Cost-Effectiveness of Liraglutide Versus Dapagliflozin for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in the UK

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses of interventions for diabetic conditions: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to provide an overview of adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses related to the pharmacological treatments of diabetes and diabetes-related complications.

INTRODUCTION

The inclusion of adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness analyses is recognized in health technology assessments guidelines, but in practice, this is inconsistent. This inconsistency may affect the reliability of the evaluation and, therefore, indicate that the information provided for decision-making in health care is misleading. Reviewing if and how adverse drug events are incorporated in cost-effectiveness analyses is necessary to address this gap.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies including participants who are receiving pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema will be considered for inclusion. We will include sources that focus on cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework, and are published in English between 2011 and the present. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions will be excluded.

METHODS

The information sources to be searched include MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, the NHS Economic Evaluations Database, and the Health Technology Assessment Database. Studies in English will be considered for inclusion in the review. Potential sources will be assessed by 2 independent reviewers and imported into the JBI System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information. The results of the search and the study inclusion process will be reported in a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. A specific data extraction form will be used to extract and analyze the data. Results will be presented in tabular and graphic formats with a narrative summary, and will be discussed in the context of current literature and guidelines.

Cost-Effectiveness of Once-Weekly Semaglutide 1 mg versus Canagliflozin 300 mg in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a Canadian Setting

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled with metformin from the healthcare payer and societal perspectives in Canada.

METHODS

Head-to-head data from the SUSTAIN 8 randomised trial (NCT03136484) were extrapolated over 40 years using economic simulation modelling. The cost-effectiveness of once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg versus canagliflozin 300 mg for treating T2DM was estimated using the Swedish Institute for Health Economics-Diabetes Cohort Model (IHE-DCM) and the Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM). Unit costs and disutility weights capturing treatments and key macro- and microvascular complications were sourced from the literature to best match the Canadian setting. A probabilistic base-case simulation and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was associated with reductions in macro- and microvascular complications, yielding incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of (Canadian dollars [CAD]) CAD16,392 and 18,098 per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained versus canagliflozin 300 mg for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a healthcare payer perspective. Accounting for productivity loss as well, ICERs were CAD14,127 and 13,188 per QALY gained for IHE-DCM and ECHO-T2DM, respectively, from a societal perspective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed that the base-case results were robust to changes in input parameters and assumptions used.

CONCLUSIONS

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of CAD50,000 per QALY gained, once-weekly semaglutide 1 mg was cost-effective over 40 years versus once-daily canagliflozin 300 mg for the treatment of T2DM in patients failing to maintain glycemic control with metformin alone.

A budget impact analysis of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide in type 2 diabetes from a private health insurance perspective in Egypt

Introduction

Type 2 diabetes mellitus causes a sizable burden globally from both health and economic points of view. This study aimed to assess the budget impact of substituting sitagliptin with liraglutide versus other glucose-lowering drugs from the private health insurance perspective in Egypt over a 3-year time horizon.

Methods

Two budget impact models were compared with the standard of care (metformin, pioglitazone, gliclazide, insulin glargine, repaglinide, and empagliflozin) administered in addition to liraglutide or sitagliptin versus the standard of care with placebo. A gradual market introduction of liraglutide or sitagliptin was assumed, and the existing market shares for the other glucose-lowering drugs were provided and validated by the Expert Panel. The event rates were extracted from the LEADER and TECOS trials. Direct and mortality costs were measured. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results

The estimated target population of 120,574 type 2 diabetic adult patients was associated with cardio vascular risk. The budget impact per patient per month for liraglutide is EGP29 ($6.7), EGP39 ($9), and EGP49 ($11.3) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. The budget impact per patient per month for sitagliptin is EGP11 ($2.5), EGP14 ($3.2), and EGP18 ($4.1) in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years, respectively. Furthermore, adoption of liraglutide resulted in 203 fewer deaths and 550 avoided hospitalizations, while sitagliptin resulted in 43 increased deaths and 14 avoided hospitalizations. The treatment costs of liraglutide use are mostly offset by substantial savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related events, avoided mortality and avoided hospitalizations over 3 years.

Conclusion

Adding liraglutide resulted in a modest budget impact, suggesting that the upfront drug costs were offset by budget savings due to fewer cardiovascular-related complications and deaths avoided compared to the standard of care. Sitagliptin resulted in a small budget impact but was associated with increased deaths and fewer hospitalizations avoided.

Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonist Usage in Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care for the UK and Beyond: A Narrative Review

The scientific landscape of treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D) has changed rapidly in the last decade with newer treatments becoming available. However, a large proportion of people with T2D are not able to achieve glycaemic goals because of clinical inertia. The majority of T2D management is in primary care, where clinicians (medical, nursing and pharmacist staff) play an important role in addressing patient needs and achieving treatment goals. However, management of T2D is challenging because of the heterogeneity of T2D and complexity of comorbidity, time constraints, guidance overload and the evolving treatments. Additionally, the current coronavirus disease pandemic poses additional challenges to the management of chronic diseases such as T2D, including routine access to patients for monitoring and communication. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are a class of agents that have evolved rapidly in recent years. These agents act in a glucose-dependent manner to promote insulin secretion and inhibit glucagon secretion, as well as enhancing satiety and reducing hunger. As a result, they are effective treatment options for people with T2D, achieving glycated haemoglobin reductions, weight loss and potential cardiovascular benefit, as monotherapy or as add-on to other glucose-lowering therapies. However, given the complexity of managing T2D, it is important to equip primary care clinicians with clear information regarding efficacy, safety and appropriate positioning of GLP-1 RA therapies in clinical practice. This review provides a summary of clinical and real-world evidence along with practical guidance, with the aim of aiding primary care clinicians in the initiation and monitoring of GLP-1 RAs to help ensure that desired outcomes are realised. Furthermore, a benefit/risk tool has been developed on the basis of current available evidence and guidelines to support primary care clinicians in selecting individuals who are most likely to benefit from GLP-1 RA therapies, in addition to indicating clinical situations where caution is needed.

The validity of cost-effectiveness analyses of tight glycemic control. A systematic survey of economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions in patients with type 2 diabetes

PURPOSE

Currently available randomized trial evidence has shown no reductions in type 2 diabetes (T2D) complications important to patients with tight glycemic control. Yet, economic analyses consistently find tight glycemic control to be cost-effective. To understand this apparent paradox, we systematically identified and appraised economic analyses of tight glycemic control for T2D.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from January 2016 to January 2018 for cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses of any glucose-lowering treatments for adults with T2D using simulations with long-40 years to lifetime-time horizons. Reviewers selected and appraised each study independently and in duplicate with good reproducibility.

RESULTS

We found 30 analyses, most comparing the glycemic impact of glucose-lowering drugs and applying their impact on HbA1c to model (most commonly IMS CORE or Cardiff T2DM) their impact on the incidence of diabetes-related complication. Models drew from observational evidence of the correlation of HbA1c levels and diabetes-related complication rates; none used estimates of the effect of lowering HbA1c on these outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized trials. Sensitivity analyses, when conducted, demonstrate substantial loss of cost-effectiveness as simulations approach the results seen in these trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Reliance on the association between glycemic control and diabetes-related complications evident in observational studies but not apparent in randomized trial bias the estimates of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve glycemic control.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Cost-utility analysis of second-line anti-diabetic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin

BACKGROUND

There are significant differences in costs and effectiveness among the second-line treatment options for type 2 diabetes (T2DM). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the second-line anti-diabetic therapy in T2DM patients inadequately controlled on metformin (MET) in Taiwan from the perspective of the National Health Insurance (NHI).

METHODS

The Cardiff T2DM model was used to predict the occurrence of mortality, diabetes-related complications, and drug adverse events. Five second-line treatments were selected for the analysis: sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT-2-i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1-RA), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4-i), sulfonylurea (SU), and insulin (INS). Treatment efficacy data were obtained from meta-analyses and randomized clinical trials, whereas cost data were derived from the NHI databases.

RESULTS

The analysis found that SU + MET (DPP-4-i as triple therapy) had the lowest cost, and SU + MET (SGLT-2-i as triple therapy) was associated with a mean incremental benefit of 0.47 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at an incremental cost of NT$2769, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of NT$5840/QALY. Compared to their next less costly strategies, SGLT-2-i + MET (SU as triple therapy) and SGLT-2-i + MET (DPP-4-i as triple therapy) had ICER values of NT$63,170/QALY and NT$64,090/QALY, respectively. These results were fairly robust to extensive sensitivity analyses, but were relatively sensitive to baseline HbA1c, HbA1c threshold, and utilities.

CONCLUSION

The addition of either SU or SGLT-2-i to MET was found to be cost-effective, using the 2019 forecast for GDP per capita of Taiwan (NT$770,770) as the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold.

Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in chronic heart failure: an analysis from the Australian healthcare perspective

Aim

To assess the cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin in addition to standard care versus standard care alone in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

Methods

A Markov model was constructed based on the Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure trial to assess the clinical outcomes and costs of 1000 hypothetical subjects with established heart failure and reduced ejection fraction. The model consisted of three health states: ‘alive and event-free’, ‘alive after non-fatal hospitalisation for heart failure’ and ‘dead’. Costs and utilities were estimated from published sources. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year gained. An Australian public healthcare perspective was employed. All outcomes and costs were discounted at a rate of 5% annually.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, the addition of dapagliflozin to standard care in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction prevented 88 acute heart failure hospitalisations (including readmissions) and yielded an additional 416 years of life and 288 quality-adjusted life-years (discounted) at an additional cost of A$3,692,440 (discounted). This equated to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$12,482 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, well below the Australian willingness-to-pay threshold of A$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Subanalyses in subjects with and without diabetes resulted in similar incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of A$13,234 and A$12,386 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.

Conclusion

Dapagliflozin is likely to be cost-effective when used as an adjunct therapy to standard care compared with standard care alone for the treatment of chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness of Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter Inhibitors for Type 2 Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are the most recently approved class of drugs (since 2012) for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), but their economic merits have yet been fully confirmed. The objective of this review was to evaluate the most updated evidence that examined the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2i for T2DM.

RECENT FINDINGS

We systematically searched Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, and Web of Science for eligible articles from January 1, 2011, to October 31, 2019, using combinations of search words. A supplementary search using reference lists of eligible articles and other review articles was also performed. A multistage screening process was carried out with duplicates removal, abstract screening, and full-text reading to confirm eligibility. Two reviewers independently screened the eligible articles and assessed reporting quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. A total of 24 studies were included in the final review. All studies showed good quality according to the CHEERS checklist (scored 21-24). Seven studies compared SGLT2i vs. dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), 3 studies compared SGLT2i vs. sulfonylureas (SU), 3 compared SGLT2i vs. glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), 2 compared SGLT2i vs. SGLT2i, 3 compared SGLT2i vs. other antidiabetic therapies including thiazolidinediones (TZD), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) or insulin, and 5 compared SGLT2i vs. standard care/metformin. Most studies concluded SGLT2i was cost-effective relative to its comparator except GLP-1 RA, where two studies suggested GLP-1 RA was the favorable treatment option relative to SGLT2i. The literature demonstrated that SGLT2i may be cost-effective compared to many antidiabetic therapies including DPP-4i, SU, TZD, AGI, insulin, and standard care .

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.

Real-world impact on monthly glucose-lowering medication cost, HbA1c, weight, and polytherapy after initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist

OBJECTIVE

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are preferred injectable therapies for type 2 diabetes, but their high cost is an area of concern. This study evaluated monthly glucose-lowering medication cost and clinical impact after initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

DESIGN

A retrospective, pre-post cohort study evaluated monthly glucose-lowering medication cost, glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), weight, and polytherapy impact (name, dose, and number of daily doses or injections) when a GLP-1 receptor agonist was initiated (baseline) and after 6-12 months (follow-up). The population was analyzed overall and as subgroups, based on baseline medication regimen and demographics.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The study was performed at 8 ambulatory care sites (7 federally qualified health centers and a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly) in the greater Boston, MA, area. Patients were included in the analyses (n = 120) if they had a documented diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, were 18 years of age or older, had an HbA_1c ≥ 7.5% measured within 3 months prior to the initiation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist, and an HbA_1c measured 6 to 12 months following the initiation of a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outomes were changes in glucose-lowering medication cost, HbA_1c, and weight. Secondary outcome analyses included the impact to the glucose-lowering medication regimen in terms of dose, number of medications, and number of daily doses or injections.

RESULTS

The study population was largely female, aged 55.8 ± 11.7 years, obese, 76% non-Caucasian, equally English and non-English speaking, had a high tablet and injection burden, and had an average baseline HbA_1c of 10%. After the addition of a GLP-1 receptor agonist, monthly glucose-lowering medication cost increased $586.86 (overall), $741.69 (oral only baseline regimen), and $530.55 (insulin ± oral baseline regimen) (all P < 0.001). Mean decrease in HbA_1c was 1.7% (18 mmol/mol) (P < 0.001) and was similar across all subgroups. Weight decreased overall (-1.8 kg, P < 0.001), and there was a significant shift toward taking fewer oral agents and insulin and fewer daily injections. No statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes were noted in terms of age, gender, English-speaking status, or race.

CONCLUSION

Although a positive impact was observed in glycemic control, weight, and reduced polytherapy 6-12 months after initiating a GLP-1 receptor agonist, the increase in monthly glucose-lowering medication cost was significant and may serve as a barrier to treatment.

A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25,000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies’ methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients’ clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.

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.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Dapagliflozin is the first SGLT2 inhibitor available in China, where the disease burden of diabetes and its complications is very heavy. Because a new diabetes treatment strategy for diabetes should consider its cost-effectiveness, compared with an existing treatment, this study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness between dapagliflozin and metformin treatment in China.

METHODS

The Cardiff Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to estimate cost effectiveness and macro- and micro-vascular outcomes of dapagliflozin vs metformin. The CDM effectiveness inputs were derived from indirect comparative efficacy data from meta-analysis of 71 studies comparing monotherapy and add-on therapy of dapagliflozin vs metformin: dapagliflozin or metformin monotherapy, add-on therapy with other oral hypoglycemic agents, and add-on therapy with insulin. Direct medication costs and medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on published and local sources. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess uncertainties.

RESULTS

The total healthcare costs accumulated over the lifetime on dapagliflozin treatment arm was 8,626 Chinese yuan higher than the metformin treatment arm for an individual patient, and the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained with dapagliflozin treatment was 0.8 more than metformin treatment. Therefore, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 10,729 yuan per QALY gained for dapagliflozin treatment arm vs metformin treatment arm. The cost-effectiveness results were robust to various sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Dapagliflozin treatment was more cost-effective compared with metformin treatment for Chinese type 2 diabetes patients. However, the findings of favorable cost-effectiveness results for dapagliflozin are largely driven by the effects of favorable weight profile on clinical, utility, and costs in the Cardiff model.

Cost Effectiveness of Meningococcal Serogroup B Vaccination in College-Aged Young Adults

INTRODUCTION

Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B is the most common form of meningococcal infection in young adults in the U.S. Vaccines have recently become available, but it is not clear that the benefits outweigh the costs. The purpose of this study was to assess cost effectiveness and determine potentially favorable conditions for universal vaccination.

METHODS

Costs and benefits of universal vaccination at college entry versus no universal vaccination with an outbreak response were estimated in 2018 in the context of a mid-sized U.S.-based 4-year college from both a health sector and a societal perspective. Probability, cost, and utility data were obtained from the published literature. Costs (2015 U.S.$) and benefits were discounted at 3%. One-way and multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed including variations in the specific vaccine used. Further testing of the model's parameters at extremes was used to identify favorable conditions for universal vaccination.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with universal vaccination was $13.9 million under the health sector perspective and $13.8 million under the societal perspective, each perspective was compared with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year. Multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that universal vaccination was not the preferred strategy for <$15 million per quality-adjusted life year. Under an extremely favorable model, a universal vaccination strategy became cost effective for vaccine series costing <$65.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that universal vaccination at college entry is not cost effective. The rarity of N. meningitidis serogroup B contributes to the lack of cost effectiveness for universal vaccination.