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.     

Real-world rates,predictors, and associated costs of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine: results of a pooled analysis of six retrospective observational studies

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the real-world rates of hypoglycemia and related costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who initiated insulin glargine with either a disposable pen or vial-and-syringe.

Methods:

Pooled data were evaluated from six previously published, retrospective, observational studies using US health plan insurance claims databases to investigate adults with T2DM who initiated insulin glargine. The current study evaluated baseline characteristics, hypoglycemic events, and costs during the 6 months prior to and 12 months following insulin glargine initiation. Comparisons were made between patients initiating treatment with a disposable pen (GLA-P) and vial-and-syringe (GLA-V). Multivariate analyses using baseline characteristics as covariates determined predictors of hypoglycemia after initiating insulin glargine.

Results:

This study included 23,098 patients (GLA-P: 14,911; GLA-V: 8187). Overall annual prevalence of hypoglycemia was low (6.3% overall, 2.2% related to hospital admission or emergency department visit). Prevalence was significantly lower with GLA-P (5.5% vs 7.7%; p?<?0.0001). Furthermore, average glycated hemoglobin HbA1c reduction was higher with GLA-P (?1.22% vs ?0.86%; p?=?0.0012). The average annual hypoglycemia-related cost associated with initiating insulin glargine was $293, with GLA-P being 46% lower than GLA-V ($225 vs $417; p?=?0.001). Patients who had already developed microvascular complications at the time of initiating insulin therapy were at higher risk for developing hypoglycemia.

Limitations:

This study is limited by the use of retrospective data and ICD-9-CM codes, which are subject to coding error. In addition, this pooled analysis used unmatched cohorts, with multivariate regression analyses employed to adjust for between-group differences. Finally, results describe a managed care sample and cannot be generalized to all patients with T2DM.

Conclusions:

Patients with T2DM initiating insulin glargine treatment showed low rates of hypoglycemia, especially when using a disposable pen device. Hypoglycemia-related costs were low, contributing a very small proportion to overall diabetes-related healthcare costs.     

Clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating insulin glargine disposable pen versus exenatide BID

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate clinical and economic outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who failed oral anti-diabetic drug (OAD) therapy and initiated either insulin glargine with disposable pen (GLA-P) or exenatide BID (EXE).

Research design and methods:

This retrospective study used data from a large US-managed care claims database and included adult T2DM patients initiating treatment with GLA-P or EXE in 2007 or 2008. Propensity score matching was used to control observed baseline differences between treatment groups. Primary study end-points included treatment persistence, A1C, healthcare utilization, and healthcare costs during the 1-year follow-up period.

Results:

Two thousand three hundred and thirty nine patients were included in the study (GLA-P: 381; EXE: 1958); 626 patients were in the 1:1 matched cohort (54% male; mean age: 54 years; mean A1C: 9.2%). At follow-up, patients in the GLA-P group were significantly more persistent in treatment than EXE patients (48% vs 15% in persistence rate and 252 vs 144 days in persistence days; both p?<?0.001). GLA-P patients also had significantly lower A1C at follow-up (8.02% vs 8.32%; p?=?0.042) and greater A1C reduction from baseline (?1.23% vs ?0.92%; p?=?0.038). There were no significant differences in claims-based hypoglycemia rates and overall diabetes-related healthcare utilization and cost.

Limitations:

Since this was a retrospective analysis, causality of treatment benefits cannot be established. The study was specific to two treatments and may not generalize to other models of insulin administration. Some of the results, although statistically significant, may not be found clinically important.

Conclusions:

In a real-world setting among T2DM patients who failed to achieve or sustain glycemic goal with OADs, initiation of GLA-P instead of EXE may be a more effective option because it was associated with greater treatment persistence, greater A1C reduction without a significantly higher rate of hypoglycemia, and similar healthcare costs.     

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.     

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.     

Evaluation of the cost-utility of insulin degludec vs insulin glargine in Sweden

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the annual cost-utility of insulin degludec compared with glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2D-BOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2B-BB) in Sweden.

Methods:

A cost-utility model was programmed in Microsoft Excel to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes. The clinical trials were designed as treat-to-target, with insulin doses adjusted in order to achieve similar glycemic control between treatments, thus long-term modeling is not meaningful. Basal and bolus insulin doses, incidence of hypoglycemic events, frequency of self-monitoring of blood glucose, and possibility for flexibility in timing of dose administration were specified for each insulin in three diabetes populations, based on data collected in Swedish patients with diabetes and a meta-analysis of clinical trials with degludec. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs from a societal perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in the two scenarios.

Results:

Use of degludec was associated with a QALY gain compared with glargine in T1D (0.31 vs 0.26?QALYs), T2D-BOT (0.76 vs 0.69?QALYs), and T2D-BB (0.56 vs 0.47?QALYs), driven by reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration. Therapy regimens containing degludec were associated with increased costs compared to glargine-based regimens, driven by the increased pharmacy cost of basal insulin, but partially offset by other cost savings. Based on estimates of cost and clinical outcomes, degludec was associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of SEK 19,766 per QALY gained, SEK 10,082 per QALY gained, and SEK 36,074 per QALY gained in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB, respectively.

Limitations:

The hypoglycemic event rates in the base case analysis were derived from a questionnaire-based study that relied on patient interpretation and recall of hypoglycemic symptoms. The relative rates of hypoglycemia with degludec compared to glargine were derived from a meta-analysis of phase III trials, which may not reflect the relative rates observed in real-world clinical practice. Both of these key limitations were explored in one-way sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions:

Based on reduced incidence of hypoglycemia and possibility for flexibility around timing of dose administration, use of degludec is likely to be cost-effective compared to glargine from a societal perspective in T1D, T2-BOT, and T2-BB in Sweden over a 1-year time horizon.     

Comparison of treatment costs in inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes in Germany based on the APOLLO trial with insulin glargine

Abstract

Objective: A cost analysis of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro in combination with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs) for insulin-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Germany based on the APOLLO trial (A Parallel design comparing an Oral antidiabetic drug combination therapy with either Lantus once daily or Lispro at mealtime in type 2 diabetes patients failing Oral treatment).

Methods: Annual direct treatment costs were estimated from the perspective of the German statutory health insurance (SHI). Costs accounted for included insulin medication, disposable pens and consumable items (needles, blood glucose test strips and lancets). Sensitivity analyses (on resource use and unit costs) were performed to reflect current German practice.

Results: Average treatment costs per patient per year in the base case were €1,073 for glargine and €1,794 for lispro. Insulin costs represented 65% vs. 37% of total costs respectively. Acquisition costs of glargine were offset by the lower costs of consumable items (€380 vs. €1,139). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results in favour of glargine. All scenarios yielded cost savings in total treatment costs ranging from €84 to €727.

Conclusions: Combination therapy of once-daily insulin glargine versus three-times daily insulin lispro both with OADs, in the management of insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes offers the potential for substantial cost savings from the German SHI perspective.     

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.     

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine in a basal-bolus regimen in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) vs insulin glargine (IGlar) as part of a basal-bolus treatment regimen in adults with T1DM, using a short-term economic model.

Methods:

Data from two phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg vs IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. The main outcome measure, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).

Results:

IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option vs IGlar in patients with T1DM on a basal-bolus regimen. The base case ICER was estimated at £16,895/QALY, which is below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the UK. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the ICER was stable to variations in the majority of input parameters. The parameters that exerted the most influence on the ICER were hypoglycemia event rates, daily insulin dose, and disutility associated with non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemic events. However, even under extreme assumptions in the majority of analyses the ICERs remained below the commonly accepted threshold of £20,000–£30,000 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

This short-term modeling approach accommodates the treat-to-target trial design required by regulatory bodies, and focuses on the impact of important aspects of insulin therapy such as hypoglycemia and dosing. For patients with T1DM who are treated with a basal-bolus insulin regimen, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar. IDeg may be particularly cost-effective for sub-groups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent nocturnal hypoglycemia and those with impaired awareness of hypoglycemia.     

Insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the US: a budget impact analysis with rebate tables

Background and aims: Drug rebates are almost universally negotiated privately between the manufacturer and the payer in the US. The aim of the present study was to illustrate the use of a “rebate table” to improve the transparency and utility of published budget impact analyses in the US by modeling ranges of hypothetical rebates for two comparators. Worked examples were conducted to illustrate the budgetary implications of using insulin degludec (IDeg) relative to insulin glargine (IGlar) U100 in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes.

Methods: A short-term (1-year) budget impact model was developed to evaluate the costs of switching to IDeg from IGlar in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes on basal-bolus and basal-only insulin, respectively. The analysis used insulin dose and hypoglycemia data from recent randomized trials, data on the prevalence of diabetes, and estimates of the proportion of patients using each insulin regimen. The model was configured to run multiple rebate scenarios to generate a rebate table in a hypothetical 1 million member commercial plan.

Results: Relative to IGlar, IDeg resulted in reductions in non-severe and severe hypoglycemia incidence and costs both in patients with type 1 and patients with type 2 diabetes. Insulin acquisition costs were higher, and respective rebates of 7.3% and 10.6% were required for IDeg to break-even with IGlar at the full list price. Incremental per member per month IDeg costs without a rebate were USD 0.04 in type 1 diabetes and USD 0.80 in type 2 diabetes.

Conclusions: Using IDeg instead of IGlar at list price could result in a modest increase in costs when considering insulin and hypoglycemia costs alone, but modest incremental rebates with IDeg would result in cost neutrality relative to IGlar. In addition, IDeg would result in reduced incidence of severe and non-severe hypoglycemia.     

The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

Aims: Dulaglutide is a new once weekly glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist administered via a disposable auto-injection pen for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide vs insulin glargine for the management of T2DM from a Japanese healthcare perspective, in accordance with recently approved Japanese Cost-Effectiveness Guidelines.

Methods: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model (version 9) was used to estimate the long-term costs and effects of treatment with dulaglutide and insulin glargine. Direct comparative data from the Araki 2015 trial (NCT01584232) was used to inform the analysis. Costs associated with treatment and complications were derived from Japanese sources wherever possible and inflated to 2015 Japanese Yen (JPY). Utilities were based upon a European systematic review of diabetes utilities and adjusted for use in a Japanese population. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (OWSA and PSA) were conducted on all inputs and key modeling assumptions.

Results: Dulaglutide 0.75?mg was associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years (LYs), and total costs, compared to insulin glargine, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 416,280 JPY/QALY gained. Treatment with dulaglutide increased the time alive and free from diabetes-related complications by 4 months. OWSA and PSA indicated that results were robust to plausible variations in input parameters and modeling assumptions.

Limitations: Key limitations of this study are similar to other cost-utility analyses of diabetes, including the extrapolation of short-term clinical trial data into lifelong durations. In addition, due to the lack of robust published Japanese data, some values were derived from non-Japanese sources.

Conclusions: This analysis suggests that dulaglutide 0.75?mg may be a cost-effective treatment alternative to insulin glargine for patients with T2DM in Japan.     

Cost-utility of exenatide once weekly compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the cost-utility of exenatide once weekly (EQW) and insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Research design and methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and economic outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with EQW or insulin glargine. Treatment effects and patient baseline characteristics (mean age: 58 years, mean glycohaemoglobin: 8.3%) were taken from the DURATION-3 study. Unit costs and health state utility values were derived from published sources. As the price of EQW is not yet known, the prices of two currently available glucagon-like peptide-1 products were used as benchmarks. To reflect diabetes progression, patients started on EQW switched to insulin glargine after 5 years. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service over a time horizon of 50 years with costs and outcomes discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of changes in input data and assumptions and investigated the cost utility of EQW in specific body mass index (BMI) subgroups.

Main outcome measures:

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for EQW compared with insulin glargine.

Results:

At a price equivalent to liraglutide 1.2?mg, EQW was more effective and more costly than insulin glargine, with a base case ICER of £10,597 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. EQW was associated with an increased time to development of any diabetes-related complication of 0.21 years, compared with insulin glargine. Three BMI subgroups investigated (<30, 30–35 and >35?kg/m²) reported ICERs for EQW compared with insulin glargine ranging from £9425 to £12,956 per QALY gained.

Conclusions:

At the prices investigated, the cost per QALY gained for EQW when compared with insulin glargine in type 2 diabetes in the UK setting, was within the range normally considered cost effective by NICE. Cost effectiveness in practice will depend on the final price of EQW and the extent to which benefits observed in short-term randomised trials are replicated in long-term use.     

Cost-utility of albiglutide versus insulin lispro,insulin glargine,and sitagliptin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the US

Objective To compare the cost-utility of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist albiglutide with those of insulin lispro (both in combination with insulin glargine), insulin glargine, and the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor sitagliptin, representing treatments along the type 2 diabetes treatment continuum.

Methods The Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness (CORE) Diabetes Model was used for the cost-utility analysis. Data from three Phase 3 clinical trials (HARMONY 6, HARMONY 4, and HARMONY 3) evaluating albiglutide for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes were used for the baseline characteristics and treatment effects. Utilities and costs were derived from published sources.

Results Albiglutide treatment was associated with an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.099, 0.033, and 0.101 years when compared with insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. Over the 50-year time horizon, mean total costs in the albiglutide arm were $4332, $2597, and $2223 more than in the other respective treatments. These costs resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio of $43,541, $79,166, and $22,094 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for albiglutide vs insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, there was a 53.0%, 41.5%, and 67.5% probability of albiglutide being cost-effective compared with the other respective treatments.

Limitations This analysis was an extrapolation over a 50-year time horizon based on relatively short-term data obtained during clinical trials. It does not take into account potential differences between the respective treatments in adherence and persistence that can influence both effects and costs.

Conclusions Albiglutide represents a reasonable treatment option for patients with type 2 diabetes based on its cost-utility, relative to insulin lispro, insulin glargine, and sitagliptin.     

A short-term cost-utility analysis of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in Denmark

Background and aims: Insulin degludec is an insulin analog with an ultra-long duration of action that exhibits less intra-patient variability in its glucose-lowering activity, and reduces nocturnal, overall, and severe hypoglycemia relative to insulin glargine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec relative to insulin glargine in patients with: type 1 diabetes (T1D), type 2 diabetes receiving basal-only therapy (T2DBOT), and type 2 diabetes receiving basal-bolus therapy (T2DBB) in Denmark.

Methods: A short-term (1 year) cost-utility model was developed to model insulin use, non-severe and severe hypoglycemia, and self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients using insulin degludec and insulin glargine from the perspective of a Danish healthcare payer. Where possible, data were derived from Danish patients with diabetes and meta-analyses of clinical trials comparing insulin degludec with insulin glargine. Using these characteristics, the model estimated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for the two insulin regimens in each of the three diabetes populations.

Results: Insulin degludec dominated insulin glargine (i.e. reduced costs while improving quality-adjusted life expectancy) in patients with T1D and patients with type 2 diabetes using a basal-only insulin regimen. In the T2DBB cohort, insulin degludec was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of DKK 221,063 per QALY gained, which would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 30,000 (～DKK 224,000) per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that results were most affected by changes in hypoglycemia rate ratio assumptions, but were broadly insensitive to changes in individual input parameters.

Conclusions: Insulin degludec reduces incidence of hypoglycemia and improves quality-of-life in patients with diabetes. Over a 1-year time horizon, insulin degludec resulted in cost savings relative to insulin glargine in T1D and T2DBOT cohorts, while being cost-effective in T2DBB.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled by oral therapies

Abstract

Objective:

To estimate cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin glargine once daily (QD) as add-on therapy in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients not well controlled by oral anti-diabetic (OAD) agents.     

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.     

Long-term cost-consequence analysis of exenatide once weekly vs sitagliptin or pioglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Exenatide once-weekly (ExQW) is a GLP-1 receptor agonist shown to lower glucose and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The objective of this study was to estimate the clinical benefits and associated economic benefits of treatment with ExQW compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in the US.

Methods:

The IMS CORE Diabetes Model, a validated computer simulation model, was used to project lifetime clinical outcomes and complication costs. The costs of glucose-lowering drugs were excluded as not all prices were available. Baseline patient characteristics (mean values: age, 52.5 years; diabetes duration, 6 years; HbA1_c, 8.51%; body mass index, 32.12?kg/m²) and clinical data were derived from a phase 3 clinical trial that compared ExQW with sitagliptin or pioglitazone in T2DM patients. At 6 months, patients treated with ExQW had greater improvements in HbA1_c and body weight than those treated with sitagliptin or pioglitazone. Complication costs were extracted from published sources. Health outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per year. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

Results:

Over 35 years, and compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW increased life expectancy by, respectively, 0.28 (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.48?±?0.18) and 0.17 years (13.76?±?0.17 vs 13.59?±?0.17), and quality-adjusted life years by, respectively, 0.28 (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.28?±?0.12) and 0.24 years (9.56?±?0.12 vs 9.32?±?0.12). ExQW was associated with lower lifetime complication costs: compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone, ExQW saved, respectively US$2215 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$57,862?±?2159) and US$933 (US$55,647?±?2039 vs US$56,580?±?2007) direct cost per patient. Cost-savings resulted mainly from a lower projected cumulative incidence of cardiovascular diseases and neuropathic complications.

Limitations:

Short-term changes in surrogate end-points were used to project lifetime effects on clinical outcomes. Pharmacy costs were excluded from the analyses.

Conclusions:

Over a patient’s lifetime, ExQW was projected to improve health and decrease diabetes-related complication costs compared with sitagliptin or pioglitazone.