Search

Additional file 2: Overview of detailed model structure of cost-effectiveness analysis where adverse events of treatment were considered.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Patient characteristics of overall study cohort and subgroups stratified by baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) level (i.e., ≤60, 90 mL/min/1.73 m2) before propensity score matching. Table S2. Composition of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) and other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) groups in terms of total follow-up time in overall cohort. Table S3. Mean follow-up time (months) for sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) and other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) (intention-to-treat analysis). Figure S1. Data elements of the study-specific common data model. Figure S2. Flow chart of cohort selection. Figure S3. Change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time before and after initiation of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) or other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) therapy (on-treatment analysis) in overall study cohort from (a) Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (CGMH), (b) National Cheng Kung University Hospital (NCKUH), and (c) National Taiwan University Hospital (NTUH). Figure S4. Forest plots for 30%, 40%, and 50% eGFR reduction of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) versus other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) use in overall study cohort and in each estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) subgroup (on-treatment analysis). Figure S4. Forest plots for 30%, 40%, and 50% eGFR reduction of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) versus other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) use in overall study cohort and in each estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) subgroup (on-treatment analysis). Figure S5. Forest plots for 30%, 40%, and 50% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) versus other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) use (intention-to-treat analysis) in overall study cohort from CGMH, NCKUH, and NTUH. Figure S6. Forest plots for 30%, 40%, and 50% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reduction of sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2i) versus other glucose-lowering drug (oGLD) use (on-treatment analysis) in overall study cohort from CGMH, NCKUH, and NTUH.

Additional file 6: Subgroup analyses based on (a) race, (b) age, (c) type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) status, (d) New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA Fc), (e) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and (f) history of ischemic heart failure (HF).

Additional file 9: Observed and simulated survival curves of patients with stable heart failure.

Additional file 1: Overview of detailed model structure of base-case cost-effectiveness analysis.

Additional file 8: Cost-effectiveness of add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone in Asia-Pacific countries.

Additional file 7: Probability of cost-effectiveness of adding dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone under different monthly costs of dapagliflozin.

Additional file 4: Cost and utility inputs for cost-effectiveness analysis of add-on dapagliflozin to standard care versus standard care alone in other Asia-Pacific countries.

Additional file 1: Table S1. Impact inventory for components considered in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Fig. S1. Framework of study design for cost effectiveness analysis. Table S2. CHEERS Checklist. Fig. S2. Flowchart of selection of study cohort patients. Table S3. Baseline characteristics of study patients before and after three-step matching. Table S4. Definitions of study outcomes of interest. Fig. S3. Flowchart for articles included in the systematic review. Fig. S4. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. Table S5. Description of existing studies on cost-effectiveness of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) versus insulin therapy.

Additional file 5: Scatter plot of distribution of incremental cost and effectiveness ratios under the willingness-to-pay threshold of US$ 25,000 in Taiwan.

Additional file 3 Study parameters associated with hospitalizations for adverse events of treatments in the simulation model (sensitivity analysis).

Additional file 1.

Additional file 1. Illustration of three-step matching algorithm.

Additional file 3. Baseline patient characteristics for different glucose-lowering agent groups before the matching algorithm.

Additional file 5. Primary and subgroup analyses of hazard ratios (95% CI) for composite CVD associated with the use of GLP-1ra versus other glucose-lowering agents.

Additional file 1. Additional tables and figures.

Additional file 2. The WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) codes for classification of study drugs and ICD-9- CM codes for definition of study outcomes.

Additional file1 : Figure S1. Distribution of kernel density of the propensity score distribution in dulaglutide and liraglutide users before and after propensity score matching. Table S1. Search strategy and key terms for meta-analysis. Table S2. Comparison of clinical effectiveness between liraglutide and dulaglutide (sensitivity analyses). Table S3. Subgroup analyses for comparison of clinical effectiveness changes between dulaglutide and liraglutide at 12 months (based on the propensity-score-matched sample). Figure S2. Changes in clinical effectiveness between dulaglutide and liraglutide at 12 months stratified by patient subgroup (based on the propensity-score-matched sample). Figure S3. Flow chart of selection of studies included in the meta-analysis. Table S4. Summary of existing studies that head-to-head compared dulaglutide and liraglutide. Figure S4. Forest plot of 6-month difference in HbA1c between dulaglutide and liraglutide. Figure S5. Forest plot of 12-month difference in weight loss between dulaglutide and liraglutide. Figure S6. Forest plot of 6-month difference in weight loss between dulaglutide and liraglutide. Figure S7. Forest plot of 12-month difference in systolic blood pressure change between dulaglutide and liraglutide. Figure S8. Forest plot of 6-month difference in systolic blood pressure change between dulaglutide and liraglutide.

Additional file 4. Primary and subgroup analyses for three-point major adverse cardiovascular event associated with the use of GLP-1ra versus other glucose-lowering agents.