↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of charges and resource use associated with saxagliptin and sitagliptin

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of charges and resource use associated with saxagliptin and sitagliptin
Published in
Health Economics Review, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13561-016-0104-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Varun Vaidya, Keyuri Adhikari, Jack Sheehan, Iftekhar Kalsekar

Abstract

Saxagliptin and sitagliptin are two commonly used dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Little is known about their comparative effectiveness in the real world, particularly their impact on cost and resources use. The objective of this study was to analyze charges and resource use associated with saxagliptin and sitagliptin to understand the impact of these DPP-4 inhibitor treatment options in a real-world setting. This was a retrospective, new-user study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Toledo. Data were collected from a US insurance claims dataset (OptumInsight) for patients newly initiating treatment with saxagliptin or sitagliptin between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011. ICD-9 code 250 was used to identify patients with T2D. Overall and diabetes-related medical and pharmacy charges were observed. Inpatient hospitalizations were also compared. Propensity score matching was used to balance the cohorts of patients prescribed saxagliptin and sitagliptin. Appropriate univariate statistical tests were applied to the propensity-matched sample to examine differences in resource utilization outcomes. Statistical significance was evaluated at P < 0.05. After the propensity score matching, each cohort included 7711 patients. Saxagliptin treatment was associated with lower overall charges ($13,292 vs $14,032; P = 0.0023) and overall medical charges ($9,540 vs $10,296; P = 0.0024) during the 6-month follow-up period compared with sitagliptin treatment. No significant differences were observed in the overall pharmacy charges ($3,751 vs $3,753; P = 0.6937) and the diabetes-related charges ($5,141 vs $5,232; P = 0.2957). All-cause and diabetes-related inpatient hospitalization rates were significantly lower with saxagliptin treatment (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.0019, respectively). All-caused inpatient charges were also significantly lower with saxagliptin ($2,917.26 vs $3445.89; P < 0.0001). Compared with patients initiating sitagliptin treatment, patients initiating saxagliptin treatment reported lower overall and medical charges and lower overall and diabetes-related hospitalization rates. These findings may aid payers in managing patients with T2D.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Bachelor 2 14%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 4 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Unknown 5 36%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 July 2016.
All research outputs
#12,269,466
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#223
of 294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,546
of 263,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 294 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,099 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them