Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Saxagliptin versus Acarbose as Second-Line Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin+metformin (SAXA+MET) versus acarbose+metformin (ACAR+MET) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on MET alone.

Methods

Systematic literature reviews were performed to identify studies directly comparing SAXA+MET versus ACAR+MET, and to obtain diabetes-related events costs which were modified by hospital surveys. A Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to estimate the long-term economic and health treatment consequences in patients with T2DM. Costs (2014 Chinese yuan) were calculated from the payer's perspective and estimated over a patient's lifetime.

Results

SAXA+MET predicted lower incidences of most cardiovascular events, hypoglycemia events and fatal events, and decreased total costs compared with ACAR+MET. For an individual patient, the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained with SAXA+MET was 0.48 more than ACAR+MET at a cost saving of ¥18,736, which resulted in a cost saving of ¥38,640 per QALY gained for SAXA+MET versus ACAR+MET. Results were robust across various univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

SAXA+MET is a cost-effective treatment alternative compared with ACAR+MET for patients with T2DM in China, with a little QALYs gain and lower costs. SAXA is an effective, well-tolerated drug with a low incidence of adverse events and ease of administration; it is anticipated to be an effective second-line therapy for T2DM treatment.

SUBMITTER: Gu S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5119856 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Saxagliptin versus Acarbose as Second-Line Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Gu Shuyan S Zeng Yuhang Y Yu Demin D Hu Xiaoqian X Dong Hengjin H

PloS one 20161122 11

<h4>Objective</h4>This study assessed the long-term cost-effectiveness of saxagliptin+metformin (SAXA+MET) versus acarbose+metformin (ACAR+MET) in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately controlled on MET alone.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic literature reviews were performed to identify studies directly comparing SAXA+MET versus ACAR+MET, and to obtain diabetes-related events costs which were modified by hospital surveys. A Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to estimate the l ...[more]

PMID: 27875596

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceImmune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who previously received sorafenib. Pembrolizumab has shown substantial antitumor activity and a favorable toxicity profile as a second-line treatment of HCC. However, considering the high cost of pembrolizumab, there is a need to assess its value by considering both the clinical efficacy and cost.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pembrolizumab vs placebo as second-line therapy in patients with HCC from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsA Markov model was developed to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment of HCC with those of placebo using outcome data from the KEYNOTE-240 randomized placebo-controlled trial, which included 413 patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib and randomized patients to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care in a 2:1 ratio.Main outcomes and measuresLife-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for the parameter of uncertainty. A cost-threshold analysis was also performed. The study was conducted from January 31 to July 29, 2020.ResultsThe base-case model found that treatment with pembrolizumab was associated with increased overall cost by $47 057 and improved effectiveness by 0.138 QALYs compared with placebo, leading to an ICER of $340 409 per QALY. The model was most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival (range, 0.61-1.00), health utility of placebo (range, 0.59-0.93), price of pembrolizumab (range, $5531-$8297), and price of postprogression therapies (range, $5596-$7944 for pembrolizumab and $4770-$7156 for placebo). The ICER of pembrolizumab was larger than $150 000 per QALY in most of the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. The price of pembrolizumab needed to be reduced by 57.7% to $2925 per cycle to achieve cost-effectiveness.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cost-effectiveness analysis suggest that, at its current price, pembrolizumab is not a cost-effective second-line therapy for HCC in the US, with a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per QALY.

Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide. The inevitability of drug resistance to initial anti-HER-2 therapy necessitates the emergence of second-line anti-HER-2 drugs which exhibit a promising outlook. Consequently, it is imperative to appraise their efficacy through network meta-analysis and ascertain their comparative cost-effectiveness.MethodsThe data used in our analysis were acquired from patients enrolled in the EMILIA, DESTINY-Breast03, and PHOEBE phase III randomized clinical trials. A partitioned survival model was used for patients diagnosed with HER-2-positive metastatic Breast cancer. The model was crafted with a time horizon of 10 years, operating on a 21-day cycle and incorporating a 5% discount rate for both costs and outcomes. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $36,058.06 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The impact of parameter uncertainty on the findings was assessed using a one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis.FindingsWithin the model encompassing 1782 patients, the utilization of pyrotinib plus capecitabine (PC) treatment yielded an additional 0.70 QALY in comparison to T-DM1, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $31,121.53 per QALY gained. Similarly, the administration of T-DXd treatment led to an additional 0.80 QALY compared to T-DM1, resulting in an ICER of $153,950.19 per QALY gained. The PC strategies are considered more cost-effective than T-DXd when the WTP threshold is set at $36,058.06 per QALY. However, this method is not cost effective for T-DXd. The probability of the PC strategies being cost-effective was 62%, whereas the probability of T-DXd was 0% when compared to T-DM1.ConclusionPC is a cost-effective therapy for patients afflicted with HER-2-positive metastatic BC compared to T-DM1 from the perspective of China at a WTP threshold of $36,058.06 per QALY. Nevertheless, T-DXd is not as cost-effective as T-DM1, considering its current medication pricing. Therefore, reducing the cost of T-DXd could improve its overall cost-effectiveness.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Saxagliptin versus Acarbose as Second-Line Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Saxagliptin versus Acarbose as Second-Line Therapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets