Evidence Hub

Repurposing empagliflozin in individuals with glycogen storage disease Ib: A value-based healthcare approach and systematic benefit-risk assessment

Derks TGJ, Venema A, Köller C, Bos E, Overduin RJ, Stolwijk NN, Hofbauer P, Bolhuis MS et al.

Journal of inherited metabolic disease, 2024

11 participants

Abstract

Off-label repurposing of empagliflozin allows pathomechanism-based treatment of neutropenia/neutrophil-dysfunction in glycogen storage disease type Ib (GSDIb). From a value-based healthcare (VBHC) perspective, we here retrospectively studied patient-reported, clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes in 11 GSDIb individuals before and under empagliflozin at two centers (the Netherlands [NL], Austria [AT]), including a budget impact analysis, sensitivity-analysis, and systematic benefit-risk assessment. Under empagliflozin, all GSDIb individuals reported improved quality-of-life-scores. Neutrophil dysfunction related symptoms allowed either granulocyte colony-stimulating factor cessation or tapering. Calculated cost savings per patient per year ranged between € 6482-14 190 (NL) and € 1281-41 231 (AT). The budget impact analysis estimated annual total cost savings ranging between € 75 062-225 716 (NL) and € 37 697-231 790 (AT), based on conservative assumptions. The systematic benefit-risk assessment was favorable. From a VBHC perspective, empagliflozin treatment in GSDIb improved personal and clinical outcomes while saving costs, thereby creating value at multiple pillars. We emphasize the importance to reimburse empagliflozin for GSDIb individuals, further supported by the favorable systematic benefit-risk assessment. These observations in similar directions in two countries/health care systems strongly suggest that our findings can be extrapolated to other geographical areas…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 11 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free