Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes

Cost Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategies in Middle- and High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant global health burden, and screening can greatly reduce CRC incidence and mortality. Previous studies investigated the economic effects of CRC screening. We performed a systematic review to provide the cost-effectiveness of CRC screening strategies across countries with different income levels.

METHODS

We searched relevant scientific databases (PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus) from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2023. We selected English-language studies related to model-based economic evaluations of CRC screening strategies. Information such as the characters of screening tests, model characteristics, and key cost-effectiveness findings were collected. The net monetary benefit approach was used to compare the outcomes of various strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were identified, including 46 from high-income countries (HICs), 6 from upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), and 4 from lower-middle-income countries (LMICs). Most annual fecal occult blood tests and fecal immunochemical tests were cost-saving, and colonoscopy every 10 years was cost-saving. Other strategies involving multitarget fecal FIT-DNA detection, computed tomography colonography, and flexible sigmoidoscopy were cost-effective compared with no screening. Newer strategies such as magnetic resonance colonography every 5 years, annual urine metabolomic tests, and fecal bacterial biomarkers were cost-effective compared with no screening.

CONCLUSION

In our updated review, we found that common CRC screening strategies and magnetic resonance colonography continued to be cost-effective compared with no screening. Areas for further development include accurately modeling the natural history of colorectal cancer and obtaining more evidence from UMICs and LMICs.

Comparing the effects of biguanides and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors on cardio-cerebrovascular outcomes, nephropathy, retinopathy, neuropathy, and treatment costs in diabetic patients

BACKGROUND

Western guidelines often recommend biguanides as the first-line treatment for diabetes. However, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, alongside biguanides, are increasingly used as the first-line therapy for type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Japan. However, there have been few studies comparing the effectiveness of biguanides and DPP-4 inhibitors with respect to diabetes-related complications and cardio-cerebrovascular events over the long term, as well as the costs associated.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with T2DM who initiate treatment with a biguanide versus a DPP-4 inhibitor and the long-term costs associated.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study between 2012 and 2021 using a new-user design and the Shizuoka Kokuho database. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with T2DM. The primary outcome was the incidence of cardio-cerebrovascular events or mortality from the initial month of treatment; and the secondary outcomes were the incidences of related complications (nephropathy, renal failure, retinopathy, and peripheral neuropathy) and the daily cost of the drugs used. Individuals who had experienced prior events during the preceding year were excluded, and events within 6 months of the start of the study period were censored. Propensity score matching was performed to compare between two groups.

RESULTS

The matched 1:5 cohort comprised 529 and 2,116 patients who were initially treated with a biguanide or a DPP-4 inhibitor, respectively. Although there were no significant differences in the incidence of cardio-cerebrovascular events or mortality and T2DM-related complications between the two groups (p = 0.139 and p = 0.595), daily biguanide administration was significantly cheaper (mean daily cost for biguanides, 61.1 JPY; for DPP-4 inhibitors, 122.7 JPY; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients with T2DM who initiate pharmacotherapy, there were no differences in the long-term incidences of cardio-cerebrovascular events or complications associated with biguanide or DPP-4 use, but the former was less costly.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacist Care in Diabetes Management: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the role of pharmacists has undergone significant transformation to become more patient-centered and involved in managing chronic diseases. Nonetheless, it remains unclear whether pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective. This study aimed to systematically review the cost-effectiveness and reporting quality in comprehensive economic evaluations of pharmacist management compared to standard care in diabetes.

METHODS

Eligible studies included cost-effectiveness analyses employing pharmacist professional services as the intervention for diabetes. A literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases Pubmed, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database from their inception until July 2023. Two independent reviewers performed title, abstract, full-text screening, and data abstraction and assessed the quality of reporting and methodological approaches using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) checklists.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified with an average research quality score of 19.8, including cost-utility (n = 5) and cost-effectiveness (n = 7) analyses, with only four studies rated as high quality. The efficacy data were derived from randomized controlled trials (n = 7), retrospective studies (n = 2), and published literature sources (n = 2). Half of the included studies were conducted in high-income countries, while the other half was in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Despite significant variations in the cost of pharmacist intervention, consistent findings demonstrate that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is more cost-effective or even cost-saving than standard care, primarily attributed to better glycemic control, enhanced patient compliance, and reduced risks of medication-related problems.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review substantiates that pharmacist involvement in diabetes management is cost-effective compared with standard care. However, the overall quality of reporting needs to be improved, and high-quality evidence is urgently needed to support healthcare decision-making in pharmacy practice.

Pharmacoeconomic Aspects of Diabetes Mellitus: Outcomes and Analysis of Health Benefits Approach

Pharmacoeconomics is an important tool for investigating and restructuring healthcare policies. In India, recent statistical studies have shown that the number of diabetic patients is rapidly increasing in the rural, middle and upper-class settings. The aim of this review is to call attention towards the need to carry out pharmacoeconomic studies for diabetes mellitus and highlight the outcome of these studies on healthcare. A well-structured literature search from PubMed, Embase, Springer, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane was done. Studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of various anti-diabetic agents for type 2 diabetes were eligible for inclusion in the analysis and review. Two independent reviewers sequentially assessed the titles, abstracts, and full articles to select studies that met the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria for data abstraction. Any discrepancies between the reviewers were resolved through consensus. By employing search terms such as pharmacoeconomics, diabetes mellitus, cost-effective analysis, cost minimization analysis, cost-utility analysis, and cost-benefit analysis, a total of 194 papers were gathered. Out of these, 110 papers were selected as they aligned with the defined search criteria and underwent the removal of duplicate entries. This review outlined four basic pharmacoeconomic studies carried out on diabetes mellitus. It gave a direction that early detection, patient counseling, personalized medication, appropriate screening intervals, and early start of pharmacotherapy proved to be a cost-effective as well as health benefits approach.

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Antidiabetic Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Evidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.

CONCLUSION

Newer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.

Were economic evaluations well reported for the newly listed oncology drugs in China's national reimbursement drug list

PURPOSE

To assess the reporting quality of published economic evaluations of the negotiated oncology drugs listed for China's 2020 National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in China's 2020 NRDL using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, and WanFang Database up to March 31, 2021. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist scored the reporting quality between 0 and 100. A linear regression analysis was employed to examine the influence of various characteristics on the reporting quality scores.

RESULTS

Eighty papers were included in the study, with the majority published during the past decade. Furthermore, more than half of the articles (57.5%, or 46 out of 80) were written in English. The average CHEERS score was 74.63 ± 12.75 and ranged from 43.48 to 93.75. The most inadequately reported items included choice of model, characterization of heterogeneity, and discussion, as well as currency, price date and conversion. Higher scores were associated with articles published from 2019 to 2021 and English publications.

CONCLUSION

The economic evaluation studies of negotiated oncology drugs listed in 2020 NRDL had moderate reporting quality. The Chinese economic evaluation publications could improve the reporting quality if the CHEERS checklist is consistently implemented. Also, the Chinese journals maybe explore introducing a reporting standard for economic evaluations.

Does health economics research align with the disease burden in the Middle East and North Africa region? A systematic review of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions

INTRODUCTION

Economic evaluation studies demonstrate the value of money in health interventions and enhance the efficiency of the healthcare system. Therefore, this study reviews published economic evaluation studies of public health interventions from 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries and examines whether they addressed the region's major health problems.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus were utilized to search for relevant articles published up to June 26, 2021. The reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 61 studies. Approximately half (28 studies; 46%) were conducted in Israel and Iran. The main areas of interest for economic evaluation studies were infectious diseases (21 studies; 34%), cancers (13 studies; 21%), and genetic disorders (nine studies; 15%). Five (8%), 39 (64%), 16 (26%), and one (2%) studies were classified as excellent, high, average, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of CHEERS checklist items reported was 80.8% (SD 14%). Reporting the structure and justification of the selected model was missed in 21 studies (37%), while price and conversion rates and the analytical methods were missed in 21 studies (34%).

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of economic evaluation studies on public health interventions in the MENA region remains low; however, the overall quality is high to excellent. There were obvious geographic gaps across countries regarding the number and quality of studies and gaps within countries concerning disease prioritization. The observed research output, however, did not reflect current and upcoming disease burden and risk factors trends in the MENA region.

A Systematic Review on Economic Evaluation Studies of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Interventions in the Middle East and North Africa

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increase in healthcare budget constraint, economic evaluation (EE) evidence is increasingly required to inform resource allocation decisions. This study aimed to systematically review quantity, characteristics, and quality of full EE studies on diagnostic and therapeutic interventions conducted in 26 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) countries.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were comprehensively searched to identify the published EE studies in the MENA region. The quality of reviewed studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 69 studies. The cost-utility approach was adopted in 49 studies (71 %). More than half (38 studies; 55 %) were conducted in Iran and Turkey. Sixteen countries (62 %) did not have any EE studies. The most frequently analyzed therapeutic areas were infectious diseases (19 studies; 28 %), cardiovascular diseases (11 studies; 16 %), and malignancies (10 studies; 14 %). Ten studies (14 %), 46 (67 %), 12 (17 %), and 1 study (1 %) were classified as excellent, high, moderate, and poor quality, respectively. The mean of items reported was 85.10 % (standard deviation 13.32 %). Characterizing heterogeneity, measurement of effectiveness, time horizon, and discount rate were missed in 21 (60 %), 22 (32 %), 20 (29 %) and 15 (25 %) studies, respectively. Data on effectiveness and utility relied primarily on studies conducted outside the region.

CONCLUSIONS

The quantity of EE studies in the MENA region remains low; however, overall quality is high to excellent. The availability of local data, capacity building, and national guidelines are vital to improve both the quantity and quality of EE studies in the region.

Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i) are widely used oral antidiabetic agents that exert antihyperglycemic effects in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) without increased risk of weight gain or hypoglycemic events. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the latest evidence that was associated with the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM.

AREAS COVERED

We conducted a systematic literature search of eligible articles published since inception up to March 2021 in Web of Science, MEDLINE (via PubMed), and ECONLIT. Fifty-four eligible articles were included in our review, in which DPP-4i were compared to metformin (4 studies), sulphonylurea (SU) (16 studies), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) (3 studies), thiazolidinediones (TZD) (4 studies), other DPP-4i (3 studies), sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) (10 studies), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) (18 studies), insulin (5 studies), and other antidiabetic therapies (5 studies).

EXPERT OPINION

This study provided the updated evidence of systematic pharmacoeconomic evaluation associated with DPP-4i for the treatment of patients with T2DM. The evidence from the literature suggested that DPP-4i may be more cost-effective compared to SU and insulin as second-line therapy after metformin but not a cost-effective alternative compared to SGLPT-2i and GLP-1RA.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Registration:

PROSPERO: CRD42020210645

Introduction:

We aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control.

Methods:

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses.

Results:

We identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01–1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75–1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis.

Conclusion:

There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Plain language summary

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes Introduction: We performed the review to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older type 2 diabetes patients with blood sugar outside the normal level. Methods: To answer the question, we searched various electronic databases. We included studies in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors. The data from the different studies were quantitatively summarized using statistical methods. We assessed the quality of the data to judge the certainty of the findings. Results: We identified 16 studies that included 19,317 patients with a mean age greater than 70 years. The average blood sugar level of patients in the included studies was slightly or moderately increased. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia, but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas. DPP-4s probably reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. Conclusion: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk that blood sugar falls below normal. Adding DPP-4 inhibitorss to standard care in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case additional treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Cost-Effectiveness of Aprepitant in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review of Published Articles

Objectives: The aim of this systematic review is to assess the published cost-effectiveness analyses of aprepitant for patients with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

Methods: A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, WANFANG DATA, and CBM database. The date of publication is up to January 2019. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts, and articles sequentially to select studies for data abstraction based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved and reviewers reached a consensus. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the 24-item checklist of the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS). The costs reported by the included studies were converted to US dollars via purchasing power parities (PPP) in the year 2019 using the CCEMG–EPPI–Certer Cost Converter.

Results: Thirteen articles were included based on the inclusion criteria for cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-utility analysis. Twelve studies were rated as good quality and one as a moderate quality based on the CHEERS checklist. Eight studies compared aprepitant plus 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5-HT3RA) and dexamethasone with the standard regimen (5-HT3RA and dexamethasone). It was concluded that aprepitant plus standard regimen was a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV. Only one study that compared aprepitant plus 5-HT3RA with 5-HT3RA, concluded that the addition of aprepitant reduced the incidence of severe nausea, and it might also provide an economic benefit in the overall management. Four studies that compared aprepitant with other antiemetic drugs concluded that aprepitant is a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV compared with metoclopramide. However, netupitan + palonosetron and olanzapine are cost-effective compared with aprepitant.

Conclusion: This study is the first systematic evaluation of adding aprepitant to standard regimens for patients with CINV. Most economic evaluations of antiemetic medications are reported to be of good quality. Adding aprepitant to standard regimens is found to be a cost-effective strategy for preventing CINV.

Health utility of type 2 diabetes patients using basal insulin in China: results from the BEYOND II study

OBJECTIVE

To derive the health utility scores of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients using basal insulin (BI) with diverse characteristics in China.

METHODS

The study used the data of insulin-using T2D patients on BI treatment enrolled in the BEYOND II study, which is a multi-center, observational study from 78 hospitals nationwide. The 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire was administered to each patient to derive their health utility scores using the EQ-5D-3L value set for China. Patients' clinical and sociodemographic information were retrieved from their electronic case report form (eCRF). Ordinary least-square models with different specifications were explored to identify the best-fitting model to predict the utility scores.

RESULTS

The sample (n = 12,583) achieved a mean (standard deviation) EQ-5D-3L utility score of 0.936 (0.120). According to the model, a Chinese male who was younger than 59 years, not underweight, diagnosed with T2D shorter than 10 years, with controlled plasma glucose and free of diabetes complications/comorbidities, would have a mean utility of 0.993. Being female, older age, underweight, and higher plasma glucose, longer diabetes duration was negatively related to EQ-5D-3L scores. Comorbidities and seven of eleven complications were associated with utility decrement. Interactions between some complications were also discovered.

CONCLUSIONS

The derived health utility scores for diabetes complications could facilitate the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of health interventions for Chinese insulin-using T2D patients.

Benefit of Early Add-on of Linagliptin to Insulin in Japanese Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Randomized-Controlled Open-Label Trial (TRUST2)

INTRODUCTION

This trial was conducted to assess the long-term safety, efficacy, and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

This trial enrolled 246 subjects. The subjects were randomized to the linagliptin group or the control group and were observed for 156 weeks. After week 16, subjects in the control group were also allowed to add linagliptin to evaluate the benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin. The primary end point was a change in HbA1c from baseline to week 16. Secondary end points included fasting plasma glucose, daily insulin dose, and frequency of adverse events.

RESULTS

HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose levels significantly decreased from baseline to week 16 in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The significant improvement in HbA1c continued until week 52. The daily insulin dose significantly decreased in the linagliptin group compared with the control group. The frequency of hypoglycemia and adverse events was comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Add-on of linagliptin to insulin was tolerated, improved glycemic control, and reduced the daily insulin dose. This study demonstrates the long-term safety, efficacy and benefit of early add-on of linagliptin to insulin in Japanese T2DM patients.

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.

Systematic evidence of health economic evaluation of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis: A quality appraisal

This paper systematically and critically reviewed all published economic evaluations of drugs for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. A systematic search was conducted using relevant databases for economic evaluations to include all relevant English articles published between January 2008 to January 2020. After extracting the key study characteristics, methods and outcomes, we evaluated each article using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) instruments. A total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. Majority of studies were funded by the industry and reported favorable cost-effectiveness. Based on the QHES total scores, studies (n = 35) were found to be industry-funded with higher QHES mean 82.44 ± 8.69 as compared with nonindustry funding studies (n = 11) with mean 72.22 ± 17.67. The overall mean QHES scores were found to be higher 79.06 ± 11.84, representing high quality (75–100) compared to CHEERS scores (%) 75.03 ± 11.21. The statistical pairwise comparison between CHEERS mean (75.03 ± 11.21) and QHES mean (79.06 ± 11.84) were not statistically significant (P = 0.10) whereas, QHES score showed higher means as compared to CHEERS. This study suggests the overall quality of the published literatures was relatively few high-quality health economic evaluation demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of drugs for postmenopausal osteoporosis, and the majority of the literature highlights that methodological shortcoming.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes who fail metformin monotherapy: systematic review and meta-analysis of economic evaluation studies

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and to pool the incremental net benefits (INBs) of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP1) compared with other therapies in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) after metformin monotherapy failure.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study design is a systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus and Tufts Registry for eligible cost-utility studies up to June 2018, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. We conducted a systematic review and pooled the INBs of GLP1s compared with other therapies in T2DM after metformin monotherapy failure. Various monetary units were converted to purchasing power parity, adjusted to 2017 US$. The INBs were calculated and then pooled across studies, stratified by level of country income; a random-effects model was used if heterogeneity was present, and a fixed-effects model if it was absent. Heterogeneity was assessed using Q test and I² statistic.

RESULTS

A total of 56 studies were eligible, mainly from high-income countries (HICs). The pooled INBs of GLP1s compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) (n=10), sulfonylureas (n=6), thiazolidinedione (TZD) (n=3), and insulin (n=23) from HICs were US$4012.21 (95% CI US$-571.43 to US$8595.84, I²=0%), US$3857.34 (95% CI US$-7293.93 to US$15 008.61, I²=45.9%), US$37 577.74 (95% CI US$-649.02 to US$75 804.50, I²=92.4%) and US$14 062.42 (95% CI US$8168.69 to US$19 956.15, I²=86.4%), respectively. GLP1s were statistically significantly cost-effective compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas, and TZDs. Among GLP1s, liraglutide was more cost-effective compared with lixisenatide, but not compared with exenatide, with corresponding pooled INBs of US$4555.09 (95% CI US$3992.60 to US$5117.59, I²=0) and US$728.46 (95% CI US$-1436.14 to US$2893.07, I²=0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

GLP1 agonists are a cost-effective choice compared with insulins, but not compared with DPP4i, sulfonylureas and TZDs.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018105193.

Quality of economic evaluations of ventricular assist devices: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Because of a lack of suitable heart donors, alternatives to transplantation are required. These alternatives can have high costs. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of ventricular assist devices (VADs) and to assess the level of evidence of relevant studies. The purpose was not to present economic findings.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using four electronic databases to identify health economic evaluation studies dealing with VADs. The methodological quality and reporting quality of the studies was assessed using three different tools, the Drummond, Cooper, and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) checklists.

RESULTS

Of the 1,258 publications identified, thirteen articles were included in this review. Twelve studies were cost-utility analyses and one was a cost-effectiveness analysis. According to the Cooper hierarchy scale, the quality of the data used was heterogeneous. The level of evidence used for clinical effect sizes, safety data, and baseline clinical data was of poor quality. In contrast, cost data were of high quality in most studies. Quality of reporting varied between studies, with an average score of 17.4 (range 15-19) according to the CHEERS checklist.

CONCLUSION

The current study shows that the quality of clinical data used in economic evaluations of VADs is rather poor in general. This is a concern that deserves greater attention in the process of health technology assessment of medical devices.

Cost of Managing Type 2 Diabetes Before and After Initiating Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 Inhibitor Treatment: A Longitudinal Study Using a French Public Health Insurance Database

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes is a growing epidemic that imposes a substantial economic burden on healthcare systems. This study aimed to evaluate the cost of managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4Is) using real-world data.

METHOD

This longitudinal study used data from the French EGB (Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires) database. The annual average direct healthcare cost of treating patients with T2D was calculated 3 years prior and 3 years after initiation of DPP4I therapy. Actual total ambulatory and hospital care expenditure for the 3 years after DPP4I initiation was compared to projected costs. The distribution of costs across all care modalities was assessed over the 6-year period.

RESULTS

Ambulatory and hospital care expenditure data for 919 patients with T2D starting DPP4I therapy alone or in combination in 2013 were analyzed. A total of 526 patients (57.2%) were still being treated with DPP4I 3 years after DPP4I initiation. Regardless of the treatment regimen, the ambulatory and hospital care costs increased above projected costs in the first year following DPP4I initiation, and then declined during the second and third years to levels in line with or below projected values for patients using DPP4Is as an add-on therapy. The increase in total expenditure in the first year following DPP4I initiation and the subsequent decline in costs in the second and third years were both associated with general trends in consumption across all aspects of patient care.

CONCLUSION

Despite an initial increase in healthcare expenditure, concomitant with reevaluation of patient care, this study showed that initiation of DPP4Is as an add-on therapy in French patients with T2D was associated with care expenditure that was in line or below predicted values within the 3 years following treatment initiation. Additional studies are required to evaluate the economic impact of the long-term treatment benefits.

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.

An Efficient and Practical Method for the Synthesis of Saxagliptin Intermediate 2-(3-Hydroxy-1-adamantane)-2-oxoacetic Acid and Its Optimization

A mild and relatively simple way for preparation of 2-(3-hydroxy-1-adamantane)-2-oxoacetic acid (I) was reported. It was prepared from 1-adamantanecarboxylic acid (II) via sulfuric acid/nitric acid to get 3-hydroxy-1-adamantanecarboxylic acid (III); treated with the one-pot method through acylation, condensation, and decarboxylation to obtain 3-hydroxy-1-acetyladamantane (IV); and finally oxidized by potassium permanganate (KMnO4) to get the target compound (I). The overall yield was about 60%, which provides a new idea for commercial production of saxagliptin intermediate.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Digital Health Interventions on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

With the advancement in information technology and mobile internet, digital health interventions (DHIs) are improving the care of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The impact of DHIs on cost-effective management of CVDs has been examined using the decision analytic model-based health technology assessment approach.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review of the decision analytic model-based studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness of DHIs on the management of CVDs.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Complete, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Center for Review and Dissemination, and Institute for IEEE Xplore between 2001 and 2018. Studies were included if the following criteria were met: (1) English articles, (2) DHIs that promoted or delivered clinical interventions and had an impact on patients' cardiovascular conditions, (3) studies that were modeling works with health economic outcomes of DHIs for CVDs, (4) studies that had a comparative group for assessment, and (5) full economic evaluations including a cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. The primary outcome collected was the cost-effectiveness of the DHIs, presented by incremental cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The quality of each included study was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies met the defined criteria and were included in the review. Among the included studies, heart failure (7/14, 50%) and stroke (4/14, 29%) were two of the most frequent CVDs that were managed by DHIs. A total of 9 (64%) studies were published between 2015 and 2018 and 5 (36%) published between 2011 and 2014. The time horizon was ≤1 year in 3 studies (21%), >1 year in 10 studies (71%), and 1 study (7%) did not declare the time frame. The types of devices or technologies used to deliver the health interventions were short message service (1/14, 7%), telephone support (1/14, 7%), mobile app (1/14, 7%), video conferencing system (5/14, 36%), digital transmission of physiologic data (telemonitoring; 5/14, 36%), and wearable medical device (1/14, 7%). The DHIs gained higher QALYs with cost saving in 43% (6/14) of studies and gained QALYs at a higher cost at acceptable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in 57% (8/14) of studies. The studies were classified as excellent (0/14, 0%), good (9/14, 64%), moderate (4/14, 29%), and low (1/14, 7%) quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first systematic review of decision analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of DHIs in the management of CVDs. Most of the identified studies were published recently, and the majority of the studies were good quality cost-effectiveness analyses with an adequate duration of time frame. All the included studies found the DHIs to be cost-effective.

Cost Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors, Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1) Receptor Agonists, and Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to systematically review cost-effectiveness studies of newer antidiabetic medications.

METHODS

The PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library-NHS Economic Evaluation Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Health Technology Assessment Database (Wiley), Cochrane Library-Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (Wiley), and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases (from 1 January 2000 to 1 June 2018) were searched. The search strategies included the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) term 'economics', and the MeSH entry terms 'cost', 'cost effectiveness', 'value', and 'cost utility', as well as all names for GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors. Inclusion criteria included (1) cost-effectiveness studies of the newer antidiabetic medications, including sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors; and (2) full-text publications in English. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles to select studies for data extraction. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. The quality of reporting cost-effectiveness analyses was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) guideline.

RESULTS

Among 85 studies selected, 82 clearly stated the types of diabetes model used (e.g. CORE model), and 70 studied used validated diabetes models. Seventy-four (87%) studies were funded by pharmaceutical companies, and 72 (85%) studies were conducted from a payer's perspective. Seventy-six (89%) studies presented were of good quality (20-24 CHEERS items), and nine were of moderate quality (14-19 items). Thirty studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with insulin, 3 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with thiazolidinediones (TZDs), 15 studies compared newer antidiabetic medications with sulfonylureas, 40 studies compared new antidiabetic medications with alternative newer antidiabetic medication, and 9 studies compared other antidiabetic agents that were not included above. Newer antidiabetic medications were reported to be cost-effective in 26 of 30 (87%) studies compared with insulin, and 13 of 15 (87%) studies compared with sulfonylureas.

CONCLUSIONS

Most economic evaluations of antidiabetic medications have good reporting quality and use validated diabetes models. The newer antidiabetic medications in most of the reviewed studies were found to be cost effective, compared with insulin, TZDs, and sulfonylureas.

Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

The number of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing worldwide. The combination of metformin and sulphonylurea (M+S) is a widely used treatment. Whether M+S shows better or worse effects in comparison with other antidiabetic medications for people with T2DM is still controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of metformin and sulphonylurea (second- or third-generation) combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated the search of a recent systematic review from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The updated search included CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP. The date of the last search was March 2018. We searched manufacturers' websites and reference lists of included trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. We asked investigators of the included trials for information about additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) randomising participants 18 years old or more with T2DM to M+S compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention or metformin monotherapy with a treatment duration of 52 weeks or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles and records, assessed risk of bias and extracted outcome data independently. We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analysis, and calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 RCTs randomising 28,746 people. Treatment duration ranged between one to four years. We judged none of these trials as low risk of bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. Most important events per person were all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, serious adverse events (SAE), non-fatal stroke (NFS), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and microvascular complications. Most important comparisons were as follows:Five trials compared M+S (N = 1194) with metformin plus a glucagon-like peptide 1 analogue (N = 1675): all-cause mortality was 11/1057 (1%) versus 11/1537 (0.7%), risk ratio (RR) 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 2.67); 3 trials; 2594 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 1/307 (0.3%) versus 1/302 (0.3%), low-certainty evidence; serious adverse events (SAE) 128/1057 (12.1%) versus 194/1537 (12.6%), RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.11); 3 trials; 2594 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) 2/549 (0.4%) versus 6/1026 (0.6%), RR 0.57 (95% CI 0.12 to 2.82); 2 trials; 1575 participants; very low-certainty evidence.Nine trials compared M+S (N = 5414) with metformin plus a dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor (N = 6346): all-cause mortality was 33/5387 (0.6%) versus 26/6307 (0.4%), RR 1.32 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.28); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 11/2989 (0.4%) versus 9/3885 (0.2%), RR 1.54 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.79); 6 trials; 6874 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 735/5387 (13.6%) versus 779/6307 (12.4%), RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.18); 9 trials; 11,694 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 14/2098 (0.7%) versus 8/2995 (0.3%), RR 2.21 (95% CI 0.74 to 6.58); 4 trials; 5093 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 15/2989 (0.5%) versus 13/3885 (0.3%), RR 1.45 (95% CI 0.69 to 3.07); 6 trials; 6874 participants; very low-certainty evidence; one trial in 64 participants reported no microvascular complications were observed (very low-certainty evidence).Eleven trials compared M+S (N = 3626) with metformin plus a thiazolidinedione (N = 3685): all-cause mortality was 123/3300 (3.7%) versus 114/3354 (3.4%), RR 1.09 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.40); 6 trials; 6654 participants; low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 37/2946 (1.3%) versus 41/2994 (1.4%), RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.67); 4 trials; 5940 participants; low-certainty evidence; SAE 666/3300 (20.2%) versus 671/3354 (20%), RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.11); 6 trials; 6654 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 20/1540 (1.3%) versus 16/1583 (1%), RR 1.29 (95% CI 0.67 to 2.47); P = 0.45; 2 trials; 3123 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 25/1841 (1.4%) versus 21/1877 (1.1%), RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.68 to 2.14); P = 0.51; 3 trials; 3718 participants; very low-certainty evidence; three trials (3123 participants) reported no microvascular complications (very low-certainty evidence).Three trials compared M+S (N = 462) with metformin plus a glinide (N = 476): one person died in each intervention group (3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence); no cardiovascular mortality (2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence); SAE 34/424 (8%) versus 27/450 (6%), RR 1.68 (95% CI 0.54 to 5.21); P = 0.37; 3 trials; 874 participants; low-certainty evidence; no NFS (1 trial; 233 participants; very low-certainty evidence); non-fatal MI 2/215 (0.9%) participants in the M+S group; 2 trials; 446 participants; low-certainty evidence; no microvascular complications (1 trial; 233 participants; low-certainty evidence).Four trials compared M+S (N = 2109) with metformin plus a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitor (N = 3032): all-cause mortality was 13/2107 (0.6%) versus 19/3027 (0.6%), RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.44 to 2.09); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; cardiovascular mortality 4/1327 (0.3%) versus 6/2262 (0.3%), RR 1.22 (95% CI 0.33 to 4.41); 3 trials; 3589 participants; very low-certainty evidence; SAE 315/2107 (15.5%) versus 375/3027 (12.4%), RR 1.02 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.37); 4 trials; 5134 participants; very low-certainty evidence; NFS 3/919 (0.3%) versus 7/1856 (0.4%), RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.22 to 3.34); 2 trials; 2775 participants; very low-certainty evidence; non-fatal MI 7/890 (0.8%) versus 8/1374 (0.6%), RR 1.43 (95% CI 0.49 to 4.18; 2 trials); 2264 participants; very low-certainty evidence; amputation of lower extremity 1/437 (0.2%) versus 1/888 (0.1%); very low-certainty evidence.Trials reported more hypoglycaemic episodes with M+S combination compared to all other metformin-antidiabetic agent combinations. Results for M+S versus metformin monotherapy were inconclusive. There were no RCTs comparing M+S with metformin plus insulin. We identified nine ongoing trials and two trials are awaiting assessment. Together these trials will include approximately 16,631 participants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is inconclusive evidence whether M+S combination therapy compared with metformin plus another glucose-lowering intervention results in benefit or harm for most patient-important outcomes (mortality, SAEs, macrovascular and microvascular complications) with the exception of hypoglycaemia (more harm for M+S combination). No RCT reported on health-related quality of life.

Improving postprandial hyperglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes already on basal insulin therapy: Review of current strategies

A large number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on basal insulin do not reach their HbA1c goals and require additional therapy to address postprandial hyperglycemia. Guidelines from expert bodies have outlined several approaches to accomplish postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and recent literature suggests several more. This article provides strategies for primary care physicians caring for patients with T2D who do not achieve glycemic control with basal insulin alone. Current treatment guidelines and strategies for improving PPG control are reviewed, including the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of rapid-acting insulin (RAI) analogs, premixed insulin, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs), dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, and α-glucosidase inhibitors. Other approaches, such as combinations of newer basal insulin plus RAI and a fixed-ratio combination of basal insulin and a GLP-1 RA, are also described.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of different dipeptidyl-peptidase 4 inhibitor drugs for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) has burdened health systems in the world to the value of 500 billion dollars/year. Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4 Inhibitors) have been strongly associated with spending on the treatment of T2DM by the courts in Brazil. The aim of this study was to estimate the most cost-effective DPP-4 Inhibitor for T2DM treatment. A pharmacoeconomic study of cost-effectiveness was performed in a medium-sized municipality in Minas Gerais state, Brazil.

METHODS

The data are from legalization in municipal health in 2013. The effectiveness of DPP-4 Inhibitors was measured by the reduction in glycated hemoglobin (A1c). The direct medical costs of drug and adverse drug reactions were identified. With these data, a cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and construction of the decision tree for sensitivity analysis were performed.

RESULTS

The representative of the most effective in reducing A1c gliptins was sitagliptin in combination with metformin, it was able to reduce A1c by 1.16% (1.09 to 1.22, CI 95%). The drug with the lowest cost was linagliptin, with a cost per patient/year of US$ 481.42. Sensitivity analysis performed by the decision tree shows that sitagliptin in association with metformin had the CER of US$ 1,506.75 per patient/year, to reduce A1c by 1%.

CONCLUSION

The most cost-effective DPP-4 Inhibitor was sitagliptin with metformin.

The place of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment algorithm of diabetes type 2: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies of DPP-4 inhibitors for diabetes treatment versus other antidiabetics.

METHODS

Three investigators searched the CRD York, Tufts CEA Registry, and MEDLINE databases through 2015. We reviewed all potentially relevant titles and abstracts, and screened full-text articles, according to inclusion criteria. We established a quality score for each study based on a 35-item list.

RESULTS

A total of 295 studies were identified, of which 20 were included. The average quality score was 0.720 on a 0-1 scale. All studies were performed in high- and middle-income countries, using a 3rd-party payer perspective and randomized clinical trials to measure effectiveness. Sitagliptin, saxagliptin and vildagliptin had an ICER below 25,000 €/QALY, as second-line and as add-ons to metformin, in comparison to sulfonylureas. When compared with sitagliptin, liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) had an ICER of up to 22,724 €/QALY for the 1.2-mg dosage, and up to 32,869 €/QALY for the 1.8-mg dosage. Insulin glargine was dominant when compared with sitagliptin.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the WHO threshold applied to the country and year of each study, DPP-4 inhibitors were highly cost-effective as second-line, as add-ons to metformin, in comparison with sulfonylureas. More recent therapies (GLP-1 receptor agonists and insulin glargine) were highly cost-effective in comparison to DPP-4 inhibitors. These results were obtained, however, on the basis of a limited number of studies, relying on the same few clinical trials, and financed by manufacturers. Further independent research is needed to confirm these findings.

A systematic review of health economic evaluation in adjuvant breast radiotherapy: Quality counted by numbers

BACKGROUND

Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments.

METHODS

HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results.

RESULTS

Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores.

CONCLUSION

Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results.

Adherence, Persistence, and Health Care Costs for Patients Receiving Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

The dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are among the newer, yet more established, classes of diabetes medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence, persistence, and health care costs among patients taking DPP-4 inhibitors.

METHODS

Claims were extracted from Humana Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) or commercial plans for patients aged > 18 years with ≥ 1 prescription filled for a DPP-4 inhibitor between July 1, 2011, and March 31, 2013. The first prescription claim for a DPP-4 inhibitor established the index date and index medication; 12-month pre-index and post-index data were analyzed. The Diabetes Complications Severity Index (DCSI) was used to assess a level of baseline diabetes-related comorbidities. Adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 80%) and persistence (< 31-day gap) measures were compared before and after, adjusting for DCSI, pre-index insulin, age, and gender. Post-index costs (in 2013 U.S. dollars) were compared using general linear modeling (GLM) to adjust for pre-index costs, DCSI, pre-index insulin, age, and gender.

RESULTS

Based on study criteria, 22,860 patients with MAPD coverage (17,292 sitagliptin, 4,282 saxagliptin, and 1,286 linagliptin) and 3,229 patients with commercial coverage (2,368 sitagliptin, 643 saxagliptin, and 218 linagliptin) were included. For MAPD patients, the mean age was 70-72 years, and females represented 50%-52% of patients. For commercial patients, mean age was 55-56 years, and females represented 44% of patients. Clinical indicators for patients on linagliptin showed a higher comorbidity level than sitagliptin or saxagliptin cohorts (MAPD DCSI 3.0 vs 2.4 and 2.2, P < 0.001; commercial DCSI 1.2 vs. 0.9 and 0.9, P < 0.001); a higher use of pre-index insulin (MAPD 22% vs. 15% and 14%, P < 0.001; commercial 18% vs. 11% and 10%, P = 0.003); and higher mean pre-index costs (MAPD $14,448 vs. $11,818 and $10,399, P < 0.001; commercial $13,868 vs. $9,357 and $8,223, P = 0.016). For the MAPD cohort, the unadjusted PDC was lower for linagliptin patients (67%) compared with saxagliptin (72%) or sitagliptin (72%) patients (P < 0.001). Significant differences were still seen when adjusted for covariates. Linagliptin patients were more likely to be nonpersistent (73%) than those on saxagliptin (65%) or sitagliptin (67%; P < 0.01 for adjusted and unadjusted comparisons). For the commercial population, there were no significant differences in mean PDC between the 3 groups (linagliptin 70%, saxagliptin 72%, and sitagliptin 74%; P = 0.096). Dichotomized comparisons of nonpersistence were significantly different (linagliptin 65%, saxagliptin 62%, and sitagliptin 57%; P = 0.010), although upon adjustment using a Cox proportional hazard model, no significant differences were found. When controlling for other factors, post-index adjusted health care costs were similar between the medication cohorts (MAPD: sitagliptin = $13,913, saxagliptin = $13,651, and linagliptin = $13,859; commercial: sitagliptin = $11,677, saxagliptin = $12,059, and linagliptin = $11,163; all P > 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

For MAPD and commercial populations, baseline patient demographics were similar between the 3 DPP-4 inhibitor groups, but the linagliptin group may have had more complex patients (higher pre-index costs, higher DCSI, and more use of insulin). For the MAPD population, patients on linagliptin were less adherent and persistent than patients taking sitagliptin or saxagliptin for all unadjusted and adjusted comparisons. For the commercial population, which was notably smaller, these differences were in the same direction, but not all were statistically significant. When controlling for baseline factors, 12-month post-index direct medical health care costs were similar between index DPP-4 inhibitors.

DISCLOSURES

No external funding was provided for this research. The project was done as part of internal work by Humana employees. Rascati received no compensation. None of the authors have any financial disclosures or conflicts of interests to report. Worley and Everhart are employees of Comprehensive Health Insights, a subsidiary of Humana, and Meah is an employee of Humana. Discussion of the adherence and persistence data was presented as a poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus Conference, October 2015. Cost data were presented as a poster at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 18th Annual European Congress, November 2015. Study concept and design were contributed by Rascati, Worley, and Meah, along with Everhart. Rascati took the lead in data collection, assisted by Meah, and data interpretation was performed by all the authors. The manuscript was written primarily by Rascati, along with Worley, Everhart, and Meah, and revised by Rascati, Everhart, and Worley, with assistance from Meah.

Cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus in Brazil; findings and implications

INTRODUCTION

Vildagliptin is an inhibitor of the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase 4, indicated for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, combined or not with metformin. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of vildagliptin in the Brazilian context. Areas covered: Using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Lilacs and CRD, six studies were selected for the economic models. This study utilised cost data in the Brazilian health system to provide the context. Expert commentary: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an epidemic disease and represents a challenge for all health care systems. Although guidelines clearly define first-line treatment, there are several other promising treatments. Vildagliptin is one of them, resulting in a mean lifetime increase of 0.31 years compared to metformin alone and 1.19 more life years compared to other metformin combinations. Considering observational data, life years with dual vildagliptin-containing treatments were 0.37 more compared to other dual treatments. However, its high cost versus generic metformin and its unclear safety profile weakens its subsequent cost-effectiveness. Consequently, the incorporation of vildagliptin or its combination with metformin is currently not recommended for the Brazilian Health Care System. This may change as more data becomes available.

Cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy versus sulfonylurea monotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

With a high prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Thailand, the appropriate treatment for the patients has become a major concern. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effective of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor monothearpy vs sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in people with T2DM and CKD.

METHODS

A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term costs and outcomes. The efficacy parameters were identified and synthesized using a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. Costs were expressed in 2014 US Dollars. Outcomes were presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

From a societal perspective, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors yielded more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.024) at a higher cost (>66,000 Thai baht (THB) or >1,829.27 USD) per person than SFU, resulting in the ICER of >2.7 million THB/QALY (>74,833.70 USD/QALY). The cost-effectiveness results were mainly driven by differences in HbA1c reduction, hypoglycemic events, and drug acquisition cost of DPP-4 inhibitors. At the ceiling ratio of 160,000 THB/QALY (4,434.59 USD/QALY), the probability that DPP-4 inhibitors are cost-effective compared to SFU was less than 10%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to SFU, DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for people with T2DM and CKD in Thailand.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Alogliptin Versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION

ENDURE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00856284), a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study of 2639 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), found that metformin in combination with alogliptin (12.5 and 25 mg doses), when compared to standard add-on therapy (sulfonylurea, SU), exerted sustained antihyperglycemic effects over 2 years. This economic analysis of ENDURE aimed to quantify the relationship between increased glycemic durability and cost-effectiveness of alogliptin in the UK clinical setting, and communicate its sustained glycemic benefit in economic terms.

METHODS

Using baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the ENDURE trial population, between-group cost-effectiveness analyses compared the combined use of metformin and alogliptin (MET + ALO_12.5/25) in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM, as an alternative to metformin and SU (MET + SU). In scenario analyses, an intragroup cost-effectiveness analysis compared MET + ALO_12.5/25 with MET + SU; a between-group cost-effectiveness analysis also compared MET + ALO_12.5/25 versus MET + SU within a subpopulation of patients who achieved HbA1c control (<7.5%) at 2 years on study drug.

RESULTS

Compared with baseline profiles of patients, combination therapies with alogliptin or SU were associated with improvements in length and quality of life and were cost-effective at established norms. Despite increased drug acquisition costs, alogliptin at 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses resulted in greater predicted lifetime quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £10,959/QALY and £7217/QALY compared to SU, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The ENDURE trial and the present cost-effectiveness analysis found that the glycemic durability of alogliptin therapy was associated with improved long-term patient outcomes, QALY gains, and ICERs that were cost-effective when evaluated against standard threshold values. Alogliptin therefore represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to SU as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with poorly managed T2DM.

FUNDING

Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor monotherapy in elderly type 2 diabetes patients in Thailand

BACKGROUND

The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in elderly population poses many challenges. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors show particular promise due to excellent tolerability profiles, low risk of hypoglycemia, and little effect on body weight. This study evaluated, from the health care system's perspective, the long-term cost-effectiveness of DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy vs metformin and sulfonylurea (SFU) monotherapy in Thai elderly T2DM patients.

METHODS

The clinical efficacy was estimated from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Baseline cohort characteristics and cost parameters were obtained from published studies and hospital databases in Thailand. A validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model version 8.5 was used to project clinical and economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon using a 3% annual discount rate. Costs were expressed in 2014 Thai Baht (THB) (US dollar value). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Base-case assumptions were assessed through several sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

For treating elderly T2DM patients, DPP-4 inhibitors were more expensive and less effective, ie, a dominated strategy, than the metformin monotherapy. Compared with SFU, treatment with DPP-4 inhibitors gained 0.031 more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a total cost incurred over THB113,701 or US$3,449.67, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of THB3.63 million or US$110,133.50 per QALY. At the acceptable Thai ceiling threshold of THB160,000/QALY (US$4,854.37/QALY), DPP-4 inhibitors were not a cost-effective treatment.

CONCLUSION

DPP-4 inhibitor monotherapy is not a cost-effective treatment for elderly T2DM patients compared with metformin monotherapy and SFU monotherapy, given current resource constraints in Thailand.

Economic Burden in Chinese Patients with Diabetes Mellitus Using Electronic Insurance Claims Data

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of studies that focus on the economic burden in daily care in China using electronic health data. The aim of this study is to describe the development of the economic burden of diabetic patients in a sample city in China from 2009 to 2011 using electronic data of patients' claims records.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective, longitudinal study in an open cohort of Chinese patients with diabetes. The patient population consisted of people living in a provincial capital city in east China, covered by the provincial urban employee basic medical insurance (UEBMI). We included any patient who had at least one explicit diabetes diagnosis or received blood glucose lowering medication in at least one registered outpatient visit or hospitalization during a calendar year in the years 2009-2011. Cross-sectional descriptions of different types of costs, prevalence of diabetic complications and related diseases, medication use were performed for each year separately and differences between three years were compared using a chi-square test or the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test.

RESULTS

Our results showed an increasing trend in total medical cost (from 2,383 to 2,780 USD, p = 0.032) and diabetes related cost (from 1,655 to 1,857 USD) for those diabetic patients during the study period. The diabetes related economic burden was significantly related to the prevalence of complications and related diseases (p<0.001). The overall medication cost during diabetes related visits also increased (from 1,335 to 1,383 USD, p = 0.021). But the use pattern and cost of diabetes-related medication did not show significant changes during the study period.

CONCLUSION

The economic burden of diabetes increased significantly in urban China. It is important to improve the prevention and treatment of diabetes to contribute to the sustainability of the Chinese health-care system.

DPP-4 inhibitor plus SGLT-2 inhibitor as combination therapy for type 2 diabetes: from rationale to clinical aspects

INTRODUCTION

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a complex disease with multiple defects, which generally require a combination of several pharmacological approaches to control hyperglycemia. Combining a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) and a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor (SGT2i) appears to be an attractive approach. Area covered: An extensive literature search was performed to analyze the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical experience of different gliptin-gliflozin combinations. Expert opinion: There is a strong rationale for combining a DPP-4i and a SGLT2i in patients with T2D because the two drugs exert different and complementary glucose-lowering effects. Dual therapy (initial combination or stepwise approach) is more potent than either monotherapy in patients treated with diet and exercise or already treated with metformin. Combining the two pharmacological options is safe and does not induce hypoglycemia. The additional glucose-lowering effect is more marked when a gliflozin is added to a gliptin than when a gliptin is added to a gliflozin. Two fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) are already available (saxagliptin-dapagliflozin and linagliptin-empagliflozin) and others are in current development. Bioequivalence of the two compounds given as FDC tablets was demonstrated when compared with coadministration of the individual tablets. FDCs could simplify the anti-hyperglycaemic therapy and improve drug compliance.

Novel Therapeutics for Diabetes: Uptake, Usage Trends, and Comparative Effectiveness

The number of available therapies for treating type 2 diabetes has grown considerably in recent years. This growth has been fueled by availability of newer medications, whose benefits and risks have not been fully established. In this study, we review and synthesize the existing literature on the uptake, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of novel antidiabetic agents. Specifically, we focus on three drug classes that were introduced in the market recently: thiazolidinediones (TZDs), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists. Not surprisingly, we find that the usage trends reflect the efficacy and safety profile of these novel drugs. The use of TZDs increased initially but decreased after a black-box warning was issued for rosiglitazone in 2007 that highlighted the cardiovascular risks associated with using the drug. Conversely, DPP-4 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists gained market shares due to their efficacy in glycemic control as an add-on treatment to metformin. DPP-4 inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed agents among the three novel drug classes, likely because they are relatively less expensive, have better safety profile, are administered orally, and are weight neutral. Sitagliptin was the most preferred DPP-4 inhibitor. The level of evidence on the comparative effectiveness, safety, and cost implications of using novel antidiabetic agents remains low and further studies with long-term follow-ups are needed.

Combination therapy of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes: rationale and evidences

No single antidiabetic agent can correct all the pathophysiologic defects manifested in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and, therefore, multiple agents are often required to achieve optimal glycemic control. Combination therapies, having different mechanisms of action, not only have the potential to complement their action, but may possess the properties to counter the undesired compensatory response. Recent finding suggests that sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) increase endogenous glucose production (EGP) from liver, due to the increase in glucagon which may offset its glucose-lowering potential. In contrast, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) decrease glucagon and EGP. Especially in the light of this finding, combination therapies with SGLT2i and DPP4i are particularly appealing, and are expected to produce an additive effect. Indeed, studies find no drug-drug interaction between SGLT2i and DPP4i. Moreover, significant reduction in glycated hemoglobin has also been observed. This article aims to review the efficacy and safety of combination therapy of SGLT2i and DPP4i in T2DM.