ArticleFrontiers in public health2022
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Dapagliflozin Plus Standard Treatment for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and High Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness in Relation to the Supporting Clinical Evidence Across the Type 2 Diabetes Continuum: A Review of Metformin and SGLT2is.Advances in therapy · 2026Review
- Cost-utility analysis of empagliflozin compared with dapagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes in China.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Cost-effectiveness of screening for chronic kidney disease in the general adult population: a systematic review.Clinical kidney journal · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of dapagliflozin, in addition to standard treatment, for the treatment of adult patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at high cardiovascular risk from the Chinese healthcare system perspective. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model with one-year cycles was developed to evaluate the health and economic outcomes in patients with T2DM and high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) treated with standard treatment and dapagliflozin plus standard treatment for 30 years. Clinical data, cost, and utility data were extracted from databases or published literature. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (€/¥ 2021) as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainty in the results. Results: Compared with standard treatment, dapagliflozin plus standard treatment was predicted to result in an additional 0.25 QALYs (12.26 QALYs vs. 12.01 QALYs) at an incremental cost of €4,435.81 (¥33,875.83) per patient. The ICER for dapagliflozin plus standard treatment vs. standard treatment was €17,742.07 (¥135,494.41) per QALY gained, which was considered cost-effective in China compared to three times the GDP per capita in 2021 (€31,809.77/¥242,928). The deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the base-case results to be robust. Conclusions: The study suggests that, from the perspective of the Chinese health system, dapagliflozin plus standard treatment is a cost-effective option for patients with T2DM at high cardiovascular risk. These findings may help clinicians make the best treatment decisions for patients with T2DM at high cardiovascular risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.