorder and eliminate the symptoms. At present, glimepiride has become commonly used drugs for the treatment of diabetes with obesity. Compared with metformin, acarbose and rosiglitazone, glimepiride has different mechanisms of drug action, clinical combination showed synergistic hypoglycemic effect, good clinical curative effect. So, we use three treatments to study as group A (glimepiride and metformin); group B (glimepiride and acarbose); Group C (glimepiride and rosiglitazone). From the analysis of drug economics, glimepiride and metformin scheme is better, has the lowest cost per unit cost effect. From the comparison of scheme is efficient, the best curative effect is rosiglitazone plus glimepiride, effective rate as 96.7%. At the same time, the drug can be rationally used to reduce the occurrence of some drug-induced diseases and adverse drug reactions.

Direct medical costs of severe hypoglycaemic events in patients with type 2 diabetes in England: A retrospective database study.

AIMS: Hypoglycaemia in patients with diabetes can be induced by insulins and sulfonylureas. We assessed the real-world impact of specific monotherapy and combination regimens on hypoglycaemic events requiring hospitalisation and related secondary costs to the English healthcare system. METHODS: This retrospective observational study used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink with linked hospital admission data during 2008-2012. Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) using antihyperglycaemic agents (AHAs) were assigned to mutually exclusive subgroups (insulin- and non-insulin-containing regimens; treatment groups of interest; age group) based on treatment at index date (date of first AHA prescription). Outcomes were number and cost of hospital admissions with hypoglycaemic event-related diagnosis codes. RESULTS: We identified 110 206 patients with T2DM (mean age 64.9 years, time since diagnosis 5.4 years, HbA1c at index 7.4%), with 439 hypoglycaemic events requiring inpatient hospitalisation (mean length of stay 6.3 days, mean cost/stay £1351). Event rates and cost of stay were highest in patients treated with sulfonylurea- or insulin-based regimens. Event rates, duration and cost of stay were higher in older patients. CONCLUSION: Rates of severe hypoglycaemic events varied substantially between T2DM regimens. In this study of patients treated in clinical practice in England, sulfonylurea- and insulin-based regimens were associated with the highest event rates and costs associated with hospitalisation for severe hypoglycaemic events; hospitalisation for severe hypoglycaemic events was not observed with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy or with metformin.

The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sulfonylurea as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor, compared with a sulfonylurea, when added to metformin for treatment of UK people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin alone. METHODS: Clinical inputs sourced from a head-to-head randomized controlled trial (RCT) informed the Cardiff diabetes decision model. Risk equations developed from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) were used in conjunction with the clinical inputs to predict disease progression and the incidence of micro- and macrovascular complications over a lifetime horizon. Cost and utility data were generated to present the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both treatment arms, and sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the impact of uncertainty on the final model results. RESULTS: The dapagliflozin treatment arm was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.467 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.420; 0.665], with an incremental cost of £1246 (95% CI: £613; £1637). This resulted in an ICER point estimate of £2671 per QALY gained. Incremental costs were shown to be insensitive to parameter variation, with only treatment-related weight change having a significant impact on the incremental QALYs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis determined that dapagliflozin had a 100% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin in combination with metformin was shown to be a cost-effective treatment option compared with sulfonylurea from a UK healthcare perspective for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

Regional variation in use of a new class of antidiabetic medication among medicare beneficiaries: the case of incretin mimetics.

BACKGROUND: When incretin mimetic (IM) medications were introduced in 2005, their effectiveness compared with other less-expensive second-line diabetes therapies was unknown, especially for older adults. Physicians likely had some uncertainty about the role of IMs in the diabetes treatment armamentarium. Regional variation in uptake of IMs may be a marker of such uncertainty. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the extent of regional variation in the use of IMs among beneficiaries and estimate the cost implications for Medicare. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional analysis of 2009-2010 claims data from a nationally representative sample of 238 499 Medicare Part D beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, who were continuously enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and Part D and filled ≥1 antidiabetic prescription. Beneficiaries were assigned to 1 of 306 hospital-referral regions (HRRs) using ZIP codes. The main outcome was adjusted proportion of antidiabetic users in an HRR receiving an IM. RESULTS: Overall, 29 933 beneficiaries (12.6%) filled an IM prescription, including 26 939 (11.3%) for sitagliptin or saxagliptin and 3718 (1.6%) for exenatide or liraglutide. The adjusted proportion of beneficiaries using IMs varied more than 3-fold across HRRs, from 5th and 95th percentiles of 5.2% to 17.0%. Compared with non-IM users, IM users faced a 155% higher annual Part D plan ($1067 vs $418) and 144% higher patient ($369 vs $151) costs for antidiabetic prescriptions. CONCLUSION: Among older Part D beneficiaries using antidiabetic drugs, substantial regional variation exists in the use of IMs, not accounted for by sociodemographics and health status. IM use was associated with substantially greater costs for Part D plans and beneficiaries.

[How I treat...The choice between a sulphonylulrea and a gliptin to manage hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes]. / Comment je traite...Le choix entre un sulfamide hypoglycémiant et une gliptine pour traiter le diabète de type 2.

The pharmacological therapy of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes becomes increasingly complex. After failure of metformin monotherapy, several choices are possible. In clinical practice, the most common dilemma is to choose between adding a sulphonylurea or adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (gliptin). This review analyses the arguments in favour of one or the other pharmacological option, based upon criteria of efficacy, tolerance, safety, easiness of use, use in at risk populations and, last but not least, cost of therapy. In general, a patient-centered approach is recommended with an individualization of the therapy in function of the characteristics of each patient with the aim to obtain the best benefits/ risks ratio, at an affordable cost.

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sulfonylureas and newer diabetes drugs as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1-RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) compared with sulfonylureas and glinides (SU). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study based on linked regional healthcare utilization databases. The cohort included all residents in Lombardy aged ≥40 years, treated with metformin in 2014, who started a second-line treatment between 2015 and 2018 with SU, GLP-1-RA, SGLT2i, or DPP-4i. For each cohort member who started SU, one patient who began other second-line treatments was randomly selected and matched for sex, age, Multisource Comorbidity Score, and previous duration of metformin treatment. Cohort members were followed up until December 31, 2022. The association between second-line treatment and clinical outcomes was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared between newer diabetes drugs and SU. RESULTS: Overall, 22 867 patients with diabetes were included in the cohort, among which 10 577, 8125, 2893 and 1272 started a second-line treatment with SU, DPP-4i, SGLT2i and GLP-1-RA, respectively. Among these, 1208 patients for each group were included in the matched cohort. As compared with SU, those treated with DPP-4i, SGLT2i and GLP-1-RA were associated to a risk reduction for hospitalization for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of 22% (95% CI 3% to 37%), 29% (95% CI 12% to 44%) and 41% (95% CI 26% to 53%), respectively. The ICER values indicated an average gain of €96.2 and €75.7 each month free from MACE for patients on DPP-4i and SGLT2i, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Newer diabetes drugs are more effective and cost-effective second-line options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes than SUs.

Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide compared with sulphonylurea or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin monotherapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of liraglutide as add-on to metformin vs. glimepiride or sitagliptin in patients with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled with first-line metformin. METHODS: Data were sourced from a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. glimepiride, both in combination with metformin, and a clinical trial comparing liraglutide vs. sitagliptin, both as add-on to metformin. Only the subgroup of patients in whom liraglutide was added to metformin monotherapy was included in the cost-utility analysis. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to simulate outcomes and costs with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg vs. glimepiride and vs. sitagliptin over patients' lifetimes. Treatment effects were taken directly from the trials. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum and costs were accounted from a third-party payer (UK National Health System) perspective. RESULTS: Treatment with liraglutide 1.2 and 1.8 mg resulted, respectively, in mean increases in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32 ± 0.15 and 0.28 ± 0.14 quality-adjusted life years vs. glimepiride, and 0.19 ± 0.15 and 0.31 ± 0.15 quality-adjusted life years vs. sitagliptin, and was associated with higher costs of £ 3003 ± £ 678 and £ 4688 ± £ 639 vs. glimepiride, and £ 1842 ± £ 751 and £ 3224 ± £ 683 vs. sitagliptin, over a patient's lifetime. Both liraglutide doses were cost-effective, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £ 9449 and £ 16,501 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. glimepiride, and £ 9851 and £ 10,465 per quality-adjusted life year gained vs. sitagliptin, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide, added to metformin monotherapy, is a cost-effective option for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes in a UK setting.

Quantifying the impact of drug exposure misclassification due to restrictive drug coverage in administrative databases: a simulation cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Drug exposure misclassification may occur in administrative databases when individuals obtain nonreimbursed drugs by paying "out-of-pocket" or via alternative drug coverage plans. We examined the apparent association between oral antidiabetic therapy and mortality by simulating the effects of restrictive drug coverage policies. METHODS: Population-based cohort study of 12,272 new patients using oral antidiabetic agents were identified using the administrative databases of Saskatchewan Health, 1991 to 1996. We randomly misclassified 0% [base case], 10%, 25%, and 50% of known patients taking metformin according to either overt drug exposure (e.g., metformin users switched to nonusers) or time of metformin initiation (e.g., delayed capture of exposure); thereby simulating the use of a "non-formulary" or "special authorization" policy, respectively. We also simulated an age-dependent coverage policy, mimicking a policy restricted to seniors. RESULTS: Metformin use was associated with lower mortality compared with sulfonylurea use in the base case (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.78-0.99) and the nonformulary simulations. The special authorization simulations demonstrated, however, an increasing relative mortality hazard of metformin versus sulfonylurea exposure: aHR 0.96, 95% CI 0.96-0.97 and aHR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31-1.37, for 10% and 50% delays in coverage capture respectively when 50% of metformin users were misclassified. Age-dependent drug coverage had a variable impact on mortality risk compared with the base-case cohort; however, a new-user simulation with a 1-year washout revealed consistent results to the base-case analysis. CONCLUSION: Restrictive drug coverage policies may result in substantial drug exposure misclassification, potentially severely biasing the results of drug-outcome relationships using administrative databases.

Cost-utility analysis of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes patients in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term cost-utility of liraglutide versus glimepiride as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), based on the results of clinical trial conducted in Asian population. METHODS: The validated UKPDS Outcomes Model was used to project life expectancy, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs), incidence of diabetes-related complication and cost of complications in patients receiving those regimens. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from an Asian study. China-specific complication costs and utility score were taken from local studies. Patients' outcomes were modeled for 30 years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for liraglutide compared with glimepiride from the healthcare system perspective. Both future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3 percent. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over a period of 30 years, compared with glimepiride, liraglutide 1.8 mg was associated with improvements in life expectancy (0.1 year) and quality adjusted life-year (0.168 QALY), and a reduced incidence of diabetes-related complications leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY gained versus glimepiride of CNY 25,6871 (DEC 2010, 1 USD = 6.6227 CNY). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections indicated that liraglutide was associated with increased life expectancy, QALYs, and reduced complication incidences comparing with glimepiride. When the UK cost of liraglutide was discounted by 38 percent, liraglutide would be a cost-effective option in China from the healthcare system perspective using the 3X GDP/capita per QALY as the WTP threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin.

BACKGROUND: Metformin is widely accepted as first-line pharmacotherapy for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus when glycemic control cannot be achieved by lifestyle interventions alone. However, uncertainty exists regarding the optimal second-line therapy for patients whose diabetes is inadequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Increased use of newer, more costly agents, along with the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes, carries significant budgetary implications for health care systems. We conducted this analysis to determine the relative costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of options for second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We used the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model to forecast diabetes-related complications, quality-adjusted life-years and costs of alternative second-line therapies available in Canada for adults with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled by metformin. We obtained clinical data from a systematic review and mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis, and we obtained information on costs and utilities from published sources. We performed extensive sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of results to variation in inputs and assumptions. RESULTS: Sulphonylureas, when added to metformin, were associated with the most favourable cost-effectiveness estimate, with an incremental cost of $12 757 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, relative to continued metformin monotherapy. Treatment with other agents, including thiazolidinediones and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, had unfavourable cost-effectiveness estimates compared with sulphonylureas. These results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses. INTERPRETATION: For most patients with type 2 diabetes that is inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy, the addition of a sulphonylurea represents the most cost-effective second-line therapy.

Analysis of pharmacoeconomic value of sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Diabetes mellitus is a chronic metabolic disease which has an adverse impact on the quality of patient's life, so patients often need to receive treatment for a long time. Selection of medications with high therapeutics effects and low cost is very important for patients to take medicine for a longer period of time. Sitagliptin is a drug which is widely used in clinics and can effectively control blood glucose level. This article explores the pharmacoeconomic value of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetes mellitus. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 100 patients with diabetes mellitus treated were recruited in this study. The patients were randomly divided into 4 groups with 25 cases in each group. Patients in group A were treated with pioglitazone, group B with Sitagliptin, group C with metformin and group D with glimepiride. The cost of the drugs, the treatment results and adverse effects were compared. RESULTS: Compared with group A, C and D, the cost-effectiveness ratio of group B was low (p<0.05), and the therapeutic effect was high (p<0.05). In addition, the incidence of adverse reactions in group B was lower than that in group A, C and D (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in patients among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the levels of FPG, 2hPG and HbAlc in group B were significantly lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). Finally, there was no significant difference in waist circumference and BMI among the four groups before treatment (p>0.05). After treatment, the waist circumference and BMI in group B were lower than those in groups A, C and D (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The application of Sitagliptin in the treatment of diabetic patients can effectively enhance the therapeutic effect. The cost effectiveness is satisfactory, and the blood glucose level can be maintained at a stable state.