Translating the efficacy of dapagliflozin in chronic kidney disease to lower healthcare resource utilization and costs: a medical care cost offset analysis.

AIMS

Dapagliflozin was approved for use in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on results of the DAPA-CKD trial, demonstrating attenuation of CKD progression and reduced risk of cardio-renal outcomes and all-cause mortality (ACM) versus placebo, in addition to standard therapy. The study objective was to assess the potential medical care cost offsets associated with reduced rates of cardio-renal outcomes across 31 countries and regions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comparative cost-determination framework estimated outcome-related costs of dapagliflozin plus standard therapy versus standard therapy alone over a 3-year horizon based on the DAPA-CKD trial. Incidence rates of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), hospitalizations for heart failure (HHF), acute kidney injury (AKI), and ACM were estimated for a treated population of 100,000 patients. Associated medical care costs for non-fatal events were calculated using sources from a review of publicly available data specific to each considered setting.

RESULTS

Patients treated with dapagliflozin plus standard therapy experienced fewer incidents of ESKD (7,221 vs 10,767; number needed to treat, NNT: 28), HHF (2,370 vs 4,684; NNT: 43), AKI (4,110 vs. 5,819; NNT: 58), and ACM (6,383 vs 8,874; NNT: 40) per 100,000 treated patients versus those treated with standard therapy alone. Across 31 countries/regions, reductions in clinical events were associated with a 33% reduction in total costs, or a cumulative mean medical care cost offset of $264 million per 100,000 patients over 3 years.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

This analysis is limited by the quality of country/region-specific data available for medical care event costs. Based on the DAPA-CKD trial, we show that treatment with dapagliflozin may prevent cardio-renal event incidence at the population level, which could have positive effects upon healthcare service delivery worldwide. The analysis was restricted to outcome-associated costs and did not consider the cost of drug treatments and disease management.