A systematic review of economic evaluations in non-insulin antidiabetic treatments for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zozaya, Néboa; Capel, Margarita; Simón, Susana; Soto-González, Alfonso
• Is Part Of: Global & regional health technology assessment. Volume 2019(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Economic evaluation -- diabetes mellitus -- systematic review -- non-insulin antidiabetic treatments; Medical technology -- Evaluation -- Periodicals; Medical technology -- Economic aspects -- Periodicals; 610
• DOI: 10.1177/2284240319876574
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2284-2403

Abstract

The approval of new non-insulin treatments has broadened the therapeutic arsenal, but it has also increased the complexity of choice for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature on economic evaluations associated with non-insulin antidiabetic drugs (NIADs) for DM2. We searched in Medline, IBECS, Doyma and SciELO databases for full economic evaluations of NIADs in adults with DM2 applied after the failure of the first line of pharmacological treatment, published between 2010 and 2017, focusing on studies that incorporated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The review included a total of 57 studies, in which 134 comparisons were made between NIADs. Under an acceptability threshold of 25, 000 euros per QALY gained, iSLGT-2 were preferable to iDPP-4 and sulfonylureas in terms of incremental cost-utility. By contrast, there were no conclusive comparative results for the other two new NIAD groups (GLP-1 and iDPP-4). The heterogeneity of the studies' methodologies and results hindered our ability to determine under what specific clinical assumptions some NIADs would be more cost-effective than others. Economic evaluations of healthcare should be used as part of the decision-making process, so multifactorial therapeutic management strategies should be established based on the patients' clinical characteristics and preferences as principal criteria.