Evidence mapPaperPMID 34727356Full record

ArticleDiabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders2022

Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilization Associated with the Use of Empagliflozin Versus Other Antihyperglycemic Agents Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Aditya Raju, Pratik Pimple, Dana Stafkey-Mailey, Eileen Farrelly, Sharash Shetty

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Aditya RajuXcenda LLC, Carrollton, TX, USA. aditya.raju@xcenda.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2223-1865
Pratik PimpleBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA.
Dana Stafkey-MaileyXcenda LLC, Carrollton, TX, USA.
Eileen FarrellyXcenda LLC, Carrollton, TX, USA.
Sharash ShettyBoehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Ridgefield, CT, USA.
Boehringer Ingelheim (United States) · USAscendis Pharma (Denmark) · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEmpagliflozin has demonstrated lower rates of cardiovascular outcomes vs. standard of care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the impact of empagliflozin compared to other branded antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) on total cost of care has yet to be quantified. METHODS AND

resultsThis retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact of empagliflozin (n = 441) on costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) vs. other branded AHAs (n = 13,122) among patients with T2DM and CVD, using the IQVIA PharMetrics

conclusionsThis study demonstrated that the all-cause healthcare costs and HCRU were significantly lower for patients with T2DM and CVD who initiated empagliflozin vs. other branded AHAs. Along with the positive clinical evidence base of empagliflozin, these results can guide healthcare decision makers during therapy selection.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular diseaseCostsEmpagliflozinHealthcare resource utilizationType 2 diabetes mellitus

Identifiers

PMID34727356
PMCPMC8776959
OpenAlexW3210162718

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.