4.3 Article

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Empagliflozin in Japan Based on Results From the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME Trial

期刊

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS
卷 41, 期 10, 页码 2021-2040

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2019.07.016

关键词

cost-effectiveness analysis; diabetes; EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial; empagliflozin; SGLT2 inhibitor

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim Co. Ltd
  2. Eli Lilly and Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The goal of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin in Japan based on the Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. Methods: The trial has shown a reduction in the risk for cardiovascular (CV) and renal events with empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and established CV disease. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on the overall population of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial was reported previously by using a lifetime discrete event simulation model. The same modeling frame was adapted to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatment with empagliflozin added to standard of care (SoC) compared with SoC alone in Japan. The time to relevant clinical events and the hazard ratios were derived from an Asian subpopulation in the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial. The costs for each event were estimated from a Japanese medical claims database. Direct medical costs, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated from the public health care perspective. Findings: Treatment with empagliflozin was estimated to increase life expectancy by 6.2 years and 2.7 QALYs, whereas total cost increased by 1,115,475 yen compared with treatment with SoC alone. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 415,849 yen/QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, there was no case that was in excess of the reference value of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in the pilot introduction for price revision in Japan (ie, 5 million yen/QALY). (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据