ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Cost-utility analysis of empagliflozin compared with dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, performs a reduction in the all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients compared to dapagliflozin, which has been included in the national volume-based procurement in China. The objective of this study is to evaluate the long-term cost-utility of the addition of empagliflozin (10 mg or 25 mg) versus dapagliflozin (10 mg) in T2DM patients with insufficient control by metformin monotherapy from the perspective of Chinese health care payers. Methods: The IQVIA CORE diabetes model was used for cost-utility analysis to compare the long-term economics of empagliflozin (10 or 25 mg) versus dapagliflozin (10 mg) respectively. In the two independent analyses, the discount rate was 5% per year, and the utility value was derived from the published literatures. The baseline demographic and biochemical data, as well as treatment efficacy data were obtained from the EMPA-REG MET clinical trial and network meta-analysis, respectively. Results: Compared with dapagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 10 mg and empagliflozin 25 mg improved the life expectancy by 0.011 and 0.02 years, and improved the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.011 and 0.02 years, respectively. The total cost of empagliflozin group (10 mg) was 279 Chinese Yuan lower than that of the dapagliflozin group (10 mg), making it an absolutely economical choice. The total cost of empagliflozin (25 mg) was expected to be 1,601 Chinese Yuan higher than dapagliflozin, with an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of 80,052 Chinese Yuan per QALY, below the set willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 85,698 Chinese Yuan per QALY. Conclusion: For T2DM patients with insufficient control by metformin monotherapy, the addition of empagliflozin 10 mg showed better efficacy and lower cost compared to dapagliflozin 10 mg, making it an absolutely economical choice. Based on the set WTP threshold, empagliflozin 25 mg was also a more cost-effective treatment option than dapagliflozin from the perspective of Chinese healthcare payers.
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.