ArticlePharmacoEconomics - open2023
Cost-Effectiveness of Semaglutide vs. Empagliflozin, Canagliflozin, and Sitagliptin for Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Denmark: A Decision-Analytic Modelling Study.
Article in PharmacoEconomics - open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It reports registered trial NCT01930188. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Efficacy and Safety of Semaglutide Once-weekly Versus Sitagliptin Once-daily as add-on to Metformin and/or TZD in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes (SUSTAIN™ 2 - vs. DPP-4 Inhibitor)
Efficacy and Long-term Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Sitagliptin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes
Open the trial in the graphEfficacy and Safety of Oral Semaglutide Versus Empagliflozin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Open the trial in the graphEfficacy and Safety of Semaglutide Versus Canagliflozin as add-on to Metformin in Subjects With Type 2 Diabetes
Open the trial in the graphWho cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of switching from a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor to oral semaglutide in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Diabetology international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral and subcutaneous semaglutide versus other oral glucose-lowering drugs (i.e., empagliflozin, canagliflozin, and sitagliptin) for the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in Denmark using clinically relevant treatment intensification rules.
methodsA Markov-type cohort model for evaluating the cost-effectiveness of treatment pathways for T2D was used to produce cost-effectiveness estimates based on four head-to-head trials. Evidence from PIONEER 2 and 3 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin and sitagliptin. Evidence from SUSTAIN 2 and 8 trials was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin and canagliflozin. Base case analyses used trial product estimands of treatment efficacy to avoid the confounding effects of rescue medication use during trials. Deterministic scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of cost-effectiveness estimates.
resultsSemaglutide-based treatment regimens were consistently associated with higher lifetime diabetes treatment costs, lower costs of complications, and higher lifetime accumulated QALYs. The PIONEER 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. empagliflozin was DKK 150,618/QALY (€20,189). The PIONEER 3 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of oral semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 95,093/QALY (€12,746). The SUSTAIN 2 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. sitagliptin was DKK 79,982/QALY (€10,721). The SUSTAIN 8 analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous semaglutide vs. canagliflozin was DKK 167,664/QALY (€22,474).
conclusionsDaily oral and weekly subcutaneous semaglutide are likely to both increase cost and health benefits, but are likely to do so under commonly considered cost-effectiveness thresholds. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02863328 (PIONEER 2; registered August 11, 2016); NCT02607865 (PIONEER 3; registered November 18, 2015); NCT01930188 (SUSTAIN 2; registered August 28, 2013); NCT03136484 (SUSTAIN 8; registered May 2, 2017).
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.