Cardiovascular Safety of Empagliflozin Versus Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 (DPP-4) Inhibitors in Type 2 Diabetes: Systematic Literature Review and Indirect Comparisons

Comparative Study on Efficacy of Empagliflozin Versus Sitagliptin, as an Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

Introduction

More than 28.7 million individuals throughout the globe suffer from diabetes mellitus, with an estimated 11 percent of the population living with the condition in India. Changes in lifestyle and a variety of treatment plans are used in management. Metformin is a key drug for glycemic control, both when used alone and in combination. Our research compares the effectiveness of glycemic control achieved by empagliflozin plus sitagliptin.

Methods

This study took place from November 2022 to April 2023 at the tertiary care hospital. The study did not begin until the ethical review was completed. There were two groups of patients, A and B. Everyone received a daily dose of Metformin 1,000 milligrams. Sitagliptin (50 mg twice daily) was administered to individuals in Group A, whereas Empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) was given to those in Group B. After three months of therapy, HbA1c was used to compare the two groups' levels of glycemic control to those at the start of treatment. To do this, we employed a proforma. Version 25 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) was used for the analysis.

Results

The average age of the 300 patients that participated in the trial was 42.33. There were 57.67% men and 42.33% females. "The mean reduction in HbA1c from baseline in Group A was -0.65 ± 0.11% and in Group B was -1.34 ± 0.13% with statistically significant P-value (P-value = 0.000)."

Conclusion

The combination of Empagliflozin and Metformin is superior to that of Sitagliptin and Metformin for the maintenance of glycemic control.

Significance of Endothelial Dysfunction Amelioration for Sodium-Glucose Cotransporter 2 Inhibitor-Induced Improvements in Heart Failure and Chronic Kidney Disease in Diabetic Patients

Beyond lowering plasma glucose levels, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) significantly reduce hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in patients with type 2 diabetes. Endothelial dysfunction is not only involved in the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD), but is also associated with the progression of CKD. In patients with type 2 diabetes, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and dyslipidemia induce the development of endothelial dysfunction. SGLT2is have been shown to improve endothelial dysfunction, as assessed by flow-mediated vasodilation, in individuals at high risk of CVD. Along with an improvement in endothelial dysfunction, SGLT2is have been shown to improve oxidative stress, inflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, glucotoxicity, such as the advanced signaling of glycation end products, and nitric oxide bioavailability. The improvements in endothelial dysfunction and such endothelium-derived factors may play an important role in preventing the development of coronary artery disease, coronary microvascular dysfunction and diabetic cardiomyopathy, which cause HF, and play a role in retarding CKD. The suppression of the development of HF and the progression of CKD achieved by SGLT2is might have been largely induced by their capacity to improve vascular endothelial function.

CELESTIA: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin Versus Sitagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Greece

Purpose

Globally, the prevalence of diabetes is on the rise, with the number of affected individuals predicted to cross 700 million by 2045. In Greece, in 2015, almost 700,000 people received prescribed medication for type 2 diabetes. The CELESTIA study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin compared to branded sitagliptin in type 2 diabetes patients both with and without established cardiovascular disease in Greece from a third payer perspective.

Methods

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was used and analyses were conducted from the Greek healthcare payer perspective. Patients received either empagliflozin or sitagliptin until HbA1c threshold of 8.5% (69 mmol/mol) was exceeded. Subsequently, patients were assumed to intensify to insulin therapy. Baseline cohort characteristics and treatment effects were derived from clinical trial data. Literature data were used for input (utilities, treatment costs and costs of diabetes-related complications costs). A lifetime time horizon (50 years) was applied, and costs and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%.

Results

Over a lifetime horizon, for empagliflozin, the estimated ICER was of €6,587 and €966 per quality-adjusted life years gained versus sitagliptin, in patients without established cardiovascular disease and in patients with established cardiovascular disease, respectively. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the analysis.

Conclusion

The analysis demonstrated that for type 2 diabetes patients, empagliflozin is a cost-effective treatment option versus branded sitagliptin in Greece.

Randomized Clinical Trial on Efficacy of Empagliflozin Versus Sitagliptin, In Addition to Metformin in Type 2 Diabetic Patients

Introduction Diabetes mellitus is a syndrome affecting more than 28.7 million people worldwide and its prevalence in Pakistan is reported to be about 11%. Management includes lifestyle changes and varied therapeutic regimens. Metformin (MET) alone and in combinations is considered as an important agent for glycemic control. Our study is based on MET combination therapy with empagliflozin versus sitagliptin in order to achieve glycemic control. Methods This randomized clinical trial was conducted in the Department of Medicine and Allied of Federal Government Polyclinic Hospital, Islamabad, from January 2022 till June 2022. The ethical approval letter numbered FGPC. 1-1/2022/Ethical Committee was taken before the commencement of the trial. The patients were divided into group A and group B. All patients were given MET 1000mg twice a day. Group A patients were additionally given sitagliptin 50mg twice daily whereas Group B patients were additionally given empagliflozin 10mg once daily. Glycemic control was documented with HbA1c at the start of treatment and after three months of treatment in both groups. A proforma was used to collect data. Analysis of the data was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Results A total of 126 patients were included in the study with a mean age of 53.53 ± 6.49. 81.7% were males while 18.3% were females. The mean reduction in HbA1c from baseline in group A was -0.81 ± 0.19% and in group B was -1.13 ± 0.24% with statistically significant p-value (p-value = 0.000). Conclusion Empagliflozin in combination with metformin is more efficacious in maintaining glycemic control as compared to sitagliptin in combination with metformin.

Effects of Dapagliflozin Compared with Sitagliptin and Metformin in Drug-Naïve Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A 12-Week, Open-Label, Randomized, Active-Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

To compare the efficacy and tolerability of dapagliflozin with those of sitagliptin and metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes who have never received glucose-lowering agents.

METHODS

In this randomized, 12-week, open-label, active-controlled trial, 32 patients were randomly assigned to receive dapagliflozin 5 mg, sitagliptin 50 mg, or metformin 1000 mg per day for 12 weeks. At baseline and at week 12, the patients underwent a meal tolerance test (MTT).

RESULTS

After 12 weeks of treatment, the changes in fasting and postprandial plasma glucose and plasma glucose area under the curve (AUC)_0-120 min levels during the MTT from baseline were significantly improved in the three study groups, and there were no significant differences among the three study groups (P < 0.05). The mean changes in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 12 were - 0.96%, - 1.24%, and - 1.40% in the dapagliflozin, sitagliptin, and metformin groups, respectively. Although there was no significant difference among the three study groups, the lowering effect of HbA1c tended to be greater in the metformin group than in the dapagliflozin group. In contrast, the insulin AUC_0-120 min levels at week 12 significantly decreased only in the dapagliflozin group (P = 0.049). Similarly, body weight was significantly reduced only in the dapagliflozin group (- 2.1 kg [- 2.7%], P = 0.047). Moreover, dapagliflozin significantly improved serum adiponectin levels (P = 0.003). However, there were no significant differences in the changes in these glycemic and metabolic parameters among the three study groups. No serious adverse events were documented in any group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dapagliflozin exerted beneficial effects similar to sitagliptin and metformin on glycemic parameters. In addition, dapagliflozin significantly reduced body weight and insulin AUC levels and improved serum adiponectin levels. Therefore, we suggest that these three hypoglycemic agents could be viable first-line medications for drug-naïve Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000024427).

Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease in China

Background

In several cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs), empagliflozin (SGLT-2 inhibitor), sitagliptin (DPP-4 inhibitor) and liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC based on the respective CVOT.

Methods

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease (HbA1c, BMI, blood pressure, lipids) were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk adjustments to calibrate the CDM were obtained after a trial and error process to match as closely the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until HbA1c reached 8.5% and treatment switch occurred. After this switch, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system applying 3% discounting. The time horizon was lifelong.

Results

Empagliflozin + SoC provides additional Quality Adjusted Life years (QALY + 0.564) for an incremental cost of 42,497RMB (US$6053) compared to sitagliptin + SoC, resulting in an Incremental Cost Utility Ratio of 75,349RMB (US$10,732), thus below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB, corresponding to three times the Gross Domestic Product in China (2019). Compared to liraglutide + SoC, empagliflozin + SoC use leads to 0.211QALY gained and cost savings of 71,427RMB (US$10,173) and is as such dominant. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

Conclusion

Results suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and liraglutide + SoC at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 212,676RMB ($30,292)/QALY.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00299-z.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin as second-line therapy for treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States

AIM

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of sequential addition of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin after metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with or without cardiovascular disease (CVD) from the perspective of the US healthcare payer.

METHODS

An individual simulation model predicted lifetime diabetes-related complications, using UKPDS-OM2 equations in patients without CVD, and EMPA-REG OUTCOME equations in patients with CVD. Additional US-based sources informed inputs for population characteristics, adverse events, non-CV death, treatment escalation, quality of life and costs. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were discounted 3.0% annually.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for second-line empagliflozin versus sitagliptin in the overall T2D population was $6967/QALY. Empagliflozin led to longer CVD-free survival (0.07 years) and an 11% reduction in CV death in patients with CVD compared with sitagliptin. Empagliflozin resulted in greater benefits with greater costs in patients with versus without baseline CVD, yielding ICERs of $3589/QALY versus $12 577/QALY, respectively. Results were consistent across a range of deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Compared with sitagliptin, empagliflozin was cost-effective (at $50 000/QALY US threshold) as a second-line treatment to metformin for T2D patients with or without CVD in the United States. Our findings lend additional support for more widespread adoption of guidelines by healthcare decision-makers for T2D treatment.

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

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

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Comparison to Sitagliptin and Saxagliptin Based on Cardiovascular Outcome Trials in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Established Cardiovascular Disease

INTRODUCTION

In the cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOT) EMPA-REG OUTCOME, TECOS and SAVOR-TIMI 53, empagliflozin [sodium/glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor], sitagliptin and saxagliptin [both dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors] + standard of care (SoC) were compared to SoC in patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study assessed the cost-effectiveness (CE) of empagliflozin + SoC in comparison to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC based on the respective CVOT.

METHODS

The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was calibrated to reproduce the CVOT outcomes. EMPA-REG OUTCOME baseline characteristics and CVOT specific treatment effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease [glycated haemogloblin A1c (HbA1c), body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, lipids] were applied. Three-year observed cardiovascular events of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC were derived from EMPA-REG OUTCOME and an indirect treatment comparison. Relative risk (RR) adjustments to calibrate the CDM were estimated after consecutive attempts of running the model until the observed and CDM-predicted outcomes matched closely. The drug-specific treatment effects were considered up until treatment switch (when HbA1c reached 8.5%), after which, the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) 82 risk equations predicted events based on co-existing risk factors and treatment intensification to basal-bolus insulin were applied. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Costs and quality of life data were derived from UK national sources and published literature. A 50-year time horizon and discount rate of 3.5% were applied.

RESULTS

The CDM projected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 6.408, 5.917 and 5.704 and total costs of 50,801 GBP, 47,627 GBP and 48,071 GBP for empagliflozin + SoC, sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC, respectively. The incremental CE ratio (ICER) of empagliflozin + SoC versus sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC was 6464 GBP/QALY and 3878 GBP/QALY, respectively. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSION

Results suggest that empagliflozin + SoC is cost-effective compared to sitagliptin + SoC and saxagliptin + SoC at a willingness to pay threshold of 20,000 GBP/QALY.

FUNDING

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH.

Conducting and interpreting results of network meta-analyses in type 2 diabetes mellitus: A review of network meta-analyses that include sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors

AIMS

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) are valuable ways to generate comparative effectiveness data for therapies available to treat type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This review assesses NMAs that evaluate sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for treatment of T2DM and discusses potential issues in conducting and interpreting NMAs.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted on September 13, 2018 using the search terms "network meta-analysis," "SGLT2," variations of these terms, and individual SGLT2 inhibitor names. Extracted data included NMA objectives, methods, target populations, treatments, study endpoints, length of follow-up, and funding. Differences between NMAs were investigated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five full-length publications met criteria for inclusion. In most NMAs, the target population was defined by therapeutic regimen (e.g., combination with metformin). Follow-up intervals permitted in NMAs varied considerably (range, 4-208 weeks). Twenty-nine NMAs included dapagliflozin, 28 evaluated canagliflozin, and 27 evaluated empagliflozin. Nine NMAs used frequentist methods; 16 used Bayesian methods. Six NMAs were funded by pharmaceutical manufacturers. Heterogeneity across NMAs was seen in scope, time frame, and other aspects of analytic design.

CONCLUSIONS

Although this review indicates that methodological guidelines for reporting NMAs were generally followed, it also emphasizes the need for T2DM-specific guidance requiring clear reporting of NMA scope and objectives to aid appropriate interpretation and use of NMA results.