Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

AIMS: TECOS, a cardiovascular safety trial ( identifier: NCT00790205) involving 14 671 patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, demonstrated that sitagliptin was non-inferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome when added to best usual care. This study tested hypotheses that medical resource use and costs differed between these 2 treatment strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information concerning medical resource use was collected on case report forms throughout the trial and was valued using US costs for: Medicare payments for hospitalizations, medical procedures and outpatient visits, and wholesale acquisition costs (WAC) for diabetes-related medications. Hierarchical generalized linear models were used to compare resource use and US costs, accounting for variable intercountry practice patterns. Sensitivity analyses included resource valuation using English costs for a UK perspective. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in hospitalizations, inpatient days, medical procedures, or outpatient visits during follow-up (mean and median 3.0 years in both groups). Hospitalization rates appeared to diverge after 2 years, with lower rates among sitagliptin-treated vs placebo patients after 2.5 years (relative rate, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.83-0.97]; P = .01). Mean medical costs, exclusive of study medication, were 11 937 USD in the sitagliptin arm and 12 409 USD in the placebo arm (P = .06). Mean sitagliptin costs based on undiscounted WAC were 9978 USD per patient. Differential UK total costs including study drug costs were smaller (911 GBP), primarily because of lower mean costs for sitagliptin (1072 GBP). CONCLUSIONS: Lower hospitalization rates across time with sitagliptin slightly offset sitagliptin treatment costs over 3 years in type 2 diabetes patients at high risk for cardiovascular events.

Original publication





Diabetes Obes Metab

Publication Date





1732 - 1739


cost analysis, costs, diabetes, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, sitagliptin, Aged, Ambulatory Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Drug Costs, Equivalence Trials as Topic, Female, Health Care Costs, Health Resources, Hospitalization, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Length of Stay, Linear Models, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Proportional Hazards Models, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Sitagliptin Phosphate, United States