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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin versus Acarbose as a Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus acarbose as monotherapy in treatment-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in China. METHODS: The Cardiff Diabetes Model, an economic model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of comparator therapies in diabetes was used to simulate disease progression and estimate the long-term effect of treatments on patients. Systematic literature reviews, hospital surveys, meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparison were conducted to obtain model-required patient profiles, clinical data and costs. Health insurance costs (2015¥) were estimated over 40 years from a healthcare payer perspective. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The model predicted that dapagliflozin had lower incidences of cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia and mortality events, was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.25 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and with a lower cost of ¥8,439 compared with acarbose. This resulted in a cost saving of ¥33,786 per QALY gained with dapagliflozin. Sensitivity analyses determined that the results are robust. CONCLUSION: Dapagliflozin is dominant compared with acarbose as monotherapy for Chinese T2DM patients, with a little QALY gain and lower costs. Dapagliflozin offers a well-tolerated and cost-effective alternative medication for treatment-naive patients in China, and may have a direct impact in reducing the disease burden of T2DM.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with risk of cardiovascular diseases among Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes: Evidence from a population-based national cohort in Taiwan.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of metformin-based dual therapies associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in a Chinese population with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We utilized Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) 1997-2011, which is derived from the claims of National Health Insurance, a mandatory-enrollment single-payer system that covers over 99% of Taiwan's population. Four metformin-based dual therapy cohorts were used, namely a reference group of metformin plus sulfonylureas (Metformin-SU) and metformin plus acarbose, metformin plus thiazolidinediones (Metformin-TZD), and metformin plus glinides (Metformin-glinides). Using propensity scores, each subject in a comparison cohort was 1:1 matched to a referent. The effectiveness outcome was CVD risk. Only direct medical costs were included. The Markov chain model was applied to project lifetime outcomes, discounted at 3% per annum. The bootstrapping technique was performed to assess uncertainty in analysis. RESULTS: Metformin-glinides was most cost-effective in the base-case analysis; Metformin-glinides saved $194 USD for one percentage point of reduction in CVD risk, as compared to Metformin-SU. However, for the elderly or those with severe diabetic complications, Metformin-TZD, especially pioglitazone, was more suitable; as compared to Metformin-SU, Metformin-TZD saved $840.1 USD per percentage point of reduction in CVD risk. Among TZDs, Metformin-pioglitazone saved $1831.5 USD per percentage point of associated CVD risk reduction, as compared to Metformin-rosiglitazone. CONCLUSIONS: When CVD is considered an important clinical outcome, Metformin-pioglitazone is cost-effective, in particular for the elderly and those with severe diabetic complications.

[Cost-effectiveness of the addition of acarbose to the treatment of patients with type-2 diabetes in Spain]. / Coste-efectividad de la adición de acarbosa al tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 en España.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of acarbose to existing treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in Spain. METHODS: The CORE Diabetes Model (a published and validated computer simulation model) was used to project long-term clinical and cost outcomes in DM2. Transition probabilities and risk adjustments were derived from published sources. Treatment effects and baseline cohort characteristics were based on a meta-analysis. Direct costs were retrieved from published sources and projected over patient lifetimes from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. Costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Acarbose treatment was associated with improved life expectancy (0.23 years) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (0.21 years). Direct costs were on average euro 468 per patient more expensive with acarbose than with placebo. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were euro 2,002 per life year gained and euro 2,199 per QALY gained. An acceptability curve showed that with a willingness to pay euro 20,000, which is generally accepted to represent very good value for money, acarbose treatment was associated with a 93.5% probability of being cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: This long-term economic study showed that the addition of acarbose to existing therapy for DM2 was associated with improvements in life expectancy and QALYs in these patients.

Coste-efectividad de la adición de acarbosa al tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes tipo 2 en España / Cost-effectiveness of the addition of acarbose to the treatment of patients with type-2 diabetes in Spain

Objetivos: Evaluar el coste-efectividad de la adición de acarbosa al tratamiento de pacientes con diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2) en España. Métodos: Se utilizó el CORE Diabetes Model (modelo de simulación informática publicado y validado) para proyectar a largo plazo los resultados clínicos y de costes de la DM2. Las probabilidades de transición y los riesgos se obtuvieron de distintas publicaciones. Los efectos del tratamiento y las características basales de la cohorte se obtuvieron de un metaanálisis. Los costes directos se extrajeron de diversas publicaciones y se proyectaron a lo largo de la vida de los pacientes bajo la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud de España. Los costes y beneficios fueron descontados en un 3% anual. Se realizaron análisis de sensibilidad. Resultados: El tratamiento con acarbosa se asoció con mejoras en la esperanza de vida (0,23 años) y en los años de vida ajustados por calidad (AVAC) (0,21 años). Los costes directos fueron en promedio, por paciente, de 468 € más caros con acarbosa que con placebo. La razón de coste-efectividad incremental fue de 2.002 €/año de vida ganado y de 2.199 €/AVAC ganado. La curva de aceptabilidad mostró que con una disponibilidad a pagar de 20.000 €, generalmente aceptada como muy buen valor monetario, el tratamiento con acarbosa se asoció con una probabilidad del 93,5% de ser coste-efectiva. Conclusiones: Este estudio económico a largo plazo mostró que la adición de acarbosa al tratamiento de pacientes con DM2 produjo mejoras en la esperanza de vida y en los AVAC de estos pacientes

Objectives: To assess the cost-effectiveness of the addition of acarbose to existing treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2) in Spain. Methods: The CORE Diabetes Model (a published and validated computer simulation model) was used to project long-term clinical and cost outcomes in DM2. Transition probabilities and risk adjustments were derived from published sources. Treatment effects and baseline cohort characteristics were based on a meta-analysis. Direct costs were retrieved from published sources and projected over patient lifetimes from the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. Costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Acarbose treatment was associated with improved life expectancy (0.23 years) and quality-adjusted life years (QALY) (0.21 years). Direct costs were on average € 468 per patient more expensive with acarbose than with placebo. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were € 2,002 per life year gained and € 2,199 per QALY gained. An acceptability curve showed that with a willingness to pay € 20,000, which is generally accepted to represent very good value for money, acarbose treatment was associated with a 93.5% probability of being cost-effective. Conclusions: This long-term economic study showed that the addition of acarbose to existing therapy for DM2 was associated with improvements in life expectancy and QALYs in these patients

A review of the economic evidence for acarbose in the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular events in individuals with impaired glucose tolerance.

The highly prevalent, prediabetic condition of impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) confers a high risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is an emerging body of cost-effectiveness literature in the management of IGT. For acarbose, an alpha-glucosidase inhibitor, economic analyses have been conducted for Spain, Germany, Sweden and Canada. In Spain, acarbose was more effective and less costly (dominant) compared with placebo. In Germany, the cost per patient free of diabetes was under Pounds 800; acarbose was dominant for those at high risk for T2DM, CVD or both, and a similar outcome in the Swedish study. In Canada, acarbose was dominant compared with no intervention and very cost-effective compared with metformin [C Dollars 1798/life years gained (LYG)]. The particularly cost-effective outcomes or cost savings delivered by acarbose for IGT subjects at high risk for T2DM and/or CVD render an IGT-intervention program prioritised to such high-risk individuals an economically attractive strategy.

Acarbose in addition to existing treatments in patients with type 2 diabetes: health economic analysis in a German setting.

OBJECTIVE: A recent retrospective meta-analysis of cardiovascular events from long-term studies with acarbose in type 2 diabetes showed that treatment was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events, supporting the hypothesis that postprandial hyperglycemia is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The aim of the present study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of acarbose, given in addition to existing treatments, in type 2 diabetes patients, based on these findings, in the German setting. METHODS: The CORE Diabetes Model, a published, validated computer simulation model, was used to project long-term clinical and cost outcomes in type 2 diabetes patients receiving acarbose or placebo in addition to existing treatments. Direct costs were retrieved from published sources and projected over patient lifetimes from a third party payer perspective. Costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 5% annually. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Acarbose treatment was associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy (0.21 years) and quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) (0.19 QALYs) but was on average marginally more expensive than treatment in the placebo arm (euro135 per patient). This led to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of euro633 per life year and euro692 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that these findings were robust under variation in a range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of acarbose to existing treatment was associated with improvements in life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy, and provides excellent value for money over patient lifetimes in the German setting.

Acarbose for the prevention of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance: the Study to Prevent Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), the effect of acarbose on the incidence of diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The Study to Prevent Non-Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (STOP-NIDDM) Trial was an international, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized investigation, undertaken in 9 participating countries from December 1995 through August 2001. Patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (N = 715) or acarbose, 100 mg three times a day (N = 714), and underwent follow-up for a mean of 3.3 years. Sixty-one subjects (4%) were excluded from the study because they did not have IGT or had no postrandomization data; thus, 1,368 subjects remained for intent-to-treat analysis. The outcome measures were the development of diabetes based on a single oral glucose tolerance test, the development of hypertension ((3) 140/90 mm Hg), and the development of major cardiovascular events, including coronary heart disease, cardiovascular death, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven subjects in the acarbose-treated group and 130 in the placebo group discontinued treatment prematurely; however, they underwent follow-up for assessment of end points. Acarbose treatment resulted in a 25% relative risk reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes (hazards ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.90; P = 0.0015), in a 34% risk reduction in the development of new cases of hypertension (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.89; P = 0.0059), and in a 49% risk reduction in the development of cardiovascular events (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.95; P = 0.03). A post hoc cost-effectiveness analysis done from the Swedish perspective showed that acarbose treatment was likely to be cost-effective in the management of subjects with IGT. CONCLUSION: The STOP-NIDDM Trial demonstrated that, in subjects with IGT, acarbose treatment was effective in reducing the risk of type 2 diabetes. It also suggested that it was associated with a reduction in hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

Cost-effectiveness of acarbose for the management of impaired glucose tolerance in Sweden.

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of acarbose in the management of patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in Sweden, based on progression to type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular (CV) events reported in the STOP-NIDDM trial population, including high-risk subgroups. The cost per patient free from T2D was SEK28,000 or SEK1260 per diabetes free month prior to progression to T2D. The cost per patient free from CV events was SEK101,000 or SEK5000 per CV event free month. For the high CV risk subgroups, acarbose treatment dominated placebo (i.e. acarbose was more effective, less costly). Acarbose significantly reduces the incidence of diabetes and CV events in IGT patients. We predict this may translate into healthcare cost savings that partially or, in patients at high CV risk, fully offset the cost of acarbose. We conclude that acarbose is likely to be cost-effective in the management of impaired glucose tolerance.

[Cost-effectiveness analysis of acarbose in the treatment of patients with impaired glucose tolerance]. / Análisis de la relación coste-efectividad de la acarbosa en el tratamiento de pacientes con intolerancia a la glucosa.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of treatment with acarbose in patients with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in comparison with conventional treatment (based on medical counseling on diet and health and without drug treatment) from the perspective of the public payer. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using data on efficacy, the incidence of diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and cardiovascular events from the STOP-NIDDM clinical trial of acarbose treatment vs. placebo. The study used a decision tree analysis to estimate the health and economic impact of the two alternative treatments in a population of 1,000 patients over a period of 40 months. Resource use and cost data refer to the Spanish health care system. RESULTS: In the base case, acarbose treatment was slightly dominant over conventional treatment since it achieved improved outcomes at an even lower cost. Sensitivity analysis revealed that acarbose treatment lost dominance due to a moderately positive cost-effectiveness ratio for avoided progression to DM2 in some scenarios. The cost-effectiveness ratio was particularly sensitive to the cost of cardiovascular treatments, the risk of progression to DM2, the daily doses of acarbose, and the publicly funded share of the cost of this drug. CONCLUSIONS: Acarbose treatment in patients diagnosed with IGT appeared to be the dominant alternative compared with conventional treatment. The cost per avoided progression to DM2 and per additional individual free of a cardiovascular event was moderately low in some of the scenarios included in the sensitivity analysis. For a more comprehensive evaluation of the possible treatment of patients with IGT, the alternatives under comparison and the time horizon of the study would need to be increased and more refined health outcome measures, comprising all the treatment's health effects, would need to be introduced.