Table 2.

Sensitivity analyses results

	ICER-QALY for low and high scenario values (US$)
	Empagliflozin versus canagliflozin		Empagliflozin versus dapagliflozin		Empagliflozin versus SoC
	Low	High	Low	High	Low	High
Perspective, Medicare	*	NA	787	NA	23 255	NA
Perspective, commercial	*	NA	4174	NA	52 666	NA
Discount rate, cost: 0%–5%	1372	*	6044	1964	44 899	27 497
Discount rate, health: 0%–5%	*	*	1827	4136	20 438	43 673
Baseline CV/renal event rates HR:±10%	*	*	2984	3116	22 803	51 384
HRs versus empagliflozin: 95% CI	†	*	†	*	NA	NA
HRs versus empagliflozin: ITT population	*	NA	2665	NA	NA	NA
Drug cost, empagliflozin: ±20%	*	16 738	*	18 360	24 792	40 904
Rebate percentage, empagliflozin:±20%	8530	*	11 199	*	37 135	28 561
Rebate percentage, comparator:±20%	*	8026	*	10 529	NA	NA
CV/renal event management cost:±20%	*	*	3681	2427	33 819	31 877
AE management cost: ±20%	246	*	2991	3117	32 831	32 865
Baseline utility: 95% CI	*	*	3070	3039	33 017	32 681
Utility decrements, CV/renal events: 95% CI	*	*	3104	3007	33 100	32 624
Utility decrements, AEs: 95% CI	*	*	2970	3083	33 218	32 713

*Empagliflozin is less costly and more effective than the comparator.

†The comparator is less costly and more effective than empagliflozin.

AE, adverse event; CV, cardiovascular; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; ITT, intent-to-treat; NA, not applicable; QALY, quality-adjusted life year; SoC, standard of care.