Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 29.07.2023 | Review

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Antidiabetic Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

verfasst von: Jiejin Zhu, Ying Zhou, Qingyu Li, Gang Wang

Erschienen in: Advances in Therapy | Ausgabe 10/2023

Abstract

Introduction

Evidence from cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) for newer antidiabetic drugs is increasingly influencing revised recommendations for second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes (T2D). This systematic review aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of newer antidiabetic drugs specified as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) for T2D in a second-line setting.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines, and all relevant published studies were searched comprehensively in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment database published from April 2023. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 reporting checklists.

Results

We included 28 studies that met the inclusion criteria. Overall reporting of the identified studies largely met CHEERS 2022 recommendations. The CORE and Cardiff models were the most frequently utilized for pharmacoeconomic evaluation in T2D. Four studies consistently discovered that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA in T2D who were not adequately controlled by metformin monotherapy. Four studies compared GLP-1RA with DPP-4i, sufonylurea (SU), or insulin. Except for one that demonstrated SU was cost-effective, all were GLP-1RA. Five studies revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU. Eleven studies indicated that DPP-4i was more cost-effective than traditional antidiabetic drugs. Four additional studies explored the cost-effectiveness of various antidiabetic drugs as second-line options, indicating that SU, SGLT2i, or meglitinides were more economically advantageous. The most common driven factors were the cost of new antidiabetic drugs.

Conclusion

Newer antidiabetic drugs as second line are the cost-effective option for T2D from the cost-effectiveness perspective, especially SGLT2i.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12325-023-02612-z.
Key Summary Points
Why carry out this study?
The surge in fees of high-cost new antidiabetic drugs will likely pose a challenge for the healthcare system. There are weak supporting evidence and extensive debate regarding the best second-line agent considering long-term efficacy, quality of life, and cost. Therefore, whether new antidiabetic drugs are superior to classic ones remains unclear
This systematic review summarizes the pharmacoeconomic studies thus far performed in newer antidiabetic drugs as second-line treatment for type 2 diabetes and provides further evidence to guide treatment strategies
What was learned from the study?
Newer antidiabetic drugs appear to be generally cost-effective therapy in second-line options with T2D compared to classic antidiabetic drugs
SGLT2i was superior to GLP-1RA and DPP-4i; DPP-4i has a good safety profile and weight neutrality, making it more cost-effective than other classical antidiabetic drugs, but not as favorable as GLP-1RA and SGLT2
With the continued improvement in the accessibility and affordability of newer antidiabetic drugs, SGLT2i can be a preferred option for second-line treatment with a great future

Introduction

Global diabetes-related health expenditures were approximately US$ 966 billion in 2021 and are projected to reach 1054 billion USD by 2045 [1]. Cardiovascular disease (CVD), a major public health challenge, is one of the primary cost-drivers. Diabetes medication affordability and the combination of cardiovascular protective drugs are independent protective factors against cardiovascular death [2].
Increasing evidence suggests newer hypoglycemic agents, such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA), and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP4i), carry lower risks of hypoglycemia than conventional hypoglycemic agents, such as sulfonylurea (SU) and insulin, promote weight loss, and are weight neutral. Crucially, these agents are beneficial in reducing CVD events and mortality in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients at increased cardiovascular risk [3, 4]. Therefore, new classes of hypoglycemic agents have been progressively replacing SU as the most common treatment for metformin monotherapy failure [5]. Nevertheless, shifting to newer hypoglycemic agents increases the diabetes treatment cost, which could outweigh savings from cardiovascular benefits [6].
The second-line choice in clinical practice has become more complex and uncertain with the constant updating of evidence and guidelines and the rapid expansion of newer antidiabetic drugs. Given the many therapeutic options with a wide range of costs, a challenge for the health system is the suitable selection as second line in new antidiabetics to ensure maximum benefit and acceptable cost. Although several studies have systematically evaluated that newer antidiabetics, including GLP-1 RA, DPP-4i, and SGLT2i, are more cost-effective than classical antidiabetics, such as insulin, thiazolidinedione (TZD) and SU [7, 8], these studies are not explicitly designed for second-line strategies in T2D.
The latest American Diabetes Association guidelines state that GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i can be used for patients at high risk of CVD, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease, irrespective of glycemic control and baseline metformin [9]. Thus, this cardiorenal protective effect independent of glycemic control has shifted the paradigm of conventional second-line T2D strategies, resulting in a continued increase in the overall use of these high-cost new antidiabetics. This systematic review aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the newer antidiabetics, including SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, and DPP-4i, as second-line therapy for T2D failed metformin monotherapy to provide a reference for future clinical decision‐making.

Methods

Search Strategy

We conducted a systematic search according to the PRISMA 2020 statement [10]. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and International Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases were searched for eligible articles until April 26, 2023. Search strategies are provided in Supplementary Table S1.

Study Selection

Economic evaluations were selected using the following search technique based on the PICOS (Participants, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Study design) criteria in Supplementary Table S2. Two independent investigators (JZ, YZ) extracted eligible studies and relevant data. A third investigator (QL) resolved the discrepancies between the two investigators and verified for data accuracy. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
  • Participants: Adults with T2D.
  • Intervention: second-line therapy.
  • Outcome: cost, life gain year (LYG), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER), and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB).
  • Study design: cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and cost-utility analysis (CUA).

Data Extraction and Synthesis Strategy

Data items extracted included study characteristics (e.g. author, year of publication, region, perspective, interventions, modelling approach, time horizon, sensitivity analysis, funding source, etc.) and primary outcomes (ICER and INMB). INMB = ΔQALY * willingness-to-pay thresholds—ΔCost. All costs were converted into 2022 US dollars using the CCEMG-EPPI-Center Cost Converter Version.1.6 via purchasing power parities to make ICER and INMB comparable across studies [11].

Quality Assessment Reporting

Reporting quality was assessed using the 28-item checklist of the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS 2022) statement [12]. The corresponding scores of every ‘Yes’ (completely fulfill the items), ‘Partly’ (partially fulfill), and ‘NA’ (not applicable) recorded for each item were assigned 1, 0.5, and 0, respectively. The quality of the included studies was ranked as high, moderate, or poor quality depending on the total score: high quality for score ≥ 21 (quality percentage score > 75%); moderate quality for score 14–21 (quality percentage score between 50 and 75%); poor quality for score for score ≤ 14 (quality percentage score < 50%) [13].

Results

Search Results

Figure 1 presents the literature search strategy and exclusion criteria. The search yielded 218 publications. Following title and abstract screening, 81 potentially relevant articles were evaluated for full-text eligibility. The systematic review evaluated 28 studies based on the inclusion criteria.

General Characteristics of the Included Studies

Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the included studies. The most studied population was adults with T2D, and a few focused on specific populations, such as established CVD [14] and patients > 65 years old [15]. Two additional studies analyzed subgroups for heart failure [16] as well as gender and smoking status [17]. Among the included second-line comparison, four studies compared GLP-1RA and SGLT2i [14, 16, 18, 19]. The rest were SGLT2i (n = 5) [2024], GLP-1RA (n = 4) [17, 2527], and DPP-4i (n = 11) [15, 2837] compared to other hypoglycemic agents. Four additional studies compared multiple second-line therapies for T2D [3841].
Table 1
Characteristics of the included studies
Author, year
Region
Perspective
Interventions
Model
Time horizon
Discount rate
Sensitivity analysis
Funding
GLP-1RA vs. SGLT2i
Ehlers et al., 2022 [18]
Denmark
Payer
Semaglutide (sc) vs. empagliflozin
CORE
50Y
4%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Ehlers et al., 2021 [14]
Denmark
Healthcare
Liraglutide vs. empagliflozin
CORE
50Y
4%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Ramos et al., 2020 [16]
UK
Payer
Semaglutide (po) vs. empagliflozin
CORE
50Y
3.5%
Scenario and PSA
Industry
Reifsnider et al., 2022 [19]
USA
Payer
Liraglutide vs. empagliflozin
DICE
Lifetime
3%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
GLP-1RA vs. othersa
Steen Carlsson et al., 2014 [17]
Sweden
Societal
Liraglutide vs. Glimepiride or Sitagliptin
IHECM
40Y
3%
Scenario and PSA
Industry
Davies et al., 2012 [25]
UK
Payer
Liraglutide vs. sitagliptin or glimepiride
CORE
50Y
3.5%
DSA and PSA
Industry
Sinha et al., 2010 [27]
USA
Healthcare
Exenatide (daily) vs. sitagliptin or glyburide
UKPDS
Lifetime
3%
DSA
Industry
Kiadaliri et al., 2014 [26]
Sweden
Societal
GLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i or NPH insulin
IHECM
35Y
3%
DSA and PSA
Public funding
SGLT2i vs. othersb
Reifsnider et al., 2021 [23]
USA
Payer
Empagliflozin vs. sitagliptin
DICE
Lifetime
3%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Charokopou et al., 2015 [22]
UK
Healthcare
Dapagliflozin vs. sitagliptin
Cardiff
40Y
3.5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Bagepally et al., 2021 [20]
India
Payer
Dapagliflozin vs. SU
Markov
Lifetime
3%
DSA and PSA
Public funding
Charokopou et al., 2015 [21]
UK
Healthcare
Dapagliflozin vs. SU
Cardiff
40Y
3.5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Tzanetakos et al., 2016 [24]
Greece
Payer
Dapagliflozin vs. DPP-4i or SU
Cardiff
40Y
3.5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
DPP-4i vs. othersc
Gu et al., 2015 [33]
China
Payer
Saxagliptin vs. glimepiride
Cardiff
40Y
3%
DSA and PSA
Industry
Elgart et al., 2013 [28]
Argentina
Payer
Saxagliptin vs. SU
Cardiff
20Y
3.5%
DSA and PSA
Industry
Granström et al., 2012 [31]
Sweden
Not specified
Saxagliptin vs. glipizide
Cardiff
40Y
3%
DSA and PSA
Not specified
Erhardt et al., 2012 [29]
Germany
Payer
Saxagliptin vs. glipizide
Cardiff
40Y
3%
DSA and PSA
Industry
Grzeszczak et al., 2012 [32]
Poland
Payer
Saxagliptin vs. NPH insulin
Cardiff
40Y
3.5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Kousoulakou et al., 2017 [35]
Greece
Payer
Vildagliptin vs. glimepiride
UKPDS
Lifetime
4%
DSA
Industry
Viriato et al., 2014 [37]
Portugal
Healthcare
Vildagliptin vs. SU
UKPDS
40Y
5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Gordon et al., 2016 [30]
UK
Not specified
Alogliptin vs. glipizide
CORE
50Y
3.5%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Industry
Schwarz et al., 2008 [36]
Europe
Not specified
Sitagliptin vs. rosiglitazone or SU
JADE
Lifetime
3%-6%
DSA
Not specified
Gu et al., 2016 [34]
China
Payer
Saxagliptin vs. acarbose
Cardiff
40Y
3%
DSA and PSA
Industry
Gordon et al., 2017 [15]
UK
Payer
DPP-4i vs. SU or TZD
CORE
50Y
3.5%
PSA
Industry
Multiple antidiabetic drugs
CADTH, 2017 [40]
Canada
Healthcare
SU, DPP-4i, SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, basal insulin or biphasic insulin
UKPDS
40Y
NA
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Public funding
Klarenbach et al., 2011 [41]
Canada
Payer
Metformin, SU, Meglitinide, AGI, TZD, DPP-4i, basal insulin or biphasic insulin
UKPDS
40Y
5%
DSA
Public funding
Chien et al., 2020 [39]
Taiwan
Payer
SU, SGLT2i, GLP-1RA, DPP-4i or insulin
Cardiff
40Y
3%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
Public funding
Gu et al., 2020 [38]
China
Healthcare
SU, TZD, AGI, meglitinide or DPP-4i
Cardiff
40Y
3%
Scenario, DSA and PSA
No funding
AGI α-glucosidase inhibitors, CADTH Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, CORE Centre for Outcomes Research Diabetes Model, DICE discretely integrated condition event, DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, DSA deterministic sensitivity analysis, GLP-1RA glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, IHECM Swedish Institute for Health Economics Cohort Model, JADE Januvia Diabetes Economic Model, NPH neutral protamine Hagedorn, PSA probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione, UKPDS UK prospective diabetes study outcomes
aGLP-1RA vs. DPP-4i, SU or insulin
bSGLT2i vs. DPP-4i or SU
cDPP-4i vs. SU, TZD, AGI or insulin
Seventeen studies were conducted in Europe, including six in the UK [8, 16, 21, 22, 25, 30], three in Sweden [17, 26, 31], two in Denmark [14, 18], and two in Greece [24, 35]; the rest were in Poland [32], Germany [29], Portugal [37], and Europe [36]. Six were conducted in North America (two in Canada [40, 41] and three in the USA [19, 23, 27]) and one in South America (Argentina [28]). Five additional studies were from Asia (four in China [33, 34, 38, 39] and one in India [20]). All studies adopted the model-based simulation approach using data predominately derived from clinical trials or literature, except for one based on real-world data.
The most frequently used models in order were Cardiff (n = 11) [21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 3134, 38, 39], CORE diabetes model (n = 6) [1416, 18, 25, 30], UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes (UKPDS) (n = 5), discretely integrated condition event (DICE) (n = 2) [19, 23], Swedish Institute for Health economics cohort model (IHECM) (n = 2) [17, 26], Januvia Diabetes Economic (JADE) (n = 1) [36], and Markov (n = 1) [20].
More than half (57.1%, 16/28) of the studies examined the payer perspective [15, 16, 1820, 2325, 28, 29, 3235, 39, 41]. Only two studies adopted societal [17, 26], the remaining seven were healthcare [14, 21, 22, 27, 37, 38, 40], and three were unspecified [30, 31, 36]. The most reported funding was sponsored by pharmaceutical companies (71.4%, 20/28) [1419, 2125, 2730, 3235, 37], five were public funding [20, 26, 3941], one was no funding [38], and two were not stated [31, 36].

Quality of the Included Studies

Figure 2 presents the quality assessment results of the design and performance of pharmacoeconomic analysis of second-line therapies for T2D using the CHEERS guideline. According to the quality assessment, approximately 70% (20/28) of studies met the high-quality criteria (Supplementary Table S3). The most frequently unreported were item 21, “Approach to engagement with patients and others affected by the study,” and item 25, “Effect of engagement with patients and others affected by the study.”

Pharmacoeconomics Evaluation Results

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the economic outcomes of the included studies.
Table 2
Base case analyses of newer antidiabetic drugs combined with metformin as second-line treatment
Author
Currency year
Interventions
Comparator
ICERa
INMBb
Cost-effectiveness
Original
2022 US dollars
Original
2022 US dollars
GLP-1RA vs. SGLT2i
Ehlers et al. [18]
2019
Semaglutide 1 mg/week
Empagliflozin 25 mg/day
DKK 745,561
USD 108,332
DKK -50,500
USD -7338
SGLT-2i
Ehlers et al. [14]
2019
Liraglutide 1.8 mg/day
Empagliflozin 25 mg/day
Dominated
 
DKK -88,420
USD -12,848
SGLT-2i
Ramos et al. [16]
NA
Semaglutide 14 mg/day
Empagliflozin 25 mg/day
Dominated
 
GBP -6648
USD -9940
SGLT-2i
Reifsnider et al. [19]
2019
Liraglutide 1.8 mg/day
Empagliflozin 25 mg/day
Dominated
 
USD -27,244
USD -28,978
SGLT-2i
GLP-1RA vs. othersc
Steen Carlsson et al. [17]
2013
Liraglutide 1.2 mg/day
Glimepiride 4 mg/day
SEK 226,047 to 255,121f
USD 30,563 to 34,494f
SEK 77,765 to 99,642f
SEK 113,102 to 133,377f
USD 10,514 to 13,472 f
USD 15,292 to 18,034 f
GLP-1RA
Liraglutide 1.2 mg/day
Sitagliptin 100 mg/day
SEK 148,766 to 160,827 f
USD 20,114 to 21,745 f
Davies et al. [25]
2008
Liraglutide 1.2/1.8 mg/day
Glimepiride 4 mg/day
GBP 9449/16,501
USD 17,337/30,275
GBP 3397/1,112
USD 12,104/7,361
GLP-1RA
Liraglutide 1.2/1.8 mg/day
Sitagliptin 100 mg/day
GBP 9851/10,465
USD 18,074/19,201
GBP 1758/2776
USD 6528/10,598
Sinha et al. [27]
2008
Exenatide 20 μg/d
Glyburide 7.5 mg/d
USD 278,935
USD 353,523
USD -14,253
USD -18,064
SU
Sitagliptin 100 mg/day
Glyburide 7.5 mg/day
USD 169,572
USD 214,916
USD -19,574
USD -24,808
Exenatide 20 μg/d
Sitagliptin 100 mg/d
Dominated
 
USD -5321
USD -6744
Kiadaliri et al. [26]
2013
GLP-1RA
DPP-4i
SEK 353,172
USD 47,752
SEK 15,135
USD 2046
GLP-1RA
GLP-1RA
NPH insulin 40 IU/day
SEK 160,618
USD 21,717
SEK 84,198
USD 11,384
DPP-4i
NPH insulin 40 IU/day
SEK 36,050
USD 4874
SEK 69,063
USD 9338
SGLT2i vs. othersd
Reifsnider et al. [23]
2018
Empagliflozin 10–25 mg/day
Sitagliptin 50–100 mg/day
USD 6967
USD 7542
USD 8182
USD 8858
SGLT-2i
Charokopou et al. [22]
2011
Dapagliflozin 10 mg/day
Sitagliptin 100 mg/day
GBP 6761
USD 11,797
GBP 424
USD 740
SGLT-2i
Bagepally et al. [20]
2017
Dapagliflozin 10 mg/day
SU
INR 106,133
USD 6596
USD 87,061
USD 5410
SGLT-2i
Charokopou et al. [21]
2011
Dapagliflozin 10 mg/day
SU
GBP 1246
GBP 2671
GBP 7954
USD 13,878
SGLT-2i
Tzanetakos et al. [24]
2015
Dapagliflozin 10 mg/day
DPP-4i
EUR 17,695
USD 32,665
EUR 944
USD 1743
SGLT-2i
SU
EUR 10,623
USD 19,610
EUR 11,518
USD 21,262
DPP-4i vs. otherse
Gu et al. [33]
2014
Saxagliptin 5 mg/day
Glimepiride 2.8 mg/day
Dominate
 
CNY 88,136
USD 28,697
DPP-4i
Elgart et al. [28]
2009
Saxagliptin
SU
USD 7374
USD 11,666
USD 45
USD 2
DPP-4i
Granström et al. [31]
2008
Saxagliptin 5 mg/day
Glipizide 14.7 mg/day
SEK 91,260
USD 13,184
SEK 40,516
USD 5853
DPP-4i
Erhardt et al. [29]
2009
Saxagliptin
Glipizide
EUR 13,931
USD 22,199
NA
NA
DPP-4i
Grzeszczak et al. [32]
2009
Saxagliptin 5 mg/day
NPH insulin 25 IU/day
PLN 27,454
USD 19,245
PLN 9336
USD 6544
DPP-4i
Kousoulakou et al. [35]
2014
Vildagliptin
Glimepiride
Dominate
 
EUR 1561
USD 2872
DPP-4i
Viriato et al. [37]
2013
Vildagliptin
SU
EUR 9072
USD 17,291
EUR 2679
USD 5106
DPP-4i
Gordon et al. [30]
2015
Alogliptin 12.5/25 mg/day
Glipizide 5 mg/day
GBP 10,959/7217
USD 18,092/11,915
GBP 1989/3218
USD 3284/5313
DPP-4i
Schwarz et al. [36]
2007
Sitagliptin
Rosiglitazone
Dominate to EUR 4766
Dominate to USD 6918
NA
NA
DPP-4i
Sitagliptin g
SU g
EUR 5949 to 20,350
USD 11,923 to 31,880
NA
NA
Sitagliptinh
SUh
EUR 6029 to 13,655
USD 12,084 to 21,392
NA
NA
Gu et al. [34]
2014
Saxagliptin 5 mg/day
Acarbose 150 mg/day
Dominate
 
CNY 41,304
USD 12,927
DPP-4i
Gordon et al. [28]
2015
DPP-4i
SU
GBP 18,680
USD 30,839
GBP 531
USD 877
DPP-4i
TZD
GBP 15,343
USD 25,480
GBP 1431
USD 2362
DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, GLP-1RA glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; INMB incremental net monetary benefit, NPH neutral protamine Hagedorn, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione
aIf ICER > WTP, indicated intervention is not cost-effective; if ICER < WTP, indicated intervention is cost-effective; if ΔCost < 0 and ΔQALY > 0, indicated intervention is dominant (cheaper and more effective); if ΔCost > 0 and ΔQALY < 0, indicated intervention is dominated (costly and less effective)
bIf INMB > 0, indicated intervention is cost-effective; if INMB < 0, indicated intervention is not cost-effective
cGLP-1RA versus DPP-4i, SU, or Insulin
dSGLT2i versus DPP-4i or SU
eDPP-4i versus SU, TZD, AGI, or insulin
fSubgroup analyses stratified according to gender and smoking status
gMetformin combined with basal insulin as third line
hMetformin combined with rosiglitazone as third line
Table 3
Base case analyses of multiple antidiabetic drugs combined with metformin as second-line treatment
Author
Currency year
Second line
QALYs
Total costs
Rank of cost-effectiveness
Original
2022 US dollar
CADTH [40]
2016
SU
8.8784
CAD 39,251
USD 35,219
1
Metformin
8.8369
CAD 37,648
USD 33,780
2
SGLT2i
8.9530
CAD 49,308
USD 44,242
3
DPP-4i
8.8998
CAD 48,859
USD 45,674
4
Basal insulin
8.8998
CAD 54,852
USD 51,276
5
GLP-1RA
8.9894
CAD 55,946
USD 52,299
6
Biphasic insulin
8.9340
CAD 63,719
USD 59,565
7
Klarenbach et al. [41]
2009
SU
8.72
CAD 40,669
USD 42,318
1
AGI
8.77
CAD 42,797
USD 44,532
2
Meglitinide
8.78
CAD 42,269
USD 43,983
3
Metformin
8.72
CAD 39,924
USD 41,543
4
TZD
8.78
CAD 46,202
USD 48,075
5
DPP-4i
8.78
CAD 47,191
USD 49,104
6
Basal insulin
8.78
CAD 47,348
USD 49,268
7
Biphasic insulin
8.77
CAD 52,367
USD 54,490
8
Chien et al. [39]
2019
SGLT2i (SU as third line)
12.483
NTD 283,709
USD 7593
1
SGLT2i (DPP-4i as third line)
12.548
NTD 287,891
USD 7705
2
SU (SGLT2i as third line)
11.943
NTD 249,626
USD 6681
3
DPP-4i (SGLT2i as third line)
12.345
NTD 282,722
USD 7566
4
DPP-4i (SU as third line)
11.931
NTD 270,820
USD 7248
5
GLP-1RA (SU as third line)
12.453
NTD 452,043
USD 12,098
6
SU (DPP-4i as third line)
11.469
NTD 246,858
USD 6607
7
Insulin (SU as third line)
11.064
NTD 278,502
USD 7453
8
Gu et al. [38]
2019
Meglitinide (Insulin as third line)
14.085
CNY 55,729
USD 16,872
1
AGI (Insulin as third line)
14.019
CNY 60,741
USD 18,390
2
DPP-4i (insulin as third line)
14.051
CNY 69,467
USD 21,031
3
Meglitinide (GLP-1RA as third line)
14.117
CNY 85,142
USD 25,777
4
SU (insulin as third line)
13.965
CNY 52,923
USD 16,023
5
TZD (INS as third line)
13.978
CNY 56,374
USD 17,067
6
AGI (GLP-1RA as third line)
14.053
CNY 89,690
USD 27,154
7
DPP-4i (GLP-1RA as third line)
14.084
CNY 98,597
USD 29,850
8
SU (GLP-1RA as third line)
13.997
CNY 81,569
USD 24,695
9
TZD (GLP-1RA as third line)
14.011
CNY 85,095
USD 25,763
10
AGI α-glucosidase inhibitors, CADTH Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, DPP-4i dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, GLP-1RA glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, NPH neutral protamine Hagedorn, QALYs quality adjusted life years, SGLT2i sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor, SU sulfonylurea, TZD thiazolidinedione

GLP-1 RA vs. SGLT2i

Four studies compared the cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 RA and SGLT2i as second-line treatments, with SGLT2i consistently indicating greater cost-effectiveness [14, 16, 18, 19]. Three studies agree that SGLT2i conferred more QALYs at less cost than GLP-1RA, making it an economically dominant treatment strategy [14, 16, 19]. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the main driver of cost-effectiveness was drug price, with the average annual treatment costs for GLP-1RA (oral/subcutaneous semaglutide or liraglutide) being two to three times that of SGLT2i (empagliflozin) (Supplementary Table S4). One of the studies performed a subgroup analysis based on the inclusion or exclusion of the effect of treatment on heart failure [16]. After excluding the effect on heart failure, empagliflozin plus metformin continued to dominate oral semaglutide plus metformin.

GLP-1 RA vs. Others

Two cost-utility studies based on LEAD-2 [42] and 1860-LIRA-DPP-4 [43] trial indicated that liraglutide combined with metformin monotherapy was a highly cost-effective second-line strategy for treating T2D versus sitagliptin or glimepiride, respectively [17, 25]. Similar conclusions were also observed in a cost-utility analysis of GLP-1 RA compared to DPP-4i or neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in Sweden [26]. However, short-acting exenatide and sitagliptin as second-line therapy for new-onset diabetes in the USA have cost-effectiveness ratios that exceed the threshold, making them expensive [27].

SGLT2i vs. Others

Two studies compared SGLT2i to DPP-4i [22, 23], two studies compared SGLT2i to SU [8, 21], and one study compared SGLT2i to both DPP-4i and SU [24]. The cost-effectiveness analysis consistently revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than DPP-4i or SU over a range of values for the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold. Although SGLT2i has higher therapy costs than DPP4i or SU, the cost may be partially counterbalanced by the lower total cost of diabetes-related complications and managing severe hypoglycemia due to the lower cumulative incidence of these events. One study analyzed the baseline presence or absence of cardiovascular disease and payer perspectives on health insurance type (commercial or Medicare) using scenario analysis. The cost per QALY ranged between USD 3589 and USD 12,577, below the USD 50,000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold commonly suggested for health intervention cost-effectiveness [23].

DPP-4i vs. Others

Eleven studies compared cost-utility in DPP-4i and conventional oral hypoglycemic agents [α-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI), TZD, SU] or NPH insulin as second-line therapy added to metformin in T2D, more than half of which were saxagliptin [28, 29, 3134], one of them was DPP-4i [15], and the rest were two vildagliptin [35, 37], one alogliptin [30], and one sitagliptin [36]. These results consistently indicated that DPP-4i was cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis exhibited that DPP-4i had fewer hypoglycemia adverse effects and a weight-neutral profile than traditional antidiabetic drugs. The resulting health and economic benefits offset the overall increased costs associated with managing diabetes-related complications and purchasing medications. This conclusion was validated in economic assessment based on a real‐world observational study in the older population with T2D [15].

Multiple Antidiabetic Drugs

Four studies conducted a cost-utility analysis of multiple second-line T2D treatment strategies (Supplementary Table S5). One study excluded SGLT2i and GLP-1RA from the comparative analysis because they were commercially unavailable at the start of this study. Two Canadian cost-effectiveness studies comparing multiple antidiabetic agents as second-line treatment options indicated that SU was the most cost-effective choice [40, 41]. The other two studies evaluating the cost-utility of different hypoglycemic agent classes combined with second-line escalation therapies [38, 39] reached contradictory results. SGLT2i as the second line and DPP-4i as the third line were the most cost-effective in Chinese Taiwan. However, meglitinide as the second line and insulin as the third line were the most cost-effective in China.
Overall, these results demonstrated that SU was still highly cost-effective in second-line antidiabetic drugs when antidiabetic drug availability was poor or the WTP cost threshold was low. Otherwise, SGLT2i was more cost-effective because of weight loss, resulting in lower follow-up treatment costs and greater utility.

Discussion

The present study systematically reviewed the cost-effectiveness of second‐line antidiabetic therapy in T2D, including newer (GLP-1RA, SGLT2i and DPP-4i) and traditional hypoglycemic agents (SU, TZD, AGI, and insulin). The Cardiff and CORE models are the most commonly suggested health economic model of T2D. Based on the CHEERS checklist, most reviewed studies have good quality.
The base case analysis indicates that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA and DPP-4i. GLP-1RA had better cost-effectiveness than DPP-4i and insulin in three evaluations. DPP-4i was cost-effective compared to traditional hypoglycemic agents, consistent with previously reported cost-effectiveness analyses. The remaining four comparative evaluations analyzed multiple strategies that SU or SGLT2i was the preferred second-line option for treatment failure with metformin monotherapy. New hypoglycemic agents have better cost-effectiveness as second-line therapy in treating T2D with the continuous improvement of the accessibility of new hypoglycemic agents, and the efficacy and safety data accumulation, especially the conclusions of cost–benefit advantages of SGLT2i, are mostly consistent.
A systematic review evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2i for T2D revealed that SGLT2i was more cost-effective than GLP-1RA and classic antidiabetic treatment options among patients who were not meeting HbA1c goals on metformin, especially for elevated CVD risk [7]. A similar study indicated that SGLT-2i and GLP-1RA were more cost-effective than DPP-4i and conventional hypoglycemic agents as second-line T2D treatment options [44]. Our comprehensive pharmacoeconomic evaluation of second-line treatment options for T2D has yielded some inconsistent results. This may be related to heterogeneity in economic simulation modeling in T2D, simulated treatment pathways and switching thresholds for treatment escalation in the study design, and susceptibility of different ethnicities to T2D.
The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health suggested that replacing SU as the most cost-effective option would result in price reductions of 60% and 70% on SGLT2i and GLP-1RA, respectively. Since the HTA report used the UKPDS model, the independent assessment of SGLT-2 and GLP-1 cardiovascular benefits may have been limited. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that metformin, in combination with a hypoglycemic agent as a long-term treatment for T2D, might not entirely reflect standard clinical practice.
Other cost-utility analyses using the Cardiff model revealed that SGLT2i as second line and DPP-4i as third line were the most cost-effective choices in Chinese Taiwan, but in China, meglitinide sequential add-on insulin was the best in the absence of SGLT2i. There are several potential reasons for this difference. Second-line escalation strategies were set inconsistently. Unlike the second-line setting of GLP-1RA in Chinese Taiwan, GLP-1RA was assumed as the third line in China. However, the efficacy data input models are heterogeneous because they are obtained from different included studies meta-analyzed. According to Gu et al., meglitinide as second line has better weight control, HbA1c reduction, and lower risk of hypoglycemia compared to SU, TZD, AGI, and DPP-4i, contradicting other cost-effective analyses. This may be related to the effect of ethnicity on glucose metabolism and insulin regulation. Compared with Caucasian people, the onset of T2D in the Asian population is characterized by limited β cell reserve, and inability to compensate for the slight decrease in insulin sensitivity, which can lead to β cell dysfunction prior to the decrease in insulin sensitivity and an increased risk for developing T2D [45]. In addition, since the Asian population has a higher carbohydrate content in its diet than the Western population, the glycemic response to the same glycemic load is also greater. Thus, the hypoglycemic regimen is more suitable for insulin secretagogue, which mainly reduces postprandial glycemia.
The current studies have several limitations. First, classical economic evaluation models of diabetes, such as UKPDS, may not meet all requirements because of the unique cardiovascular protective effects of GLP-1RA and SGLT-2i that are independent of their hypoglycemic effects. Therefore, there are growing appeals for encouraging the incorporation of new CVOT data on drug-mediated cardioprotection in the T2D economic model [46, 47]. Second, most clinical trial data of hypoglycemic drugs are currently based on the Caucasian population, and there is a lack of data support for the Asian population. Additional prospective studies are therefore needed to understand better the effects of different ethnic groups on the efficacy and safety of novel hypoglycemic agents. This can provide more personalized and targeted management strategies, especially for Asian populations. Third, in terms of study design, only a few studies have included costs from a societal perspective. An economic and health burden analysis of cardiovascular disease in the T2D population suggested that total healthcare costs were comparable to total lost productivity costs. The productivity loss due to premature mortality accounted for 42.65% of the indirect costs [48]. Hence, omitting the indirect costs is likely to underestimate the cost-effectiveness of SGLT2i in reducing all-cause mortality. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry funded approximately 70% of the included studies, which may cause bias in favor of newer antidiabetic agents' cost-effectiveness.
Despite these limitations, the current studies’ findings have important implications for future research and clinical practice, suggesting that the pattern of glucose-lowering drug use has changed substantially, with novel antidiabetic drugs increasingly being used as second-line therapies. The trade-off among efficacy, safety, and cost of novel hypoglycemic drugs underscores the importance of cost-effectiveness analyses in practical clinical practice with accumulating CVOT evidence for hypoglycemic agents. Although only one second-line study in our systematic review used real-world data, this method of using real-world evidence in pharmacoeconomics will become more mainstream, potentially identifying subgroups that benefit the most from particular interventions to facilitate clinical care and health policy decisions and optimize health care resource allocation.

Conclusion

Our systematic review suggests that newer antidiabetic drugs are cost-effective therapy in second-line options following metformin monotherapy with T2D than classic glucose-lowering agents. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that SGLT2i was a dominant strategy compared with GLP-1RA as an add-on treatment to metformin. DPP-4i has good safety profiles and weight neutrality, showing predominant cost-effectiveness in relation to other classical antidiabetic drugs but is less favorable than GLP-1RA and SGLT2i. When comparing various classes of antidiabetic drugs, the simulated treatment pathways by different studies and the accessibility and affordability of new antidiabetic drugs in different regions had significant heterogeneity. Therefore, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding which hypoglycemic agents should be recommended as the preferred second-line treatment from a cost-effectiveness perspective. However, as newer antidiabetic drugs reach patent expiry, SGLT2i may have potential as the preferred second-line treatment after metformin failure in T2D as the potential impact of generics could decrease the economic burden.

Acknowledgements

Funding

This study was supported by the Medical and Health Research Project of Zhejiang Province (grant no. 2022KY255), which also funded the Rapid Service and Open Access fees.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Jiejin Zhu, Ying Zhou, and Qingyu Li. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jiejin Zhu, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosures

Jiejin Zhu, Ying Zhou, Qingyu Li, and Gang Wang declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

This article is based upon previously conducted studies, and all data are publicly available in the referenced publications.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by-nc/​4.​0/​.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

e.Med Innere Medizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Innere Medizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Innere Medizin, den Premium-Inhalten der internistischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten internistischen Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

e.Med Allgemeinmedizin

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Allgemeinmedizin erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Premium-Inhalten der allgemeinmedizinischen Zeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Allgemeinmedizin-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Anhänge

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183: 109119.PubMedCrossRef Sun H, Saeedi P, Karuranga S, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global, regional and country-level diabetes prevalence estimates for 2021 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2022;183: 109119.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH. Economic burden of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Value Health. 2018;21:881–90.PubMedCrossRef Einarson TR, Acs A, Ludwig C, Panton UH. Economic burden of cardiovascular disease in type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Value Health. 2018;21:881–90.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Marsico F, Paolillo S, Gargiulo P, et al. Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on major cardiovascular events in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:3346–58.PubMedCrossRef Marsico F, Paolillo S, Gargiulo P, et al. Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on major cardiovascular events in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without established cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J. 2020;41:3346–58.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139:2022–31.PubMedCrossRef Zelniker TA, Wiviott SD, Raz I, et al. Comparison of the effects of glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular and renal outcomes in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2019;139:2022–31.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Greiver M, Havard A, Bowles JK, et al. Trends in diabetes medication use in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland: a repeated cross-sectional analysis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(704):e209–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Greiver M, Havard A, Bowles JK, et al. Trends in diabetes medication use in Australia, Canada, England, and Scotland: a repeated cross-sectional analysis in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2021;71(704):e209–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Zhou X, Shrestha SS, Shao H, Zhang P. Factors contributing to the rising national cost of glucose-lowering medicines for diabetes during 2005–2007 and 2015–2017. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2396–402.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Zhou X, Shrestha SS, Shao H, Zhang P. Factors contributing to the rising national cost of glucose-lowering medicines for diabetes during 2005–2007 and 2015–2017. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(10):2396–402.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Yoshida Y, Cheng X, Shao H, Fonseca VA, Shi L. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2020;20:12.PubMedCrossRef Yoshida Y, Cheng X, Shao H, Fonseca VA, Shi L. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness of sodium-glucose cotransporter inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. Curr Diab Rep. 2020;20:12.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Hong D, Si L, Jiang M, et al. 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. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:777–818.PubMedCrossRef Hong D, Si L, Jiang M, et al. 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. Pharmacoeconomics. 2019;37:777–818.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee.9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45:S125–43. American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee.9. Pharmacologic Approaches to Glycemic Treatment: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45:S125–43.
10.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task force. Value Health. 2022;25:10–31.PubMedCrossRef Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) 2022 explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR CHEERS II good practices task force. Value Health. 2022;25:10–31.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Geng J, Yu H, Mao Y, Zhang P, Chen Y. Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:581–97.PubMedCrossRef Geng J, Yu H, Mao Y, Zhang P, Chen Y. Cost effectiveness of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes. Pharmacoeconomics. 2015;33:581–97.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ehlers LH, Lamotte M, Monteiro S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus liraglutide treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(5):1523–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ehlers LH, Lamotte M, Monteiro S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus liraglutide treatment in people with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease. Diabetes Ther. 2021;12(5):1523–34.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon J, McEwan P, Evans M, Puelles J, Sinclair A. Managing glycaemia in older people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective, primary care-based cohort study, with economic assessment of patient outcomes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(5):644–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gordon J, McEwan P, Evans M, Puelles J, Sinclair A. Managing glycaemia in older people with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective, primary care-based cohort study, with economic assessment of patient outcomes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2017;19(5):644–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Ramos M, Cummings MH, Ustyugova A, Raza SI, de Silva SU, Lamotte M. Long-Term cost-effectiveness analyses of empagliflozin versus oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(9):2041–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ramos M, Cummings MH, Ustyugova A, Raza SI, de Silva SU, Lamotte M. Long-Term cost-effectiveness analyses of empagliflozin versus oral semaglutide, in addition to metformin, for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the UK. Diabetes Ther. 2020;11(9):2041–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Steen Carlsson K, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin. J Med Econ. 2014;17:658–69.PubMedCrossRef Steen Carlsson K, Persson U. Cost-effectiveness of add-on treatments to metformin in a Swedish setting: liraglutide vs sulphonylurea or sitagplitin. J Med Econ. 2014;17:658–69.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Ehlers LH, Lamotte M, Ramos MC, et al. The Cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide versus empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin alone in Denmark. Diabetes Ther. 2022;13:489–503.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ehlers LH, Lamotte M, Ramos MC, et al. The Cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide versus empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on metformin alone in Denmark. Diabetes Ther. 2022;13:489–503.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Reifsnider OS, Pimple P, Brand S, Bergrath Washington E, Shetty S, Desai NR. Cost-effectiveness of second-line empagliflozin versus liraglutide for type 2 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(4):652–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Reifsnider OS, Pimple P, Brand S, Bergrath Washington E, Shetty S, Desai NR. Cost-effectiveness of second-line empagliflozin versus liraglutide for type 2 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2022;24(4):652–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Bagepally BS, Chaikledkaew U, Youngkong S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin compared to sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes as second-line treatment in Indian healthcare payer’s perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:897–907.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bagepally BS, Chaikledkaew U, Youngkong S, et al. Cost-utility analysis of dapagliflozin compared to sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes as second-line treatment in Indian healthcare payer’s perspective. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2021;13:897–907.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Charokopou M, McEwan P, Lister S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sulfonylurea as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(7):890–8.PubMedCrossRef Charokopou M, McEwan P, Lister S, et al. The cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus sulfonylurea as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2015;32(7):890–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Charokopou M, McEwan P, Lister S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus DPP-4 inhibitors as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus from a UK healthcare system perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:496.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Charokopou M, McEwan P, Lister S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin versus DPP-4 inhibitors as an add-on to metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus from a UK healthcare system perspective. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:496.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Reifsnider O, Kansal A, Pimple P, Aponte-Ribero V, Brand S, Shetty S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin as second-line therapy for treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23:791–9.PubMedCrossRef Reifsnider O, Kansal A, Pimple P, Aponte-Ribero V, Brand S, Shetty S. Cost-effectiveness analysis of empagliflozin versus sitagliptin as second-line therapy for treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United States. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2021;23:791–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Tzanetakos C, Tentolouris N, Kourlaba G, Maniadakis N. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin as add-on to metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Greece. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36:649–59.PubMedCrossRef Tzanetakos C, Tentolouris N, Kourlaba G, Maniadakis N. Cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin as add-on to metformin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Greece. Clin Drug Investig. 2016;36:649–59.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Davies MJ, Chubb BD, Smith IC, Valentine WJ. Cost–utility analysis of liraglutide compared with sulphonylurea or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin monotherapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2012;29(3):313–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Davies MJ, Chubb BD, Smith IC, Valentine WJ. Cost–utility analysis of liraglutide compared with sulphonylurea or sitagliptin, all as add-on to metformin monotherapy in Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med. 2012;29(3):313–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Kiadaliri AA, Gerdtham UG, Eliasson B, Carlsson KS. Cost-utility analysis of glucagon-like Peptide-1 agonists compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or neutral protamine hagedorn Basal insulin as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes in sweden. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5:591–607.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kiadaliri AA, Gerdtham UG, Eliasson B, Carlsson KS. Cost-utility analysis of glucagon-like Peptide-1 agonists compared with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors or neutral protamine hagedorn Basal insulin as add-on to metformin in type 2 diabetes in sweden. Diabetes Ther. 2014;5:591–607.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Sinha A, Rajan M, Hoerger T, Pogach L. Costs and consequences associated with newer medications for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:695–700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Sinha A, Rajan M, Hoerger T, Pogach L. Costs and consequences associated with newer medications for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:695–700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Elgart JF, Caporale JE, Gonzalez L, Aiello E, Waschbusch M, Gagliardino JJ. Treatment of type 2 diabetes with saxagliptin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Argentina. Health Econ Rev. 2013;3(1):11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Elgart JF, Caporale JE, Gonzalez L, Aiello E, Waschbusch M, Gagliardino JJ. Treatment of type 2 diabetes with saxagliptin: a pharmacoeconomic evaluation in Argentina. Health Econ Rev. 2013;3(1):11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Erhardt W, Bergenheim K, Duprat-Lomon I, McEwan P. Cost effectiveness of saxagliptin and metformin versus sulfonylurea and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany: a Cardiff diabetes model analysis. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32:189–202.PubMedCrossRef Erhardt W, Bergenheim K, Duprat-Lomon I, McEwan P. Cost effectiveness of saxagliptin and metformin versus sulfonylurea and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Germany: a Cardiff diabetes model analysis. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32:189–202.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Gordon J, McEwan P, Hurst M, Puelles J. The cost-effectiveness of alogliptin versus sulfonylurea as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther. 2016;7:825–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gordon J, McEwan P, Hurst M, Puelles J. The cost-effectiveness of alogliptin versus sulfonylurea as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Ther. 2016;7:825–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Granström O, Bergenheim K, McEwan P, Sennfält K, Henriksson M. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin (Onglyza®) in type 2 diabetes in Sweden. Prim Care Diabetes. 2012;6:127–36.PubMedCrossRef Granström O, Bergenheim K, McEwan P, Sennfält K, Henriksson M. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin (Onglyza®) in type 2 diabetes in Sweden. Prim Care Diabetes. 2012;6:127–36.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Grzeszczak W, Czupryniak L, Kolasa K, Sciborski C, Lomon ID, McEwan P. The cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin versus NPH insulin when used in combination with other oral antidiabetes agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Poland. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:65–73.PubMedCrossRef Grzeszczak W, Czupryniak L, Kolasa K, Sciborski C, Lomon ID, McEwan P. The cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin versus NPH insulin when used in combination with other oral antidiabetes agents in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Poland. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2012;14:65–73.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Gu S, Deng J, Shi L, Mu Y, Dong H. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China. J Med Econ. 2015;18:808–20.PubMedCrossRef Gu S, Deng J, Shi L, Mu Y, Dong H. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin vs glimepiride as a second-line therapy added to metformin in Type 2 diabetes in China. J Med Econ. 2015;18:808–20.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Gu S, Zeng Y, Yu D, Hu X, Dong H. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin versus acarbose as second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0167190.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gu S, Zeng Y, Yu D, Hu X, Dong H. Cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin versus acarbose as second-line therapy in type 2 diabetes in China. PLoS ONE. 2016;11: e0167190.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Kousoulakou H, Hatzikou M, Baroutsou V, Yfantopoulos J. Cost effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on treatment to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in Greece. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017;15:19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kousoulakou H, Hatzikou M, Baroutsou V, Yfantopoulos J. Cost effectiveness of vildagliptin versus glimepiride as add-on treatment to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 patients in Greece. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017;15:19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Schwarz B, Gouveia M, Chen J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sitagliptin-based treatment regimens in European patients with type 2 diabetes and haemoglobin A1c above target on metformin monotherapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008;10(Suppl 1):43–55.PubMedCrossRef Schwarz B, Gouveia M, Chen J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of sitagliptin-based treatment regimens in European patients with type 2 diabetes and haemoglobin A1c above target on metformin monotherapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2008;10(Suppl 1):43–55.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Viriato D, Calado F, Gruenberger J-B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2014;17:499–507.PubMedCrossRef Viriato D, Calado F, Gruenberger J-B, et al. Cost-effectiveness of metformin plus vildagliptin compared with metformin plus sulphonylurea for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a Portuguese healthcare system perspective. J Med Econ. 2014;17:499–507.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Gu S, Shi L, Shao H, et al. Choice across 10 pharmacologic combination strategies for type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):378.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gu S, Shi L, Shao H, et al. Choice across 10 pharmacologic combination strategies for type 2 diabetes: a cost-effectiveness analysis. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):378.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Chien CL, Chen YC, Malone DC, Peng YL, Ko Y. Cost-utility analysis of second-line anti-diabetic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36:1619–26.PubMedCrossRef Chien CL, Chen YC, Malone DC, Peng YL, Ko Y. Cost-utility analysis of second-line anti-diabetic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin. Curr Med Res Opin. 2020;36:1619–26.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Klarenbach S, Cameron C, Singh S, Ur E. Cost-effectiveness of second-line antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin. CMAJ. 2011;183:E1213-1220.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Klarenbach S, Cameron C, Singh S, Ur E. Cost-effectiveness of second-line antihyperglycemic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on metformin. CMAJ. 2011;183:E1213-1220.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:84–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Nauck M, Frid A, Hermansen K, et al. Efficacy and safety comparison of liraglutide, glimepiride, and placebo, all in combination with metformin, in type 2 diabetes: the LEAD (liraglutide effect and action in diabetes)-2 study. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:84–90.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Pratley RE, Nauck M, Bailey T, et al. Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1447–56.PubMedCrossRef Pratley RE, Nauck M, Bailey T, et al. Liraglutide versus sitagliptin for patients with type 2 diabetes who did not have adequate glycaemic control with metformin: a 26-week, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial. Lancet. 2010;375:1447–56.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Ruan Z, Zou H, Lei Q, Ung COL, Shi H, Hu H. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22:555–74.PubMedCrossRef Ruan Z, Zou H, Lei Q, Ung COL, Shi H, Hu H. Pharmacoeconomic evaluation of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2022;22:555–74.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Vale Moreira NC, Ceriello A, Basit A, et al. Race/ethnicity and challenges for optimal insulin therapy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;175: 108823.PubMedCrossRef Vale Moreira NC, Ceriello A, Basit A, et al. Race/ethnicity and challenges for optimal insulin therapy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2021;175: 108823.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Evans M, Berry S, Nazeri A, et al. The challenges and pitfalls of incorporating evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials in health economic modelling of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(3):639–48.PubMedCrossRef Evans M, Berry S, Nazeri A, et al. The challenges and pitfalls of incorporating evidence from cardiovascular outcomes trials in health economic modelling of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2023;25(3):639–48.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Willis M, Asseburg C, Nilsson A, Neslusan C. Challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating new evidence of drug-mediated cardioprotection in the economic modeling of type 2 diabetes: a literature review. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(5):1753–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Willis M, Asseburg C, Nilsson A, Neslusan C. Challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating new evidence of drug-mediated cardioprotection in the economic modeling of type 2 diabetes: a literature review. Diabetes Ther. 2019;10(5):1753–69.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Abushanab D, Marquina C, Morton JI, et al. Projecting the health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease among people with type 2 diabetes, 2022–2031. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(6):719–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Abushanab D, Marquina C, Morton JI, et al. Projecting the health and economic burden of cardiovascular disease among people with type 2 diabetes, 2022–2031. Pharmacoeconomics. 2023;41(6):719–32.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Antidiabetic Drugs as Second-Line Treatment for Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review
verfasst von
Jiejin Zhu
Ying Zhou
Qingyu Li
Gang Wang
Publikationsdatum
29.07.2023
Verlag
Springer Healthcare
Erschienen in
Advances in Therapy / Ausgabe 10/2023
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Elektronische ISSN: 1865-8652
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-023-02612-z

Kompaktes Leitlinien-Wissen Innere Medizin (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

Mit medbee Pocketcards schnell und sicher entscheiden.
Leitlinien-Wissen kostenlos und immer griffbereit auf ihrem Desktop, Handy oder Tablet.

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Fünf Faktoren sagen Lymphödeme nach Brustkrebs voraus

Ob nach der operativen Behandlung von Brustkrebs ein Lymphödem droht, lässt sich anhand eines Risikomodells abschätzen, das auf fünf leicht verfügbaren klinischen Parametern beruht.

Metastasiertes CRC: besser Checkpointhemmer im Doppelpack!

Die Kombination von Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab ist beim metastasierten Kolorektalkarzinom mit MSI-H- oder dMMR klar im Vorteil gegenüber einer Nivolumab-Monotherapie: Das Progressionsrisiko war damit in einer Phase-3-Studie um 38% reduziert.

Riesenzellarteriitis: bilaterale Biopsie der Temporalarterien von Vorteil

Die Riesenzellarteriitis (RZA) erfordert eine rasche und präzise Diagnose, da innerhalb weniger Tage ein schwerer, irreversibler Sehverlust drohen kann. In diesem Zusammenhang scheint die bilaterale Biopsie der Temporalarterien (TAB) der unilateralen überlegen zu sein.

Große Trinkmengen bei Blasentumoren möglicherweise von Nachteil

Beim nicht-muskelinvasiven Blasenkrebs scheint eine hohe Flüssigkeitszufuhr keinen schützenden Effekt in Bezug auf das Risiko eines Rezidivs oder einer Krankheitsprogression zu haben. Eine niederländische Studie legt sogar nahe, dass große Trinkmengen das Fortschreiten der Erkrankung begünstigen könnten.

EKG Essentials: EKG befunden mit System (Link öffnet in neuem Fenster)

In diesem CME-Kurs können Sie Ihr Wissen zur EKG-Befundung anhand von zwölf Video-Tutorials auffrischen und 10 CME-Punkte sammeln.
Praxisnah, relevant und mit vielen Tipps & Tricks vom Profi.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.