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

The European Journal of Health Economics Pub Date : 2017-11-01 Epub Date: 2016-10-17 DOI:10.1007/s10198-016-0837-7
Alexandre Baptista, Inês Teixeira, Sónia Romano, António Vaz Carneiro, Julian Perelman
{"title":"The place of DPP-4 inhibitors in the treatment algorithm of diabetes type 2: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies.","authors":"Alexandre Baptista, Inês Teixeira, Sónia Romano, António Vaz Carneiro, Julian Perelman","doi":"10.1007/s10198-016-0837-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To conduct a systematic review of cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and cost-benefit studies of DPP-4 inhibitors for diabetes treatment versus other antidiabetics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":22450,"journal":{"name":"The European Journal of Health Economics","volume":"113 1","pages":"937-965"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European Journal of Health Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0837-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/10/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DPP-4抑制剂在2型糖尿病治疗算法中的地位:成本-效果研究的系统回顾
目的:对DPP-4抑制剂与其他抗糖尿病药物治疗的成本-效果、成本-效用和成本-效益研究进行系统回顾。方法:三名研究者检索了2015年的CRD York、Tufts CEA Registry和MEDLINE数据库。我们根据纳入标准审查了所有可能相关的标题和摘要,并筛选了全文文章。我们根据35项清单为每项研究建立了质量评分。结果:共纳入295项研究,其中纳入20项。在0-1的评分范围内,平均质量得分为0.720。所有研究均在高收入和中等收入国家进行,采用第三方付款人视角和随机临床试验来衡量有效性。与磺脲类药物相比,西格列汀、沙格列汀和维格列汀作为二甲双胍的二线和附加药物,ICER低于2.5万欧元/质量aly。与西格列汀相比,利拉鲁肽(GLP-1受体激动剂)在1.2 mg剂量下的ICER高达22724欧元/QALY,在1.8 mg剂量下的ICER高达32869欧元/QALY。与西格列汀相比,甘精胰岛素占主导地位。结论:根据适用于每项研究的国家和年份的世卫组织阈值,与磺脲类药物相比,DPP-4抑制剂作为二甲双胍的二线药物具有很高的成本效益。与DPP-4抑制剂相比,最近的治疗方法(GLP-1受体激动剂和甘精胰岛素)具有很高的成本效益。然而,这些结果是在数量有限的研究基础上获得的,依赖于同样少数的临床试验,并由制造商资助。需要进一步的独立研究来证实这些发现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mapping functions for the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 to generate EQ-5D-3L for economic evaluation Economic assessment of abemaciclib for the adjuvant treatment of luminal HER2- breast cancer from the perspective of the Spanish health system Healthcare resource utilisation and direct medical cost for individuals with 5q spinal muscular atrophy in Sweden Economic evaluation of intensive home treatment in comparison to care as usual alongside a randomised controlled trial The performance of the EQ-HWB-S as a measure of quality-of-life of caregivers in families that have experienced adverse events
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1