Longitudinal medical resources and costs among type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). Issue 7 (20th April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reed, Shelby D.; Li, Yanhong; Leal, Jose; Radican, Larry; Adler, Amanda I.; Alfredsson, Joakim; Buse, John B.; Green, Jennifer B.; Kaufman, Keith D.; Riefflin, Axel; Van de Werf, Frans; Peterson, Eric D.; Gray, Alastair M.; Holman, Rury R.
• Is Part Of: Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. Volume 20:Issue 7(2018)
• Page Start: 1732
• Page End: 1739
• Publication Date: 2018-04-20
• Subjects: costs -- cost analysis -- diabetes -- dipeptidyl peptidase‐4 inhibitor -- sitagliptin; Diabetes -- Periodicals; Obesity -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Disorders -- Periodicals; Clinical pharmacology -- Periodicals; 616.462
• DOI: 10.1111/dom.13292
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1462-8902

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non‐inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. Materials and methods: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes‐related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. Results: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow‐up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin‐treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83‐0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm ( P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). Conclusions: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.