Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Canagliflozin 300 mg Versus Dapagliflozin 10 mg Added to Metformin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in the United States

INTRODUCTION: Agents that inhibit sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2), including canagliflozin and dapagliflozin, are approved in the United States for the treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). SGLT2 inhibition lowers blood glucose by increasing urinary glucose excretion, which leads to a mild osmotic diuresis and a net loss of calories that are associated with reductions in body weight and blood pressure. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of canagliflozin 300 mg versus dapagliflozin 10 mg in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin in the United States. METHODS: A 30-year cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the validated Economic and Health Outcomes Model of T2DM (ECHO-T2DM) from the perspective of the third-party health care system in the United States. Patient demographics, biomarker values, and treatment effects for the ECHO-T2DM model were sourced primarily from a network meta-analysis (NMA) that included studies of canagliflozin and dapagliflozin in patients with T2DM on background metformin. Costs were derived from sources specific to the United States. Outcomes and costs were discounted at 3%. Sensitivity analyses that varied key model parameters were conducted. RESULTS: Canagliflozin 300 mg dominated dapagliflozin 10 mg as an add-on to metformin over 30 years, with an estimated cost offset of $13,991 and a quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.08 versus dapagliflozin 10 mg. Results were driven by the better HbA1c lowering achieved with canagliflozin, which translated to less need for insulin rescue therapy. Findings from sensitivity analyses were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that canagliflozin 300 mg is likely to provide better health outcomes at a lower overall cost than dapagliflozin 10 mg in patients with T2DM inadequately controlled with metformin from the perspective of the United States health care system. FUNDING: Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC and Janssen Global Services, LLC. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0371-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.