Cargando…

The Cost-Effectiveness of Alogliptin Versus Sulfonylurea as Add-on Therapy to Metformin in Patients with Uncontrolled Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

INTRODUCTION: ENDURE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00856284), a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study of 2639 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), found that metformin in combination with alogliptin (12.5 and 25 mg doses), when compared to standard add-on the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gordon, Jason, McEwan, Phil, Hurst, Michael, Puelles, Jorge
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5118244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27787778
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-016-0206-7
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: ENDURE (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00856284), a multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study of 2639 patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), found that metformin in combination with alogliptin (12.5 and 25 mg doses), when compared to standard add-on therapy (sulfonylurea, SU), exerted sustained antihyperglycemic effects over 2 years. This economic analysis of ENDURE aimed to quantify the relationship between increased glycemic durability and cost-effectiveness of alogliptin in the UK clinical setting, and communicate its sustained glycemic benefit in economic terms. METHODS: Using baseline characteristics and treatment effects from the ENDURE trial population, between-group cost-effectiveness analyses compared the combined use of metformin and alogliptin (MET + ALO(12.5/25)) in patients with inadequately controlled T2DM, as an alternative to metformin and SU (MET + SU). In scenario analyses, an intragroup cost-effectiveness analysis compared MET + ALO(12.5/25) with MET + SU; a between-group cost-effectiveness analysis also compared MET + ALO(12.5/25) versus MET + SU within a subpopulation of patients who achieved HbA1c control (<7.5%) at 2 years on study drug. RESULTS: Compared with baseline profiles of patients, combination therapies with alogliptin or SU were associated with improvements in length and quality of life and were cost-effective at established norms. Despite increased drug acquisition costs, alogliptin at 12.5 mg and 25 mg doses resulted in greater predicted lifetime quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains with associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of £10,959/QALY and £7217/QALY compared to SU, respectively. CONCLUSION: The ENDURE trial and the present cost-effectiveness analysis found that the glycemic durability of alogliptin therapy was associated with improved long-term patient outcomes, QALY gains, and ICERs that were cost-effective when evaluated against standard threshold values. Alogliptin therefore represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to SU as add-on therapy to metformin in patients with poorly managed T2DM. FUNDING: Takeda Development Centre Europe Ltd. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0206-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.