3种胰岛素类似物联合口服降糖药物治疗血糖控制欠佳2型糖尿病患者的疗效比较

目的：探讨血糖控制欠佳的2型糖尿病患者使用3种胰岛素类似物联合口服降糖药物的临床治疗效果。方法3组患者均给予口服二甲双胍药物治疗,A组同时给予甘精胰岛素注射液,B组同时给予预混人胰岛素30 R注射液,C 组同时给予预混门冬胰岛素注射液。记录3组患者给药前后各时间段血糖变化情况,给予统计学分析。结果经治疗后3组患者各时间段血糖值均较治疗前明显下降,A组患者下降幅度更为明显,A组与B组、C组患者治疗后血糖值对比,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论临床医生应根据血糖控制欠佳的2型糖尿病患者实际情况,选择合适的胰岛素类似物联合口服降糖药物治疗方案,从而保障患者生活质量及生命安全。     

莫西沙星注射液与左氧氟沙星注射液随机对照治疗社区获得性肺炎药物经济学评价

目的评价莫西沙星注射液与左氧氟沙星注射液治疗社区获得性肺炎安全性﹑有效性并对两组的医疗费用进行药物经济学评价。方法采用区组随机、开放、平行对照设计方法;各种社区获得性肺炎符合方案集（PP）分析人群73例,将其随机分为两组,A组37例采用莫西沙星注射液400mg,qdivgtt;B组36例采用左氧氟沙星注射液200mg,bidivgtt。运用药物经济学最小成本分析法、成本-效果分析法推算每例治疗成本并进行分析评价。结果两组临床痊愈率和总有效率分别为64.9%、89.2%和63.9%、88.9%,不良反应发生率分别为10.9%和8.7%。治愈每例患者所需药品的最小成本（5386.0±1795.4）元和（2182.2±727.4）元;以临床总有效率计C/E分别为（58.9±19.6）和（35.4±11.8）;ΔC/ΔE为7004。结论虽然莫西沙星疗效优于左氧氟沙星,但根据最小成本法和成本-效果分析表明,左氧氟沙星更具成本-效果优势。     

2型糖尿病的标准胰岛素治疗方案——来自英国NICE的推荐

郑亚明等人撰写的《2型糖尿病患者的胰岛素标准治疗方案——来自英国NICE的推荐》介绍了英国国立临床优化研究院（NICE）对于2型糖尿病治疗中胰岛素标准治疗方案的推荐。该推荐涉及对血糖控制标准、血糖控制的治疗步骤及胰岛素治疗安全注意事项等相关问题的建议。尤其是,该文章对《2型糖尿病临床指南（临床指南66号）》的2009年更新版《2型糖尿病临床指南：新治疗药物（临床指南87号）》也给予了介绍。对NICE2型糖尿病患者胰岛素治疗方案正确解读将有助于我国临床医生更加合理地选择治疗方案,同时也可以让糖尿病患者及其家人、护理人员以及对这一疾病感兴趣的人更进一步了解糖尿病的治疗,参与治疗方案的选择,从而有利于患者的健康。     

甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖治疗老年2型糖尿病的临床研究

目的探讨甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖治疗老年2型糖尿病的疗效。方法将2010年5月至2013年5月入住我院的100例老年2型糖尿病患者按照抽签方法随机均分为对照组与观察组,对照组患者采用皮下注射甘精胰岛素进行治疗,观察组患者采用甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖进行治疗。比较两组患者治疗后的临床疗效、空腹血糖（FPG）、餐后2 h血糖（2 h PG）及糖化血红蛋白（HbAlc）水平。结果对照组治疗后临床总有效率为76.0%,明显低于观察组（96.0%）,两组临床总有效率相比,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;观察组治疗后FPG、2 hPG及HbAlc水平均明显小于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论甘精胰岛素联合阿卡波糖治疗老年2型糖尿病疗效明显。     

两种方案治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的药物经济学评价

目的评价两种方案治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的经济学效果,为临床合理用药提供参考。方法采用前瞻性临床对照研究,将符合纳入标准的230例糖尿病周围神经病变住院患者随机分为A组(木丹颗粒联合硫辛酸注射液)、B组(前列地尔注射液联合硫辛酸注射液、甲钴胺片),以TCSS评分结果为效果指标,对两种治疗方案进行药物经济学评价。结果 A、B两组患者的治疗有效率分别为74.14%、79.82%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组患者的成本分别为4387.54、5854.52元,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论对于糖尿病周围神经病变住院患者,采用木丹颗粒联合硫辛酸注射液方案治疗较更前列地尔注射液联合硫辛酸注射液及甲钴胺片治疗更为经济。     

利拉鲁肽与罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素治疗2型糖尿病患者的短期成本-效果比较

目的以第26周末达到HbA1c<7%、无体重增加和无低血糖事件作为糖尿病综合管理的有效复合终点,分析在中国2型糖尿病患者治疗中每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的经济性。方法利用利拉鲁肽全球Ⅲ期临床试验(LEADTM)的临床数据计算每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素的成功治疗1例患者的成本。成本包括药物、针头、自我血糖监测,以及处置严重不良事件(SAE)、低血糖事件和体重干预的成本,效果指标为复合终点达标率,并进行单因素敏感度分析。结果在使用研究药物治疗26周后,相对罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,每日一次1.2mg利拉鲁肽治疗每100例患者分别使额外26例、24例、7例和17例患者达到复合终点,利拉鲁肽成功治疗1例患者所需成本小于对应比较治疗方案。敏感度分析支持了结果的稳健性。结论相比罗格列酮、格列美脲、艾塞那肽和甘精胰岛素,利拉鲁肽是具有成本-效果的治疗方案。     

老年2型糖尿病合并慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者胰岛素抵抗和胰岛素功能分析

目的探讨老年2型糖尿病合并慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者胰岛素抵抗和胰岛素功能情况。方法选取2011年3月至2013年3月我院门诊收治的2型糖尿病合并COPD患者50例为观察组,同期选取体检正常者44例为对照组,对两组研究对象的空腹胰岛素、空腹C肽、餐后胰岛素及糖负荷2 h C肽等指标进行检测比较。结果两组患者统计结果显示,观察组患者在胰岛素抵抗上较对照组明显上升,胰岛B细胞功能明显降低,空腹胰岛素、空腹C肽等观察指标与对照组比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.05)。结论老年2型糖尿病合并COPD患者临床表现为胰岛素抵抗,胰岛β细胞功能下降,对此需要在临床治疗中给予积极的治疗和控制。     

预混胰岛素在糖尿病强化治疗的疗效研究

目的探讨对糖尿病患者使用预混胰岛素以及普通胰岛素加睡前胰岛素的强化治疗糖尿病的临床效果。方法选68例2型糖尿病患者,按照随机的方法将2型糖尿病患者分成实验组和对照组,对实验组患者应用三餐前注射预混胰岛素的方法强化治疗,对照组采用普通胰岛素加睡前胰岛素的方法进行强化治疗,疗程为六个月,研究治疗后糖化血红蛋白、空腹血糖、饭后2h血糖、两天血糖平均水平、血糖达标的时间、低血糖发生率、住院时间、胰岛素使用量以及低血糖后不良反应发生率等指标。结果实验组饭后2h血糖水平较对照组高,P>0.05,不存在显著性差异;治疗后两组血糖均达标,但是实验组的达标时间显然更短,且P<0.05,存在显著性差异;空腹血糖、两天内血糖平均水平指标实验组均低于对照组,其P<0.05,存在显著性差异;实验组低血糖发生率、住院时间、胰岛素的使用量以及低血糖后不良反应发生率指标均较对照组低,P<0.05,存在显著性差异。结论应用预混胰岛素强化治疗糖尿病的方法比应用普通胰岛素加睡前胰岛素的强化治疗糖尿病方法效果好,并且恢复时间短,不良事件发生率低,值得人们反复研究以及推广。     

胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物对初诊2型糖尿病的临床疗效分析

目的分析初诊2型糖尿病采用胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物治疗的临床效果。方法选取我院84例初诊2型糖尿病患者,并随机将其分为治疗组(42例)和对照组(42例),对照组患者采用皮下注射胰岛素进行治疗,治疗组患者采用胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物治疗,对比两组患者临床治疗效果。结果两组患者治疗前空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖无显著差异性(P>0.05);治疗后,两组患者糖化血红蛋白较治疗前无显著变化(P>0.05);两组患者治疗后空腹血糖、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖较治疗前存在显著差异性(P<0.05);组间对比,治疗组患者治疗后空腹血糖、糖化血红蛋白、早餐后血糖、晚餐后血糖及睡前血糖显著优于对照组患者(P<0.05);两组患者不良反应发生率有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论胰岛素泵短期持续皮下注射胰岛素类似物在治疗初诊2型糖尿病患者中效果显著。     

胰岛素与诺和平联用治疗2型糖尿病的临床疗效分析

目的探讨胰岛素与诺和平联用治疗2型糖尿病临床治疗效果。方法选取我院自2011年1月～2013年1月收治的90例2型糖尿病患者,随机分为观察组与参考组各45例,给予观察组患者胰岛素与诺和平联合治疗,给予参考组患者胰岛素注射治疗,观察两组患者治疗前后餐后2h血糖(PBG)、空腹血糖(FBG)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c)变化及低血糖发生率。结果两组患者治疗后PBG、FBG、HbA1c均有明显下降,观察组患者各指标均明显优于参考组,P<0.05,观察组治疗中出现2例低血糖患者,参考组出现11例低血糖患者,两组比较有统计学意义,P<0.05。结论胰岛素与诺和平联合治疗2型糖尿病有助于控制血糖,低血糖发生率较低,值得推广使用。     

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

Abstract

Aim:

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

Methods:

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25–40?kg/m². Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

Results:

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR?=?11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

Conclusions:

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.     

A cost comparison of long-acting insulin analogs vs NPH insulin-based treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes using routinely collected primary care data from the UK

Abstract

Aim:

The aim of this analysis was to investigate total healthcare costs, HbA1c, and weight changes over a 36-month period in patients with type 2 diabetes initiated on NPH or long-acting insulin analogs.

Methods:

Electronic patient data from 479 general practices in the UK (THIN database) were examined for new users of glargine (n?=?794), detemir (n?=?252), or NPH insulin (n?=?430). Annualized healthcare costs and clinical outcomes in years 1, 2, and 3 following insulin initiation were quantified and compared with baseline, using ANOVA and linear regression models.

Results:

A significant difference (p?<?0.05) in total healthcare costs increases at year 1 vs baseline was observed between glargine and detemir, detemir and NPH, but not between glargine and NPH (increase: +£486, +£635, and +£420 for glargine, detemir, and NPH users, respectively). However, increases by year 3 were not significantly different between the insulins. A propensity score analysis comparing analog and NPH insulin showed that, following insulin initiation, increases in costs were higher with insulin analogs at year one (+£220), but this difference decreased over time in each year following insulin initiation (+£168 and +£146, respectively, for years 2 and 3). HbA1c reductions were not significantly different between the groups at all time points. Differences in weight gain between glargine and NPH were statistically significant at year 1 (0.87?kg vs 1.11?kg) and year 3 (1.15?kg vs 1.57?kg), but other estimates of between-group differences in weight gain were non-significant.

Conclusions:

Following insulin initiation, the difference in healthcare costs of long-acting analogs compared to NPH insulin was transient. By year 3, the cost differences were not significantly different between the two cohorts, driven by an observed reduction in the cost of self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) in the analog group and an increase in the cost of bolus insulin in the NPH group.     

Resource utilisation and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or conventional basal insulin under real-world conditions in Germany: LIVE-SPP study

Objective: To assess and compare the total costs relevant to diabetes care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) treated at specialised diabetes practices with either insulin glargine- or conventional basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH])-based therapies from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective.

Methods: The Long Acting Insulin Glargine Versus NPH Cost Evaluation in Specialised Practices (LIVE-SPP) study is an observational, retrolective, multicentre longitudinal cost comparison in adults with T2D. Costs were evaluated from the German SHI perspective based on official 2005 prices. Average total costs per patient for insulin glargine-versus NPH-based therapies were compared using multivariate general linear modelling. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the main cost factors by ± 25%.

Results: Patients (n=1,024, 512 patients per cohort) were on average 62 years of age, with an average 8-year diabetes history at study start. The average unadjusted total annual costs per patient were €1,868.41 (95% CI 1,744.27–1,992.56) for insulin glargine-based vs. €2,063.72 (95% CI 1,922.91–2,204.54) for NPH-based therapies. Average adjusted total annual costs per patient between insulin glargine- (€1,241.13) and NPH-based therapies (€1,607.86) were statistically significantly different (p=0.0004). The economic advantage for insulin glargine-based therapies resulted mainly from fewer blood glucose measurements and other diabetes-related materials (e.g. needles). The savings remained stable in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: The LIVE-SPP study suggests that insulin glargine-based therapies may offer an economic advantage over NPH-based therapies.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin in people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark,Finland, Norway,and Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin when initiating insulin treatment in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods:

Efficacy and safety data were derived from a 20-week multi-centre randomized controlled head-to-head clinical trial comparing insulin detemir and NPH insulin in insulin naïve people with T2DM, and short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness analyses were performed. As no significant differences in HbA_1c were observed between the two treatment arms, the model was based on significant differences in favour of insulin detemir in frequency of hypoglycaemia (Rate-Ratio?=?0.52; CI?=?0.44–0.61) and weight gain (Δ?=?0.9?kg). Model outcomes were measured in Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) using published utility estimates. Acquisition costs for insulin and direct healthcare costs associated with non-severe hypoglycaemic events were obtained from National Health Service public sources. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Based on lower incidence of non-severe hypoglycaemic events and less weight gain, the QALY gain from initiating treatment with insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin was 0.01 per patient per year. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the individual countries were: Denmark, Danish Kroner 170,852 (€22,933); Finland, €28,349; Norway, Norwegian Kroner 169,789 (€21,768); and Sweden, Swedish Krona 226,622 (€25,097) per QALY gained. Possible limitations of the study are that data on hypoglycaemia and relative weight benefits from a clinical trial were combined with hypoglycaemia incidence data from observational studies. These populations may have slightly different patient characteristics.

Conclusions:

The lower risk of non-severe hypoglycaemia and less weight gain associated with using insulin detemir compared with NPH insulin when initiating insulin treatment in insulin naïve patients with type 2 diabetes provide economic benefits in the short-term. Based on cost/QALY threshold values, this represents good value for money in the Nordic countries. Using a short-term modelling approach may be conservative, as reduced frequency of hypoglycaemia and less weight gain may also have positive long-term health-related implications.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes using a basal-bolus regimen in five European countries

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes associated with insulin detemir and neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in combination with mealtime insulin aspart in patients with type 1 diabetes in Belgian, French, German, Italian and Spanish settings.

Methods: The published and validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy and direct medical costs. The analysis was based on patient characteristics and treatment effects from a 2-year randomised controlled trial. Events were projected for a time horizon of 50 years. Potential uncertainty using a modelling approach was addressed.

Results: Basal-bolus therapy with insulin detemir was projected to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.45 years versus NPH in the German setting, with similar improvements in the other countries. Insulin detemir was associated with cost savings in Belgium, Germany and Spain. In France and Italy, lifetime costs were slightly higher in the detemir arm, leading to incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €519 per QALY gained and €3,256 per QALY gained, respectively.

Conclusions: Compared to NPH, insulin detemir is likely to be a dominant treatment strategy in Belgium, Germany and Spain and highly cost-effective in France and Italy in patients with type 1 diabetes.     

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

Abstract

Background:

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

Objective:

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government’s perspective.

Methods:

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients’ daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2?IU; IDet BID 33.6?IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2?IU; IDet QD 65.7?IU or IDet BID 80.4?IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

Results:

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA_1c change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p?=?0.97; T2DM: ?0.05%-points; p?=?0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

Conclusions:

Similar HbA_1c change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.     

Long-term cost-effectiveness analysis shows that IDegLira is associated with improved outcomes and lower costs compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart in the US

Abstract

Aims: The clinical and economic impact of diabetes is growing in the US. Choosing therapies that are both effective and cost-effective is becoming increasingly important. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the long-term cost-effectiveness of IDegLira for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin, vs insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, in the US setting.

Materials and methods: Long-term projections of cost-effectiveness outcomes were made using the IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model. Clinical inputs were based on the DUAL VII trial, with costs (accounted from a healthcare payer perspective) and utilities based on published sources. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually.

Results: IDegLira was associated with increased discounted life expectancy by 0.02 years and increased discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.22 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Evaluation of direct medical costs suggested that the mean cost per patient with IDegLira was $3,571 lower than with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The cost saving was driven predominantly by the lower acquisition cost of IDegLira compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, with further cost savings identified as a result of avoided treatment of diabetes-related complications. IDegLira was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a reduced cost compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart.

Conclusions: Based on clinical trial data, the present analysis suggests that IDegLira is associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings compared with treatment with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the US. Therefore, IDegLira is likely to be considered dominant (cost saving and more effective) and, consequently, highly cost-effective in the US setting.     

Insulin degludec early clinical experience: does the promise from the clinical trials translate into clinical practice—a case-based evaluation

Abstract

Background:

Clinical experience of patients is an additional source of information that can inform prescribing decisions for new therapies in practice. In diabetes, for example, patients with recurrent hypoglycemia may be excluded from trials conducted for regulatory purposes. Using insulin degludec (IDeg), a new basal insulin with an ultra-long duration of action as an example, an interim analysis is presented describing whether the decision to prescribe IDeg to patients experiencing treatment-limiting problems on their existing insulin regimes represented good clinical and economic value.

Methods:

Records from the first 51 consecutive patients with diabetes (35 type 1 [T1D] and 16 type 2 [T2D]) switching to insulin degludec from either insulin glargine (IGlar) or insulin detemir (IDet), mostly due to problems with hypoglycemia (39/51, 76.5%), were reviewed at up to 37 weeks. Patients indicated frequency of hypoglycemia and completed a disease-specific questionnaire reporting six measures of confidence and treatment satisfaction. For the largest group of exposed patents, the T1D module of the IMS Core Diabetes Model (CDM) was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the treatment decision.

Findings:

HbA_1c decreased by 0.5?±?0.3% points and 0.7?±?0.3% points for T1D and T2D, respectively. Hypoglycemic events decreased by >90%. Combined mean scores were ≥3.7 (1?=?much worse, 3?=?no change, 5?=?much improved) for all six satisfaction and confidence items. In T1D, the treatment decision was highly cost-effective in the CDM lifetime analysis. Even when excluding benefits beyond hypoglycemia reduction, predicted cost per quality-adjusted life-year for IDeg vs IGlar/IDet was £10,754.

Interpretation:

These data illustrate the complementary nature of clinical trial and practice data when evaluating the value of therapeutic innovations in diabetes care. There were reductions in patient-reported hypoglycemia, reduced HbA_1c, and improved treatment satisfaction in relation to the decision to prescribe IDeg. Initial health economic evaluation suggested that the decision to prescribe IDeg in this phenotypic group of T1D patients represented good value for money.