ArticleAtencion primaria2015
[Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin compared to DPP4 inhibitors and other oral antidiabetic drugs in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus in Spain].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metformin and second- or third-generation sulphonylurea combination therapy for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019 · on this mapPooled it
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of dapagliflozin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Spain: results of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Dapagliflozin versus Acarbose as a Monotherapy in Type 2 Diabetes in China.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the efficiency of the combined therapy with metformin and dapagliflozin, a new oral anti-diabetic drug with an insulin-independent mechanism of action, in the treatment of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared to DPP4 inhibitors, sulphonylureas and thiazolidindiones, also combined with metformin.
designCost-effectiveness analysis using a discrete event simulation model based on the results of the available clinical trials and considering patient's entire life as time horizon.
settingNational Health System perspective.
participantsThe model simulated the natural history of 30,000 patients with T2DM for each of the options compared. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and economic consequences of managing the disease and its complications. The analysis considered direct costs updated to 2013. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and health outcomes.
resultsIn the main analysis comparing dapagliflozin with DPP4 inhibitors, dapagliflozin resulted in a treatment option that would provide a slightly higher effectiveness (0.019 QALY) and lower overall associated costs (-€42). In the additional analyses, dapagliflozin was a cost-effective option compared with sulphonylureas and thiazolidinediones resulting in a cost per QALY gained of €3,560 and €2,007, respectively. The univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.
conclusionsThe results of the analyses performed suggested that dapagliflozin, in combination with metformin, would be a cost-effective alternative in the Spanish context for the treatment of T2DM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.