Shelby D Reed1, Yanhong Li1, Jose Leal2, Larry Radican3, Amanda I Adler4, Joakim Alfredsson5, John B Buse6, Jennifer B Green1, Keith D Kaufman3, Axel Riefflin7, Frans Van de Werf8, Eric D Peterson1, Alastair M Gray2, Rury R Holman2. 1. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Diabetes Trials Unit, Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 3. Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey. 4. Institute of Metabolic Science, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 5. Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden. 6. Division of Endocrinology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 7. GMP, Husby, Germany. 8. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior toplacebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetespatients at high risk for cardiovascular events.
Authors: Shelby D Reed; Yanhong Li; Helen A Dakin; Frauke Becker; Jose Leal; Stephanie M Gustavson; Bernt Kartman; Eric Wittbrodt; Robert J Mentz; Neha J Pagidipati; M Angelyn Bethel; Alastair M Gray; Rury R Holman; Adrian F Hernandez Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Antonio Carlo Bossi; Valentina De Mori; Carlotta Galeone; Davide Pietro Bertola; Margherita Gaiti; Annalisa Balini; Denise Berzi; Franco Forloni; Giancarla Meregalli; Federica Turati Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-09
Authors: Matthew Little; Alastair M Gray; Douglas G Altman; Umberto Benedetto; Marcus Flather; Stephen Gerry; Belinda Lees; Jacqueline Murphy; Mario Gaudino; David P Taggart Journal: Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes Date: 2022-05-05