Supplementary materials: The cost–effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark

These are peer-reviewed supplementary material for the article ‘The cost–effectiveness of oral semaglutide versus empagliflozin in Type 2 diabetes in Denmark’ published in the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research.Table S1: Baseline Characteristics.Table S2: Treatment Effects – First Line.Table S3: Adverse Events.Table S4: Treatment effects for second/third line treatments (treatment policy estimand).Table S5: Proportion of patients on preventive medication.Table S6: Screening and patient management proportions.Table S7: Sensitivity and specificity of tests.Table S8: Annual treatment costs applied (DKK, AIP 2020, [20]).Table S9: Cost Inputs for the CDM (Costs inflated to 2020 values, DKK).Table S10: Utilities used in CDM.Table S11: Scenario analysis results.Table S12: Breakdown of costs (DKK, per average patient).Summary: Aim: To evaluate the cost–effectiveness of oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin in people with Type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on msetformin alone. Materials and methods: The IQVIA Core Diabetes Model was populated with efficacy data from a head-to-head study between oral semaglutide+metformin and empagliflozin+metformin. Danish costs and quality-of-life data were sourced from literature. Price per day was Danish Krone (DKK) 25.53 for oral semaglutide and DKK11.40 for empagliflozin. Discounting was fixed at 4%. Scenario and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Over a lifetime, Core Diabetes Model projected 8.78 and 8.75 quality-adjusted life-years and a total cost of DKK 447,633 and DKK 387,786, thereby generating an incremental cost–effectiveness ratio of DKK 1,930,548 for oral semaglutide+metformin versus empagliflozin+metformin. Scenario and sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of the outcomes. Duration of treatment with oral semaglutide is the key driver of the analyses. Conclusion: Oral semaglutide+metformin seems not cost effective versus empagliflozin+metformin in patients uncontrolled on metformin in Denmark.

本数据集为发表于《比较疗效研究杂志》上的文章《丹麦2型糖尿病中口服司美格鲁肽与恩格列净的成本效益比较》的同行评审补充材料。表S1：基线特征。表S2：一线治疗方案的治疗效果。表S3：不良事件。表S4：二线/三线治疗方案的治疗效果（治疗政策效应估计）。表S5：接受预防性药物患者的比例。表S6：筛查和患者管理比例。表S7：测试的灵敏度和特异性。表S8：年度治疗成本（丹麦克朗，AIP 2020，[20]）。表S9：CDM的成本输入（成本按2020年价值膨胀，丹麦克朗）。表S10：CDM中使用的效用值。表S11：情景分析结果。表S12：成本分解（丹麦克朗，平均患者）。概要：研究目的：评估口服司美格鲁肽+二甲双胍与恩格列净+二甲双胍在未受控于单独二甲双胍的2型糖尿病患者中的成本效益。研究材料与方法：将IQVIA核心糖尿病模型填充了口服司美格鲁肽+二甲双胍与恩格列净+二甲双胍的头对头研究的疗效数据。丹麦的成本和生活质量数据来源于文献。口服司美格鲁肽的每日价格为丹麦克朗25.53，恩格列净为丹麦克朗11.40。折现率固定为4%。进行了情景和敏感性分析。研究结果：在终身范围内，核心糖尿病模型预测了8.78年和8.75年的质量调整生命年以及总成本分别为丹麦克朗447,633和丹麦克朗387,786，从而生成了口服司美格鲁肽+二甲双胍与恩格列净+二甲双胍的增量成本效益比丹麦克朗1,930,548。情景和敏感性分析显示了结果的稳健性。口服司美格鲁肽的治疗持续时间是分析的关键驱动因素。结论：在丹麦，对于未受控于单独二甲双胍的2型糖尿病患者，口服司美格鲁肽+二甲双胍似乎在成本效益上不如恩格列净+二甲双胍。