Evaluation of the potential clinical and economic effects of bodyweight stabilisation with acarbose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A decision-analytical approach.

Abstract

Bodyweight is an acknowledged independent risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). The present model analysis was undertaken to investigate the clinical and economic impact of bodyweight gain in patients with type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus and its effects on the development of CHD. Based on a retrospective re-evaluation of data from the Diabetes Intervention Study (DIS), patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable bodyweight (group A) had a significantly lower rate of combined CHD events (30.3%) than patients showing a bodyweight gain (group B; 38.2%) over 10 years. Prevention of bodyweight gain, therefore, appears to be a meaningful strategy in the management of diabetes mellitus. In addition to this clinical advantage, prevention of CHD will also result in economic savings associated with avoided treatment of coronary events. Based on the clinical outcomes from the DIS, the calculated per-patient net savings for a patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable bodyweight amounted to 1085 deutschmarks (DM) when compared with a patient experiencing a bodyweight increase. In a further step, the above situation was projected to current type 2 diabetes mellitus practice. Oral first-line treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is usually initiated with glibenclamide (glyburide), which is known to increase bodyweight (reflecting group B). The novel alpha-glucosidase inhibitor acarbose, in contrast, appears to be as effective as glibenclamide, but has the advantage of being bodyweight-neutral (reflecting group A). From the clinical viewpoint, acarbose can thus be considered an alternative to glibenclamide. From the viewpoint of drug costs, monotherapy with acarbose is 4 times as expensive as glibenclamide in Germany, resulting in per-patient incremental costs of DM3527 for acarbose over 10 years. Balanced against the potential 10-year cost saving of DM1085 resulting from the potential of acarbose to prevent CHD, around one-third of the incremental cost of acarbose may be recouped by this single effect. However, further possible benefits of acarbose, including the avoidance of hypoglycaemia and the deferral of costly insulin therapy, may improve the economic value of this novel antidiabetic agent. Given the indirect approach of this evaluation and its many limitations, the above findings need critical appraisal, and comparative trials are urgently required to substantiate our preliminary results.