Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin for patients with heart failure across the spectrum of ejection fraction: A pooled analysis of DAPA-HF and DELIVER data.

AIM: To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to usual care, compared with usual care alone, in a large population of patients with heart failure (HF), spanning the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient-level data were pooled from HF trials (DAPA-HF, DELIVER) to generate a population including HF with reduced, mildly reduced and preserved LVEF, to increase statistical power and enable exploration of interactions among LVEF, renal function and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels, as they are relevant determinants of health status in this population. Survival and HF recurrent event risk equations were derived and applied to a lifetime horizon Markov model with health states defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score quartiles; costs and utilities were in the UK setting. The base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £6470 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, well below the UK willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £20 000/QALY gained. In interaction sensitivity analyses, the highest ICER was observed for elderly patients with preserved LVEF (£16 624/QALY gained), and ranged to a region of dominance (increased QALYs, decreased costs) for patients with poorer renal function and reduced/mildly reduced LVEF. Results across the patient characteristic interaction plane were mostly between £5000 and £10 000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Dapagliflozin plus usual care, versus usual care alone, yielded results well below the WTP threshold for the UK across a heterogeneous population of patients with HF including the full spectrum of LVEF, and is likely a cost-effective intervention.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of add-on dapagliflozin for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from perspective of healthcare systems in Asia-Pacific region.

BACKGROUND: With emerging evidence on the efficacy of adding dapagliflozin to standard care for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), this study assessed the cost-effectiveness of add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone for HFrEF from the perspective of healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region. METHODS: A Markov model was applied to project the outcomes of treatment in terms of lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life-years. The transition probabilities between health states in the model were obtained from the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction trial. Country-specific costs and utilities were extracted for modeling. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio against a country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold was applied to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the robustness of the study results. Costs are presented in 2020 United States dollars. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for add-on dapagliflozin versus standard care alone were $5277, $9980, $12,305, $16,705, and $23,227 per quality-adjusted life-year gained in Korea, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and Singapore, respectively. When using add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone, ~ 100% of simulations were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of one gross domestic product per capita of the given Asia-Pacific country; however, the probability of being cost-effective for using add-on dapagliflozin decreased when the time horizon for simulation was restricted to 18 months and when the cardiovascular mortality for the two treatments (43.8% and 33.0%, respectively) was assumed to be the same. The cost-effectiveness results were most sensitive to cardiovascular mortality of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Adding dapagliflozin to standard care is cost-effective for HFrEF in healthcare systems in the Asia-Pacific region, which supports the rational use of dapagliflozin for HFrEF in this region.

Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Importance: Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction produces substantial morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Dapagliflozin is the first sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor approved for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction in patients with or without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation developed and used a Markov cohort model that compared dapagliflozin and guideline-directed medical therapy with guideline-directed medical therapy alone in a hypothetical cohort of US adults with similar clinical characteristics as participants of the Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction (DAPA-HF) trial. Dapagliflozin was assumed to cost $4192 annually. Nonparametric modeling was used to estimate long-term survival. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses examined the impact of parameter uncertainty. Data were analyzed between September 2019 and January 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2020 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: The simulated cohort had a starting age of 66 years, and 41.8% had diabetes at baseline. Median (interquartile range) survival in the guideline-directed medical therapy arm was 6.8 (3.5-11.3) years. Dapagliflozin was projected to add 0.63 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 0.25-1.15) QALYs at an incremental lifetime cost of $42 800 (95% UI, $37 100-$50 300), for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $68 300 per QALY gained (95% UI, $54 600-$117 600 per QALY gained; cost-effective in 94% of probabilistic simulations at a threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained). Findings were similar in individuals with or without diabetes but were sensitive to drug cost. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, adding dapagliflozin to guideline-directed medical therapy was projected to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and be cost-effective at current US prices. Scalable strategies for improving uptake of dapagliflozin may improve long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) approved by the FDA. Clinical trials found that oral semaglutide 14 mg had a greater reduction in hemoglobin A1c (A1c) compared with empagliflozin 25 mg and sitagliptin 100 mg and was noninferior to liraglutide 1.8 mg. However, US cost-effectiveness data for oral semaglutide are limited and do not consider the costs of adverse events. OBJECTIVE: To assess the short-term cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A decision analysis over a 52-week time horizon was used to evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide from a US health care payer's perspective. Data on efficacy, adverse events, and discontinuation were derived from 52-week data from phase 3, head-to-head clinical trials (PIONEER 2, 3, and 4). Costs included drug and administration cost and treatment of gastrointestinal adverse events. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated as the difference in cost over the difference in A1c reduction between oral semaglutide and comparators. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, 52-week treatment costs with oral semaglutide were $2,660 and $3,104 higher and $2,337 less than empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. Incremental (greater) A1c reductions were seen with oral semaglutide at 0.40%, 0.50%, and 0.30% vs empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide, respectively. ICERs per 1% reduction in A1c for oral semaglutide were $6,650 and $6,207 vs empagliflozin and sitagliptin, respectively. Oral semaglutide was dominant vs liraglutide (ICER of -$7,790). CONCLUSIONS: Oral semaglutide was dominant relative to liraglutide, offering a cost-saving GLP-1RA oral alternative. While there is not a recognized willingness-to-pay threshold for a 1% reduction in A1c, oral semaglutide may be cost-effective relative to empagliflozin and sitagliptin if a decision maker's willingness-to-pay threshold exceeds $6,650 and $6,207, respectively. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Cost-effectiveness of Dapagliflozin for Treatment of Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction.

Importance: In the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure (DAPA-HF) trial, dapagliflozin was shown to reduce cardiovascular mortality and hospitalizations due to heart failure while improving patient-reported health status. However, the cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin therapy to standard of care (SOC) is unknown. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin therapy among patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Design, Setting, and Participants: This Markov cohort cost-effectiveness model used estimates of therapy effectiveness, transition probabilities, and utilities from the DAPA-HF trial and other published literature. Costs were derived from published sources. Patients with HFrEF included subgroups based on diabetes status and health status impairment due to heart failure. We compiled parameters from the literature including DAPA-HF, on which our model is based, and many other sources from December 2019 to February 27, 2021. We performed our analysis in February 2021. Exposures: Dapagliflozin or SOC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalizations for heart failure, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and the cost per QALY gained (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio). Results: In the model, dapagliflozin therapy yielded a mean of 0.78 additional life-years and 0.46 additional QALYs compared with SOC at an incremental cost of $38 212, resulting in a cost per QALY gained of $83 650. The cost per QALY was similar for patients with or without diabetes and for patients with mild or moderate impairment of health status due to heart failure. The cost-effectiveness was most sensitive to estimates of the effect on mortality and duration of therapy effectiveness. If the cost of dapagliflozin decreased from $474 to $270 (43% decline), the cost per QALY gained would drop below $50 000. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that dapagliflozin provides intermediate value compared with SOC, based on American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association benchmarks. Additional data regarding the magnitude of mortality reduction would improve the precision of cost-effectiveness estimates.

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

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.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin as a treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a multinational health-economic analysis of DAPA-HF.

AIM: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin added to standard therapy, vs. standard therapy only, in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), from the perspective of UK, German, and Spanish payers. METHODS AND RESULTS: A lifetime Markov model was built to estimate outcomes in patients with HFrEF. Health states were defined by Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score, type 2 diabetes and worsening HF events. The incidence of worsening HF and all-cause mortality was estimated using negative binomial regression models and parametric survival analysis, respectively. Direct healthcare costs (2019 British pounds/Euro) and patient-reported outcomes (EQ-5D) were sourced from the existing literature and the Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse-outcomes in Heart Failure trial (DAPA-HF), respectively; the median duration of follow-up in DAPA-HF was 18.2 months (range: 0-27.8). Future costs and effects were discounted at 3.0% for the Spanish and German analyses and 3.5% for the UK analysis. In the UK setting, treatment with dapagliflozin was estimated to increase life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from 5.62 to 6.20 (+0.58) and 4.13 to 4.61 (+0.48), respectively, and reduce lifetime hospitalizations for HF (925 and 820 events per 1000 patients for placebo and dapagliflozin, respectively). Similar results were obtained for Germany and Spain. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £5822, €5379 and €9406/QALY in the UK, Germany and Spain, respectively. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, more than 90% of simulations were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000/QALY in UK and €20 000/QALY in Germany and Spain. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin is likely to be a cost-effective treatment for HFrEF in the UK, German and Spanish healthcare systems.

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared with liraglutide based on cardiovascular outcome trials in Type II diabetes.

Aim: Cost-effectiveness (CE) analysis of empagliflozin+standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC and liraglutide+SoC, in patients with Type II diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, was conducted using evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials. Methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was calibrated to predict same outcomes observed in EMPA-REG OUTCOME and LEADER trials. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of SoC, empagliflozin+SoC and liraglutide+SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial and an indirect comparison. Time horizon was 50 years and the UK payer perspective was taken. Results: Empagliflozin+SoC dominated liraglutide+SoC with greater quality-adjusted life years and reduced costs. Base-case incremental CE ratio of 6428 GBP/QALY was observed for empagliflozin+SoC versus SoC. Conclusion: Results suggest that empagliflozin+SoC is cost effective versus SoC and liraglutide+SoC.

Comparison of heart failure risk and medical costs between patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with dapagliflozin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Dapagliflozin is one of the novel glucose-lowering agents, which has recently been reported to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure (hHF). The present study aimed to compare the differences between the risk of hHF after using dapagliflozin and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) as second-line drugs for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus using the latest nationwide population data in Korea. Additionally, we aimed to examine the impact of clinical outcomes on direct medical costs in the two groups. METHODS: The present population-based, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the nationwide claims data between September 01, 2014 and June 30, 2018. New users of dapagliflozin and DPP-4i were identified from the database and the differences in patients' characteristics between the two groups were analyzed using propensity score-weighted analysis. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the risk of hHF. A simple model was used for the estimation of direct medical costs for 3 years. RESULTS: In total, 23,147 patients in the dapagliflozin group and 237,187 patients in the DPP-4i group were selected for the analysis. The incidence rates of hHF were 3.86 and 6.79 per 1000 person-years in the dapagliflozin and DPP-4i groups, respectively. In the entire study population, the hazard ratio for hHF in the dapagliflozin group compared to the DPP-4i group was 0.58 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.74), with 0.55 (95% confidence interval 0.41-0.74) among patients with underlying cardiovascular disease and 0.66 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.95) among patients without underlying cardiovascular disease. The direct medical costs were $57,787 lower in the dapagliflozin group than in the DPP-4i group for 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that dapagliflozin lowers the risk for hHF and subsequently reduces direct medical costs compared to DPP-4i. The protective effect against hHF was more evident among patients with underlying cardiovascular disease.

Budget impact analysis for dapagliflozin in type 2 diabetes in Egypt.

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major health problem in Egypt with a high impact on morbidity, mortality, and healthcare resources. This study evaluated the budget impact and the long-term consequences of dapagliflozin versus other conventional medications, as monotherapy, from both the societal and health insurance perspectives in Egypt.Methods: A static budget impact model was developed to estimate the financial consequences of adopting dapagliflozin on the healthcare payer budget. We measured the direct medical costs of dapagliflozin (new scenario) as monotherapy, compared to metformin, insulin, sulphonylurea, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, thiazolidinedione, and repaglinide (old scenarios) over a time horizon of 3 years. Myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) rates were captured from DECLARE TIMI 58 trial. One-way sensitivity analyses were conducted.Results: The budget impact model estimated 2,053,908 patients eligible for treatment with dapagliflozin from a societal perspective and 1,207,698 patients from the health insurance (HI) perspective. The new scenario allows for an initial savings of EGP121 million in the first year, which increased to EGP243 and EGP365 million in the second and third years, respectively. The total cumulative savings from a societal perspective were estimated at EGP731 million. Dapagliflozin allows for savings of EGP71, EGP143, and EGP215 million in the first, second and third years respectively, from the HI perspective, with total cumulative savings of EGP430 million over the 3 years.Conclusion: Treating T2DM patients using dapagliflozin instead of conventional medications, maximizes patients' benefits and decreases total costs due to drug cost offsets from fewer cardiovascular and renal events. The adoption of dapagliflozin is a budget-saving treatment option, resulting in substantial population-level health gains due to reduced event rate and cost savings from the perspective of the national healthcare system.

Assessing the cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly GLP-1 analogue versus an SGLT-2 inhibitor in the Spanish setting: Once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin.

Aims: Controlling costs while maximizing healthcare gains is the predominant challenge for healthcare providers, and therefore cost-effectiveness analysis is playing an ever-increasing role in healthcare decision making. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous once-weekly semaglutide (0.5 mg and 1 mg) versus empagliflozin (10 mg and 25 mg) in the Spanish setting for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications.Material and methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project outcomes over patient lifetimes with once-weekly semaglutide versus empagliflozin, with treatment effects based on a network meta-analysis. The analysis captured treatment costs, costs of diabetes-related complications, and the impact of complications on quality of life, based on published sources. Outcomes were discounted at 3.0% per annum.Results: Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with improvements in discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.12 and 0.15 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg and improvements of 0.11 and 0.14 QALYs, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg. Treatment costs were higher with once-weekly semaglutide compared with empagliflozin, but this was partially offset by cost savings due to avoidance of diabetes-related complications. Once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 2,285 and EUR 161 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 10 mg, and EUR 3,090 and EUR 625 per QALY gained, respectively, versus empagliflozin 25 mg.Conclusions: Based on a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 0.5 mg and 1 mg were projected to be cost-effective versus empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg for the treatment of patients with T2D with inadequate glycemic control on oral anti-hyperglycemic medications in the Spanish setting, irrespective of patients' BMI at baseline.

Evaluation of the Cost Per Patient Achieving Treatment Targets with Oral Semaglutide: A Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Oral semaglutide is the first orally administered glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and has been evaluated in the PIONEER clinical trial program. These trials assessed the proportions of patients achieving single and composite endpoints, encompassing glycemic control [defined in terms of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)], weight loss, and hypoglycemia. The present study assessed the cost of control with oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. METHODS: Four endpoints were evaluated: (1) HbA1c ≤ 6.5%; (2) HbA1c < 7.0%; (3) ≥ 1.0%-point HbA1c reduction and weight loss ≥ 3.0%; and (4) HbA1c < 7.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain. The proportions of patients achieving each endpoint were sourced from the PIONEER 2, 3 and 4 trials. Treatment costs were accounted over an annual time-period in 2019 US dollars (USD), based on wholesale acquisition cost. Cost of control was calculated by dividing treatment costs by the proportion of patients achieving each target. RESULTS: Oral semaglutide was consistently associated with the lowest cost of control for all four endpoints. For the targets of HbA1c ≤ 6.5% and HbA1c < 7.0%, oral semaglutide 14 mg was associated with lower cost of control than empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg by USD 15,036, 14,697, and 6996, respectively, and USD 931, 346 and 4497, respectively. For the double composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 525, 32,277 and 13,011, respectively versus empagliflozin 25 mg, sitagliptin 100 mg and liraglutide 1.8 mg. For the triple composite endpoint, cost of control was lower with oral semaglutide 14 mg by USD 1255, 7510 and 5774, respectively. CONCLUSION: Oral semaglutide was associated with lower cost of bringing patients with type 2 diabetes to four clinically-relevant treatment targets versus empagliflozin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide in the US. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Japan Based on Results From the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in Japan based on the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. METHODS: The trial has shown a reduction in the risk for cardiovascular (CV) and renal events with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established CV disease. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the overall population of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was reported previously by using a lifetime discrete event simulation model. The same modeling frame was adapted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in Japan. The time to relevant clinical events and the hazard ratios were derived from an Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. The costs for each event were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. Direct medical costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the public health care perspective. FINDINGS: Treatment with empagliflozin was estimated to increase life expectancy by 6.2 years and 2.7 QALYs, whereas total cost increased by 1,115,475 yen compared with treatment with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 415,849 yen/QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, there was no case that was in excess of the reference value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the pilot introduction for price revision in Japan (ie, 5 million yen/QALY). IMPLICATIONS: Based on the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, our results suggest that empagliflozin added to SoC is highly cost-effective compared with SoC alone in Japan.

Dapagliflozin vs non-SGLT-2i treatment is associated with lower healthcare costs in type 2 diabetes patients similar to participants in the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial: A nationwide observational study.

AIMS: To investigate how the cardiovascular (CV) risk benefits of dapagliflozin translate into healthcare costs compared with other non-sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor glucose-lowering drugs (oGLDs) in a real-world population with type 2 diabetes (T2D) that is similar to the population of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial. METHODS: Patients initiating dapagliflozin or oGLDs between 2013 and 2016 in Swedish nationwide healthcare registries were included if they fulfilled inclusion and exclusion criteria of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial (DECLARE-like population). Propensity scores for the likelihood of dapagliflozin initiation were calculated, followed by 1:3 matching with initiators of oGLDs. Per-patient cumulative costs for hospital healthcare (in- and outpatient) and for drugs were calculated from new initiation until end of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 24 828 patients initiated a new GLD; 6207 initiated dapagliflozin and 18 621 initiated an oGLD. After matching based on 96 clinical and healthcare cost variables, groups were balanced at baseline. Mean cumulative 30-month healthcare cost per patient was similar in the dapagliflozin and oGLD groups ($11 807 and $11 906, respectively; difference, -$99; 95% CI, -$629, $483; P = 0.644). Initiation of dapagliflozin rather than an oGLD was associated with significantly lower hospital costs (-$658; 95% CI, -$1169, -$108; P = 0.024) and significantly higher drug costs ($559; 95% CI, $471, $648; P < 0.001). Hospital cost difference was related mainly to fewer CV- and T2D-associated complications with use of dapagliflozin compared with use of an oGLD (-$363; 95% CI, -$665, -$61; P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: In a nationwide, real-world, DECLARE-like population, dapagliflozin was associated with lower hospital costs compared with an oGLD, mainly as a result of reduced rates of CV- and T2D-associated complications.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin treatment in people with Type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

AIM: In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial, empagliflozin therapy reduced cardiovascular death by 38% compared with placebo when added to standard of care. Using the trial results, we created a discrete-event simulation model to assess lifetime health economic outcomes in people with Type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. METHODS: Time-dependent survival regression analysis was performed on data from EMPA-REG OUTCOME for 10 cardiovascular and renal events (e.g. stroke, heart failure hospitalization, macroalbuminuria, cardiovascular mortality) to capture event rates over time, and interaction between events. Model performance was assessed by comparing predicted and observed outcomes at 3 years. Costs in the United Kingdom (UK) and health utilities were obtained from published literature. Outcomes included cumulative event rates, life-years, costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: The model predicted an 18% relative increase (by 2.1 life-years) in survival for empagliflozin (14.0 life-years) vs. standard of care (11.9 life-years), attributable to direct treatment effect on cardiovascular mortality, and to indirect effect via reductions in other events. Participants treated with empagliflozin may experience improved quality of life (1.0 QALY) and higher costs (£3737/participant), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4083/QALY. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results to changes in input parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Based on extrapolation of EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial data using a participant-level simulation model, empagliflozin in addition to standard of care is projected to be highly cost-effective using UK healthcare costs. The impact in other countries will vary due to differences in drug pricing and accrual of other costs. (Clinical Trial Registry No: NCT01131676).

Cost-effectiveness of first-line versus delayed use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes.

The present study sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of first-line (immediate) versus delayed use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes, from the perspective of the Australian healthcare system. We developed a Markov model to simulate the progress of subjects with type 2 diabetes. Decision analysis was applied to assess the cost-effectiveness of first-line combination dapagliflozin and metformin versus first-line metformin monotherapy followed by gradual addition of dapagliflozin over time. Transition probabilities, costs (in Australian dollars) and utility data were derived from published sources. All costs, years of life lived and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) lived were discounted at an annual rate of 5%. Over a 20-year model period, first-line use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin was predicted to reduce the onset of hospitalisation of heart failure, cardiovascular deaths and all cause deaths by 5.5%, 57.6% and 29.6%, respectively. An additional 2.5 years of life (discounted) and 1.9 QALYs (discounted) would be gained per patient, at a cost of AUD $23,367 (discounted) per person. These figures equated to AUD $9,535 per years of life saved (YoLS) and AUD $12,477 per QALYs saved. Sensitivity analyses indicated the results to be robust. Compared to first-line metformin monotherapy followed by gradual addition of dapagliflozin, first-line use of combination dapagliflozin and metformin is likely to be a cost-effective approach to the management of Australians with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin treatment versus metformin treatment in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China. METHODS: The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties. RESULTS: The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating dapagliflozin versus sitagliptin.

AIMS: To compare healthcare costs and utilization in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dapagliflozin (DAPA) with costs and utilization in those who initiated sitagliptin (SITA) in a real-world setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of health plan enrollees in two US commercial claims databases or Medicare Part D. The study population comprised adult patients with T2D who initiated DAPA or SITA between January 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015. DAPA and SITA initiators were propensity-score-matched, and healthcare utilization and costs during the 1-year follow-up period were compared. Analyses were conducted separately for patients with evidence of oral antidiabetic drug (OAD) monotherapy use at baseline. RESULTS: A total of 2722 patients were included in each matched cohort. Follow-up unadjusted all-cause costs ($16 065 and $17 281; P = 0.135) and diabetes-related costs ($9697 and $9354; P = 0.539) were similar in the DAPA and SITA cohorts. Higher office and outpatient visit costs in the SITA group were offset by higher pharmacy costs in the DAPA group. In the subgroup of 1804 patients with OAD monotherapy use at baseline, patients in the SITA group had higher total all-cause costs compared with those in the DAPA group ($14 884 vs. $12 353; P = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Patients who initiated DAPA or SITA had similar all-cause and diabetes-related healthcare costs over 1 year of follow-up. In the subgroup of patients treated with OAD monotherapy at baseline (84% metformin monotherapy), those who initiated DAPA as add-on therapy had lower costs than patients who added SITA.

Usefulness of Empagliflozin Versus Liraglutide for Prevention of Cardiovascular Mortality.

Empagliflozin, an inhibitor of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 and Liraglutide, a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue, were both proved to significantly reduce the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) death in patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease. However, addition of either drug to current diabetes treatment regimens may impose a significant burden on healthcare systems. We performed a cost-minimization analysis of Empagliflozin versus Liraglutide for preventing CV death. Rates of prevention of CV death were extracted from the published data of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME and LEADER trials. Drug costs were extracted from the US National Average Drug Acquisition Costs of 2017. In the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial 5,833 patient-years of treatment with Empagliflozin resulted in the prevention of 51 CV deaths. In LEADER, 16,338 patient-years of Liraglutide resulted in the prevention of 59 CV deaths. The price in 2017 of annual Empagliflozin and Liraglutide therapy was $4,980 and $9,300, respectively. Therefore, the cost of Empagliflozin or Liraglutide needed to prevent 1 CV death would be $569,526 (95% confidence interval $415,713 to $921,798) and $2,575,312 (95% confidence interval $1,607,526 to $7,807,986), respectively. In conclusion, use of Empagliflozin for preventing CV death in type 2 diabetes patients with an established CV disease seems to be a major cost-saving strategy compared with Liraglutide. These results should be considered in the context of other individual drug and patient factors.