Alexandre Baptista1, Inês Teixeira2, Sónia Romano2, António Vaz Carneiro3, Julian Perelman4. 1. Unit of Epidemiology of the Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Edifício Egas Moniz, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal. alexcalaca@hotmail.com. 2. Centre for Health Evaluation and Research (CEFAR), National Association of Pharmacies Group, R. Marechal Saldanha, 1., 1249-069, Lisbon, Portugal. 3. Center for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEMBE) of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Lisbon, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Av. Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal. 4. Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública and Centro de Investigação em Saúde Pública, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Avenida Padre Cruz, 1600-5605, Lisbon, Portugal.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: P M Clarke; A M Gray; A Briggs; A J Farmer; P Fenn; R J Stevens; D R Matthews; I M Stratton; R R Holman Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2004-10-27 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: B Schwarz; M Gouveia; J Chen; G Nocea; K Jameson; J Cook; G Krishnarajah; E Alemao; D Yin; H Sintonen Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 6.577
Authors: Andrew J Palmer; Philip Clarke; Alastair Gray; Jose Leal; Adam Lloyd; David Grant; James Palmer; Volker Foos; Mark Lamotte; William Hermann; Jacob Barhak; Michael Willis; Ruth Coleman; Ping Zhang; Phil McEwan; Jonathan Betz Brown; Ulf Gerdtham; Elbert Huang; Andrew Briggs; Katarina Steen Carlsson; William Valentine Journal: Value Health Date: 2013-04-18 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Pedro Mezquita Raya; Antonio Pérez; Antonio Ramírez de Arellano; Teresa Briones; Barnaby Hunt; William J Valentine Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 2.945
Authors: Viswanathan Mohan; Kamlesh Khunti; Siew P Chan; Fadlo F Filho; Nam Q Tran; Kaushik Ramaiya; Shashank Joshi; Ambrish Mithal; Maïmouna N Mbaye; Nemencio A Nicodemus; Tint S Latt; Linong Ji; Ibrahim N Elebrashy; Jean C Mbanya Journal: Diabetes Ther Date: 2019-11-26 Impact factor: 2.945