Real-world impact of empagliflozin on total cost of care in adults with type 2 diabetes: Results from an outcomes-based agreement.

BACKGROUND: Value-based health care is expanding through payment models such as outcomes-based agreements between manufacturers and payers. OBJECTIVE: To describe the total-cost-of-care outcomes of an outcomes-based agreement evaluating the real-world impact of empagliflozin vs other type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) drugs among all patients with T2DM, with and without cardiovascular disease (within and beyond the requirement of the agreement). METHODS: In this prospective real-world analysis, members from the health plan of an integrated health care delivery system from the commercial and Medicare Advantage lines of business, who qualify under the confines of the contract, were included for analysis. Thus, members aged 18 years and older who were continuously enrolled in the identification (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018) and measurement periods (≤1 year post-index) with a T2DM diagnosis were retained. Patients using empagliflozin and empagliflozin-combination drugs constituted the empagliflozin group; those using all other antihyperglycemics, the nonempagliflozin group. Patients with type 1 diabetes, or those using metformin or insulin monotherapy, at index were excluded. Eligible members were followed for up to the earliest occurrence of disenrollment date, discontinuation (60-day medication fill gap allowed) of empagliflozin (or nonempagliflozin containing) medication, or the end of the measurement period. We compared, using Student's t-test and summary statistics (for reporting the outcomes agreement) and a propensity-matched difference-in-difference model (for the followup evaluation beyond the requirement of the agreement), the mean all-cause total cost of care (pharmacy plus medical) per patient per month (PPPM) between the 2 groups, including a subgroup of members with a baseline cardiovascular disease diagnosis. RESULTS: There were 4,577 (3,069 and 1,508 in the commercial and Medicare) and 33,712 (15,571 and 18,141 in the commercial and Medicare) in the empagliflozin and nonempagliflozin groups, respectively. The difference in mean total cost PPPM was $75 lower for empagliflozin vs nonempagliflozin groups, driven mainly by lower medical costs in the empagliflozin group (-$465 PPPM). However, the difference was not statistically significant in the propensity score-matched model. CONCLUSIONS: Although empagliflozin had higher pharmacy costs, the total cost of care for patients with T2DM and with established cardiovascular disease were comparable to the group of patients with all other T2DM, driven mainly by lower medical costs. DISCLOSURES: The authors report no conflicts of interest beyond being employees of the 2 organizations involved in this outcomes-based agreement. Ms. Palli is a former employee of Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who was affiliated at the time of study conduct.

Trends in add-on medications following metformin monotherapy for type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Although metformin is generally universally recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy for most people living with type 2 diabetes, second-line and third-line choices can require a tailored approach to achieve optimal blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels. OBJECTIVE: To examine national trends in second- and third-line antihyperglycemic medications following metformin monotherapy, comparing 2015 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified pharmacy claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2015, and again in January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, included adults (aged ≥ 18 years) continuously enrolled in commercial or Medicare insurance plans who filled an index metformin prescription in either year. Proportions of patients by second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic class were calculated. RESULTS: Second-line use of sulfonylureas (-10.1%; P < 0.001), combination drugs (-3.0%; P < 0.001), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (-2.0%; P = 0.031) significantly declined, whereas second-line use of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) (+4.9%; P < 0.001) and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1Ras) (+10.0%; P < 0.001) significantly increased. Similarly, third-line use of sulfonylureas declined (-5.5%; P = 0.005), whereas third-line use of SGLT2is (+3.4%; P = 0.005) and GLP-1RAs (+8.3%; P < 0.001) increased. Similar trends between 2015 and 2019 were found in commercial and Medicare subgroups. Among all groups in 2015 compared with 2019, sulfonylureas were the most prescribed second-line class and insulins the most common third-line class. Although SGLT2i and GLP-1RA together represented more than one-third of second-line and third-line prescriptions for commercially insured patients in 2019 (34.3% and 35.0%, respectively), these classes were less frequently prescribed in the Medicare subgroup (18% and 25.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This report provides updated second-line and third-line antihyperglycemic medication prescribing trends in the United States, which suggests that evidence-based guidelines are being used in practice to prevent complications and individualize diabetes care. DISCLOSURES: Ms Swart and Drs Peasah and Good are employed by UPMC Health Plan. Dr Neilson was employed by UPMC Health Plan at the time of the study. Drs Munshi and Henderson were employed by Evernorth at the time of the study.