Hypoglycemia Incidence Rates and Associated Health Care Costs in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Treated with Second-Line Linagliptin or Sulfonylurea After Metformin Monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Hypoglycemia poses a significant clinical and economic burden to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Minimizing the risk of hypoglycemia is an important component when managing patients with T2DM. Understanding hypoglycemia rates and the associated economic consequences can help to inform health care decision makers.

OBJECTIVE: To assess hypoglycemia incidence rates and associated costs in patients who initiated second-line treatment with the antidiabetic agents linagliptin or a sulfonylurea (SU) after metformin.

METHODS: A large U.S. administrative claims database was used to identify patients with T2DM (during the identification period July 2011-October 2013) who initiated linagliptin or a SU after metformin use. The date of the first prescription for linagliptin or a SU during the identification period was designated as the index date. Linagliptin users were matched to SU users based on demographic and clinical characteristics identified within a 12-month period before the index date using propensity scores (1:3 ratio, caliper: ±0.001). Rates and costs (2013 U.S. dollars) of hypoglycemia resulting in any health care resource use were quantified during a variable follow-up period (i.e., end of the study, end of the 12-month follow-up, treatment regimen change, or disenrollment, whichever came first). Hypoglycemia rates per 100 person-years were compared using univariate Poisson regression, and hazard of hypoglycemia was obtained from multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. Mean monthly hypoglycemia-related costs, all-cause costs, and T2DM-related costs were computed for patients with hypoglycemia and compared using t-tests.

RESULTS: Propensity-score matching resulted in a sample of 11,536 patients (linagliptin = 2,884; SU = 8,652) with a mean age of 56 years and 59% male. The rate of hypoglycemia (per 100 person-years) was lower in the linagliptin than the SU user groups (2.51 vs. 3.63; P= 0.049). Linagliptin users had a 33% lower risk of hypoglycemia compared with SU users (HR = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.47-0.97; P= 0.031). Among patients who had hypoglycemia, linagliptin users showed numerically lower mean monthly hypoglycemia-related costs compared with SU users ($300 vs. $890; P= 0.092), which was primarily driven by differences in hypoglycemia-related costs in the hospital setting. A similar theme was observed with monthly all-cause costs (linagliptin users, $1,971 vs. SU users, $3,758; P= 0.092).

CONCLUSIONS: Linagliptin use was associated with a lower incidence rate of hypoglycemia compared with SU use in patients initiating second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy. Among patients who experienced hypoglycemia, linagliptin users appeared to have lower monthly hypoglycemia-related and all-cause costs than SU users. Careful consideration of newer treatment alternatives may be prudent for optimal T2DM management, especially with regard to hypoglycemia.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for the research study and resultant publication was provided by Boehringer Ingelheim. Shetty is an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim. Cai was an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim at the time of the study. Raju and D'Souza are employees of Xcenda, which received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim for the conduct of this study and for the preparation of this manuscript. All authors contributed to concept and study design. Raju took the lead in data analysis, along with D'Souza, and all authors contributed equally to data interpretation. The manuscript was written by Raju, D'Souza, Cai, and Shetty and revised primarily by Raju, along with Shetty and D'Souza.