Evidence Hub

Healthcare Costs and Resource Utilization Associated with the Use of Empagliflozin Versus Other Antihyperglycemic Agents Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Analysis

A. Raju, P. Pimple, D. Stafkey-Mailey, E. Farrelly, S. Shetty

Diabetes Therapy, 2021

13,122 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Introduction Empagliflozin has demonstrated lower rates of cardiovascular outcomes vs. standard of care among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the impact of empagliflozin compared to other branded antihyperglycemic agents (AHAs) on total cost of care has yet to be quantified. Methods and Results This retrospective cohort study evaluated the impact of empagliflozin ( n = 441) on costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) vs. other branded AHAs ( n = 13,122) among patients with T2DM and CVD, using the IQVIA PharMetrics ® Plus Claims Database (1 August 2013–31 December 2017). Date of the first prescription (index date) for empagliflozin or other branded AHAs was used to classify patients into study cohorts. All-cause costs and HCRU were computed on a per patient per month (PPPM) basis and compared across study cohorts using outcome-appropriate statistical models. Overall, the empagliflozin cohort was younger and had a lower comorbidity burden. After covariate adjustment, the total all-cause costs (mean difference − $412 PPPM; 95% CI − $593, − $214) were significantly lower for the empagliflozin cohort. These cost differences were mainly driven by lower all-cause medical costs (mean difference − $400 PPPM; 95% CI − $577, − $196). For HCRU, the mean adjusted all-cause visits in the physician office and other outpatient settings were lower with empagliflozin vs. other branded AHAs ( p < 0.001). Conclusions This study…

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: 13,122 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