Cost-Effectiveness of Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 Inhibitors Added to Metformin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Purpose: Dipeptidylpeptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, including linagliptin, alogliptin, saxagliptin, sitagliptin, and vildagliptin, are used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients in China. This study assessed the economic outcomes of different DPP-4 inhibitors in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the Chinese context. Materials and Methods: In this study, the validated Chinese Outcomes Model for T2DM (COMT) was conducted to project economic outcomes from the perspective of Chinese healthcare service providers. Efficacy and safety, medical expenditure, and utility data were derived from the literature, which were assigned to model variables. The primary outputs of the model included the lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probability sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the potential uncertainties of parameters. Results: Of the five competing strategies, alogliptin 25 mg strategy yielded the most significant health outcome, which associated with improvements in discounted QALY of 0.007, 0.014, 0.011, and 0.022 versus linagliptin 5 mg, saxagliptin 5 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and vildagliptin50 mg, respectively. The sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was the cheapest option. The ICER of alogliptin 25 mg against sitagliptin 100 mg strategy was $6,952 per additional QALY gained, and the rest of the strategies were dominated or extended dominated. The most influential parameters were the cost of DPP-4 inhibitors and their treatment efficacy. Conclusions: These results suggested that alogliptin was a preferred treatment option compared with other DPP-4 inhibitors for Chinese patients whose T2DM are inadequately controlled on metformin monotherapy.

[Efficacy of Saxagliptin for Blood Glucose Control in Hemodialysis Patients with Diabetes].

Studies on the drug saxagliptin (marketed in Japan since 2013) suggest favorable efficacy in hemodialysis patients, but included small sample sizes. Noting that some hemodialysis patients at our medical institution had been switched to saxagliptin 2.5 mg from treatment with other dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, we decided to evaluate the effects of switching to saxagliptin on blood glucose control in these patients. The study included 11 patients. Before switching drugs, six of the patients used teneligliptin 20 mg and five used linagliptin 5 mg. Mean glycated albumin (GA) from before to 4 months after switching tended to increase in the previous users of teneligliptin 20 mg (18.4±3.0% to 19.5±2.7%) and tended to decrease in the previous users of linagliptin 5 mg (18.8±3.3% to 17.7±1.4%). Lack of a substantial change in GA when the previous users of teneligliptin 20 mg and linagliptin 5 mg were switched to saxagliptin 2.5 mg indicates that these three agents might have comparable antihyperglycemic profiles when used in patients on hemodialysis. Future research following from this pilot study must evaluate the risk of cardiac failure and incidences of adverse events in a larger population, to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety of switching to saxagliptin.

Concordance with prescribing information dosage recommendations for dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitors among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of patients with moderate to severe chronic kidney disease (CKD) whose initial dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4-i) dosage was concordant with prescribing information (label) recommendations in the United States. METHODS: Adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated a DPP4-i (linagliptin, sitagliptin, saxagliptin) between 1 January 2011 and 30 June 2014 were identified using electronic medical records and administrative claims, with index date being the date of first observed DPP4-i treatment. Patients were required to have chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3b, 4 or 5 (estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate [eGFR] value <45 ml/min/1.73 m2) during the 12 month pre-index period. Patients were classified as concordant or not concordant based on whether the first prescribed dose was consistent with label recommendations. Demographics, clinical characteristics, resource use and costs during pre-index were evaluated by DPP4-i concordance status. RESULTS: Of the 492 patients (323 sitagliptin, 57 saxagliptin, 112 linagliptin), 36.2% were prescribed doses that were not concordant with label recommendations (44.9% for sitagliptin, 57.9% for saxagliptin and 0% for linagliptin [which does not require dosage adjustment]). Concordant patients were slightly older (mean age 71 years vs. 68, p = .01) but had similar gender distribution (55% vs. 60% female, p = .31) compared to those who were not concordant. They had lower general health status (Charlson Comorbidity Score 2.6 vs. 2.2, p = .03), and had similar pre-index all-cause total costs ($25,245 vs. $21,972, p = .68) and lower pre-index T2DM-related costs ($1618 vs. $1922, p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: More than a third of DPP4-i patients with CKD stage 3b or higher were prescribed doses not concordant with DPP4-i label dosage recommendations.

Assessment of the Risk of Hospitalization for Heart Failure With Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors, Saxagliptin, Alogliptin, and Sitagliptin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes, Using an Alternative Measure to the Hazard Ratio.

BACKGROUND: Saxagliptin statistically significantly increased the risk of hospitalization for heart failure compared with placebo in the clinical trial of SAVOR-TIMI 53. Neither the reason why only saxagliptin among several dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors increased the risk, nor the clinical implication of the result has been explained. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of hospitalization for heart failure associated with DPP-4 inhibitors by using an alternative measure to the hazard ratio. METHODS: We used the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST) between DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular events, including hospitalization for heart failure associated with DPP-4 inhibitors. Three randomized clinical trials with cardiovascular events as a primary end point-EXAMINE (alogliptin), SAVOR-TIMI 53 (saxagliptin), and TECOS (sitagliptin)-were reevaluated by estimating the RMSTs for the DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo based on the reconstructed individual patient data for each time-to-event outcome from publicly available information. RESULTS: The differences of RMSTs (DPP-4 inhibitors minus placebo) for hospitalization for heart failure were -4 days [-6, -2] in the SAVOR-TIMI 53 (720 days follow-up), -3 days [-9, 3] in the EXAMINE (900 days follow-up), and 1 day [-5, 7] in the TECOS (1440 days follow-up). There were no substantial differences in the risk of other cardiovascular outcomes between DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There are no substantial clinically relevant differences in the risk of cardiovascular events, including hospitalization for heart failure, between 3 of the DPP-4 inhibitors and placebo.

Bioequivalence and food effect assessment for vildagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination tablets relative to free combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Japanese healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the bioequivalence of vildagliptin/metformin fixeddose combination (FDC) tablets (50/250 mg and 50/500 mg) to free combinations of vildagliptin and metformin and the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vildagliptin and metformin following administration of 50/500 mg FDC tablets. METHODS: Two openlabel, randomized, single-center, singledose, 2-period crossover studies were conducted in Japanese healthy male volunteers. Participants were administered vildagliptin/ metformin FDC tablets (study I: 50/250 mg, study II: 50/500 mg) or their free combinations under fasted condition. Food effect (standard Japanese breakfast: fat, 20 - 30% with ~ 600 kcal in total) was assessed during an additional period in study II (50/500 mg). PK parameters (AUC, C(max), t(max), t(1/2)) were calculated for vildagliptin and metformin. RESULTS: In both studies, vildagliptin/metformin FDC tablets were bioequivalent to their respective free combinations. Administration of FDC tablets after meals had no effect on vildagliptin PK parameters. The rate of absorption of metformin decreased when administered under fed condition, as reflected by a prolonged t(max) (3 hours in fasted state vs. 4 hours in fed state) and decrease in C(max) by 26%, however, the extent of absorption (AUC(last)) was similar to that in the fasted state. CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin/metformin FDC tablets were bioequivalent to their free combinations. Food decreased the C(max) of metformin by 26%, while AUC(last) was unchanged, consistent with previous reports. No food effect was observed on the C(max) or AUC(last) of vildagliptin. Thus, food had no clinically relevant effects on the PK of metformin or vildagliptin.

Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin plus metformin vs generic sulphonylurea plus metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, not controlled with metformin, from a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was constructed using risk equations from the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model with a 10,000-patient cohort and a lifetime horizon. The model predicted microvascular and macrovascular complications and mortality in yearly cycles. Patients entered the model as metformin monotherapy failures and switched to alternative treatments (metformin plus basal-bolus insulin and subsequently metformin plus intensive insulin) when glycated hemoglobin A1c >7.5% was reached. Baseline patient characteristics and clinical variables were derived from a Portuguese epidemiological study. Cost estimates were based on direct medical costs only. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS: There were fewer non-fatal diabetes-related adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with patients treated with metformin plus sulphonylurea (6752 vs 6815). Addition of vildagliptin compared with sulphonylurea led to increased drug acquisition costs but reduced costs of AEs, managing morbidities, and monitoring patients. Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin yielded a mean per-patient gain of 0.1279 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and a mean per-patient increase in total cost of €1161, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €9072 per QALY. Univariate analyses showed that ICER values were robust and ranged from €4195 to €16,052 per QALY when different parameters were varied. LIMITATIONS: The model excluded several diabetes-related morbidities, such as peripheral neuropathy and ulceration, and did not model second events. Patients were presumed to enter the model with no diabetes-related complications. CONCLUSION: Treatment with metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea is expected to result in a lower incidence of diabetes-related AEs and to be a cost-effective treatment strategy.

Saxagliptin versus glipizide as add-on therapy to metformin: assessment of hypoglycemia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of hypoglycemic episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving saxagliptin or glipizide add-on therapy to metformin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of an international, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial. The 52-week trial and 52-week extension were conducted from December 2007 to August 2010. Patients aged ≥18 years with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) >6.5% to 10.0% receiving stable metformin doses (≥1500 mg/d) were randomized 1:1 to add-on therapy with saxagliptin 5 mg/d or glipizide 5 to 20 mg/d (titrated to optimal effect or highest tolerable dose during the initial 18 weeks). Hypoglycemic episodes were recorded in patient diaries. Confirmed hypoglycemic events were defined as fingerstick glucose ≤50 mg/dL (≤2.8 mmol/L) with associated symptoms. RESULTS: Of 858 patients randomized, 428 received saxagliptin + metformin, and 430 received glipizide + metformin. Saxagliptin was noninferior to glipizide in lowering HbA1c. Hypoglycemia with saxagliptin + metformin and glipizide + metformin was reported by 15 (24 events) and 165 (896 events) patients, respectively, through week 104. The mean (SD) number of hypoglycemic events per patient reporting hypoglycemia was lower with saxagliptin + metformin versus glipizide + metformin through weeks 52 (1.5 [SD 0.88] vs 4.8 [SD 4.9], respectively) and 104 (1.6 [SD 0.99] vs 5.4 [SD 5.8]). Most patients receiving glipizide + metformin with hypoglycemia had multiple events (124/165 patients [75%]). Confirmed hypoglycemia, major events, and severe events occurred only with glipizide + metformin. Time to first hypoglycemic event was shorter with glipizide versus saxagliptin. Limitations of this analysis include its post hoc nature, a high rate of study discontinuation, and exclusion of patients with serious comorbidities and complications. CONCLUSION: Saxagliptin + metformin was associated with fewer patients reporting hypoglycemia and fewer and less severe hypoglycemic events in those experiencing hypoglycemia compared with glipizide + metformin. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00575588.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Custo-efetividade e impacto orçamentário da saxagliptina como terapia adicional à metformina para o tratamento do diabetes mellitus tipo 2 no sistema de saúde suplementar do Brasil / Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the brazilian private health system

OBJETIVOS: Comparar custos e benefícios clínicos de três terapias adicionais à metformina (MF) para pacientes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DMT2). MÉTODOS: Um modelo de simulação de eventos discretos foi construído para estimar a relação custo-utilidade (custo por QALY) da saxagliptina como uma terapia adicional à MF comparada à rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona. Um modelo de impacto orçamentário (BIM - Budget Impact Model) foi construído para simular o impacto econômico da adoção de saxagliptina no contexto do Sistema Suplementar de Saúde brasileiro. RESULTADOS: O custo de aquisição da medicação para o grupo de pacientes hipotéticos analisados, para o horizonte temporal de três anos, foi de R$ 10.850.185,00, R$ 14.836.265,00 e R$ 14.679.099,00 para saxagliptina, pioglitazona e rosiglitazona, respectivamente. Saxagliptina exibiu menores custos e maior efetividade em ambas as comparações, com economias projetadas para os três primeiros anos de -R$ 3.874,00 e -R$ 3.996,00, respectivamente. O BIM estimou uma economia cumulativa de R$ 417.958,00 com o reembolso da saxagliptina em três anos a partir da perspectiva de uma operadora de plano de saúde com 1 milhão de vidas cobertas. CONCLUSÃO: Da perspectiva da fonte pagadora privada, a projeção é de que o acréscimo de saxagliptina à MF poupe custos quando comparado ao acréscimo de rosiglitazona ou pioglitazona em pacientes com DMT2 que não atingiram a meta de hemoglobina glicada (HbA1c) com metformina em monoterapia. O BIM, para a inclusão de saxagliptina nas listas de reembolso das operadoras de planos de saúde, indicou uma economia significativa para o horizonte de 3 anos.

OBJECTIVES: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). METHODS: A discrete event simulation model was built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY]) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. RESULTS: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Cost effectiveness of saxagliptin and metformin versus sulfonylurea and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany: a Cardiff diabetes model analysis.

BACKGROUND: The lack of adequate glycaemic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), especially with existing second-line therapies, represents an unmet medical need. Of the newer therapies, the incretin-based medicines, such as saxagliptin, look promising to consolidate second-line pharmacotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the long-term economic consequences of saxagliptin versus sulfonylurea (glipizide) as second-line therapy when used in combination with metformin after failure of monotherapy treatment with metformin, in patients with T2DM in Germany. METHODS: A published discrete event simulation model with a fixed-time increment was used to model the effects of different treatment scenarios over a 40-year (life-) time horizon. Disease progression was modelled using evidence from the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 68. The treatment sequence matched that of published German guidelines, and efficacy and safety data were derived from published sources. The model assumes that quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) are affected by complications, hypoglycaemic events and weight change over a lifetime. Costs were specific to the German setting, where sulfonylureas are generic. Costs and effects were discounted annually at 3%. The extended perspective of the national sick funds was adopted, and recommendations from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) were considered. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, treatment with saxagliptin plus metformin was associated with a lower incidence of both symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemic events, resulting in an incremental benefit of 0.12 QALYs and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €13,931 per QALY gained compared with sulfonylurea plus metformin (year of costing 2009). Modest reductions in all macro- and microvascular complications were seen in those receiving saxagliptin plus metformin compared with sulfonylurea plus metformin. Sensitivity analysis showed that treatment-related weight changes, as a risk factor for complications, represent the most influential driver of cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated improved outcomes with saxagliptin at a cost that would likely be considered acceptable in the German setting. Furthermore, the findings of the sensitivity analysis suggest that the results are robust to various assumptions concerning input variables and modelling assumptions.

The design and rationale of the saxagliptin assessment of vascular outcomes recorded in patients with diabetes mellitus-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (SAVOR-TIMI) 53 study.

OBJECTIVES: Saxagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by increasing endogenous active, intact glucagon-like peptide 1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide in response to food, which augments insulin secretion and decreases glucagon release. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: SAVOR-TIMI 53 is a phase 4, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 25 countries that is designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of saxagliptin during long-term treatment of approximately 16,500 patients with T2DM. Eligible patients who are either treatment naive or on any background antidiabetic treatment (except incretin therapy) with history of established cardiovascular (CV) disease or multiple risk factors are randomized 1:1 to saxagliptin 5 mg QD (2.5 mg in subjects with moderate/severe renal impairment) or matching placebo, stratified by qualifying disease state. The primary end point is the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke. The trial will continue until approximately 1,040 primary end points accrue, providing 85% power to identify a 17% relative reduction of the primary end point with saxagliptin versus placebo and 98% power to test for noninferiority of saxagliptin versus placebo (reject the upper limit of 95% CI for a hazard ratio <1.3 at a 1-sided α of .025). CONCLUSION: SAVOR-TIMI 53 is testing the hypothesis that treatment with saxagliptin is safe and reduces CV events in high-risk patients with T2DM.