Hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes using concomitant exenatide BID and long-acting insulin therapy

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to examine the frequency of hypoglycemia among patients with type 2 diabetes who had concomitantly used exenatide BID (exenatide) and long-acting insulin and continued this combination vs those who continued long-acting insulin alone.

Methods:

Retrospective analyses, using a large managed care database, were used to estimate the frequency of hypoglycemia (episodes/patient/6 months) for patients who concomitantly used exenatide and long-acting insulin during a 6-month follow-up period.

Results:

From among 2082 patients on concomitant exenatide and long-acting insulin, those who continued this combination (n?=?472) had a lower frequency of hypoglycemia compared to those who remained on long-acting insulin alone (n?=?312) (0.03?±?1.9 vs 0.10?±?1.01 [episodes/patient/6 months]; p?<?0.0001).

Limitations:

Only hypoglycemia that required medical intervention (coded for hypoglycemia) was captured. The study could not evaluate any association between insulin dose titration and hypoglycemia or examine other outcomes such as HbA1c, weight, and body mass index, due to lack of data availability.

Conclusions:

Patients who concomitantly used exenatide BID and long-acting insulin experienced a lower rate of hypoglycemia.     

Laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding vs standard medical management in obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a budget impact analysis in the UK

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the financial consequences of using laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in place of standard medical management (SMM) in obese patients with type 2 diabetes from a UK healthcare payer perspective.     

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.     

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-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.     

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.     

Comparison of utilization,cost, adherence,and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating rapid-acting insulin analog with prefilled pen versus vial/syringe

Abstract

Background:

Studies examining outcomes of different insulin delivery systems are limited. The objective of this study was to compare healthcare utilization, costs, adherence, and hypoglycemia rates in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) initiating rapid-acting insulin analog (RAIA) using prefilled pen versus vial/syringe.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis was conducted using a US claims database (1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008). Inclusion criteria were: ≥18 years old, with T2DM, ≥12 months of continuous eligibility, and new to RAIA. Difference-in-difference analyses after propensity score matching were conducted to compare changes in outcomes from 6 months prior to and 6 months after initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen versus vial/syringe (Wilcoxon rank-sum test for costs and t-test for other outcomes). Categories of utilization and costs (2009 USD) included total and diabetes-related inpatient, outpatient, and emergency room. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Hypoglycemia was identified using ICD-9-CM codes.

Results:

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prefilled pen (n?=?239) and vial/syringe (n?=?590) cohorts after matching. Adherence to RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (PDC: 54.6 vs. 45.2%, p?<?0.001). While the increase in diabetes-related pharmacy costs from before to after initiating RAIA was greater in the prefilled pen cohort than the vial/syringe cohort (+$900 vs. +$607, p?<?0.001), the prefilled pen cohort was associated with greater reductions in the total diabetes-related costs (–$235 vs. +$61, p?=?0.006) and the utilization of oral anti-hyperglycemic agents (–1.3 vs. –0.7, p?=?0.016). There were no significant differences in other outcomes.

Limitations:

Claims databases do not provide optimal measures for adherence or T2DM severity, and only capture hypoglycemia events requiring clinical intervention.

Conclusion:

Initiating RAIA with a prefilled pen was associated with better adherence and greater reduction in total diabetes-related costs than a vial/syringe. There was no significant difference in total healthcare costs.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy to titrated insulin glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of exenatide twice daily (BID) vs bolus insulin lispro three times daily (TID) as add-on therapy when glycemic control is sub-optimal with titrated basal insulin glargine and metformin.

Methods: The analysis was based on the recent 4B Study, which compared exenatide BID and lispro TID as add-on therapies in subjects with type 2 diabetes insufficiently controlled, despite titrated insulin glargine. The Cardiff Diabetes Model was used to simulate patient costs and health benefits beyond the 4B Study. The Swedish healthcare perspective was adopted for this analysis; costs are reported in €EUR to aid interpretation. The main outcome measure was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained with exenatide BID compared to lispro TID.

Results: Exenatide BID was associated with an incremental cost of €1,270 and a QALY increase of +0.64 compared with lispro TID over 40 years. The cost per QALY gained with exenatide BID compared with lispro TID was €1,971, which is within conventional limits of cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness results were generally robust to alternative assumptions and values for key model parameters.

Limitations: Extrapolation of trial data over the longer term can be influenced by modeling and parameter uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness results were generally insensitive to alternative values of key model input parameters and across scenarios.

Conclusions: The addition of exenatide BID rather than insulin lispro to basal insulin is associated with similar or better clinical outcomes. Illustrated from the Swedish healthcare perspective, analysis with the Cardiff Diabetes Model demonstrated that exenatide BID represents a cost-effective treatment alternative to lispro TID as add-on therapy in type 2 diabetes patients insufficiently controlled on basal insulin.     

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.     

The cost-effectiveness and budget impact of stepwise addition of bolus insulin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: evaluation of the FullSTEP trial

Background and aims:

Intensification of basal insulin-only therapy in type 2 diabetes is often achieved through addition of bolus insulin 3-times daily. The FullSTEP trial demonstrated that stepwise addition (SWA) of bolus insulin aspart was non-inferior to full basal-bolus (FBB) therapy and reduced the rate of hypoglycemia. Here the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of SWA is evaluated.

Methods:

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact models were developed to assess the cost and quality-of-life (QoL) implications of intensification using SWA compared with FBB in the US setting. At assessment, SWA patients added one bolus dose to their current regimen if the HbA1c target was not met. SWA patients reaching three bolus doses used FBB event rates. Outcomes were evaluated at trial end and projected annually up to 5 years. Models captured hypoglycemic events, the proportion meeting HbA1c target, and self-measured blood glucose. Event rates and QoL utilities were taken from trial data and published literature. Costs were evaluated from a healthcare-payer perspective, reported in 2013 USD, and discounted (like clinical outcomes) at 3.5% annually. This analysis applies to patients with HbA1c 7.0–9.0% and body mass index <40?kg/m².

Results:

SWA was associated with improved QoL and reduced costs compared with FBB. Improvement in QoL and cost reduction were driven by lower rates of hypoglycemia. Sensitivity analyses showed that outcomes were most influenced by the cost of bolus insulin and QoL impact of symptomatic hypoglycemia. Budget impact analysis estimated that, by moving from FBB to SWA, a health plan with 77,000 patients with type 2 diabetes, of whom 7.8% annually intensified to basal-bolus therapy, would save USD 1304 per intensifying patient over the trial period.

Conclusions:

SWA of bolus insulin should be considered a beneficial and cost-saving alternative to FBB therapy for the intensification of treatment in type 2 diabetes.     

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.     

A study of regional variation in the inpatient cost of lower extremity amputation among patients with diabetes in the United States

Abstract

Objective:

Understanding of the effects of providers’ cost on regional variation in healthcare spending is still very limited. The objective of this study is to assess cross-state and cross-region variations in inpatient cost of lower extremity amputation among diabetic patients (DLEA) in relation to patient, hospital, and state factors.

Methods:

Patient and hospital level data were obtained from the 2007 US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). State level data were obtained from the US Census Bureau and the Kaiser Family Foundation websites. Regression models were implemented to analyze the association between in-patient cost and variables at patient, hospital, and state levels.

Results:

This study analyzed data on 9066 DLEA hospitalizations from 39 states. The mean cost per in-patient stay was $17,103. Four out of the five most costly states were located on the East and West coasts (NY and NJ, CA and OR). Age, race, length of stay, level of amputation, in-patient mortality, primary payer, co-morbidities, and type of hospital were significantly correlated with in-patient costs and explained 55.3% of the cost variance. Based on the means of costs unexplained by those factors, the three West coast states had the highest costs, followed by five Midwestern states, and four Southern states, and Kansas were the least costly.

Conclusions:

Over 40% of the variations in DLEA hospital costs could not be explained by major patient-, hospital-, and state-level variables. Further research is needed to examine whether similar patterns exist for other costly surgical procedures among diabetic patients.     

An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes uncontrolled on basal insulin

Aims: To obtain estimates of the relative treatment effects between insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) and insulin glargine U100/lixisenatide (iGlarLixi) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on basal insulin therapy.

Materials and methods: Data from phase 3 trials providing evidence for estimating the relative efficacy and safety of IDegLira vs iGlarLixi in patients uncontrolled on basal insulin-only regimens were used in this analysis. Outcomes of interest were changes in HbA_1c, body weight and insulin dose, and rate ratio of hypoglycemia. The indirect comparison of the reported trial findings followed the principles of Bucher et al.

Results: IDegLira was estimated to provide a 0.44 [95% CI?=?0.17–0.71] %-point reduction in HbA_1c compared with iGlarLixi. Body weight was reduced by 1.42 [95% CI?=?0.35–2.50] kg with IDegLira compared with iGlarLixi. Insulin dose was comparable between the two interventions. The rate of severe or blood glucose-confirmed (self-measured plasma glucose [SMPG]?≤?3.1?mmol/L) hypoglycemia with IDegLira was approximately half that of iGlarLixi (rate ratio?=?0.51 [95% CI?=?0.29–0.90]). However, using the American Diabetes Association definition of documented symptomatic hypoglycemia (SMPG ≤3.9?mmol/L) the rate was comparable between the two treatments (rate ratio?=?1.07 [95% CI?=?0.90–1.28]).

Limitations: The assumptions made in the indirect comparison and differences between the included trials in baseline HbA_1c levels, previous use of sulfonylureas, definitions of hypoglycemia, presence or absence of run-in period, the different duration of the trials, and the cross-over design of one of the trials.

Conclusions: The results of this indirect treatment comparison demonstrate that, among patients with T2DM uncontrolled on basal insulin, treatment with IDegLira results in a greater reduction of HbA_1c and a greater reduction in body weight compared with iGlarLixi at similar insulin doses.     

Predictors of government subsidized pharmaceutical use in patients with diabetes or cardiovascular disease in a primary care setting: evidence from a prospective randomized trial

Abstract

Objectives:

This study uses data from a prospective randomized controlled trial to estimate predictors of pharmaceutical expenditure in diabetes (DM) or cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients. Identifying drivers of pharmaceutical use and the extent to which they are modifiable may inform cost-effective policy-making.

Methods:

The trial followed 260 patients aged >18 years (mean 68) from three general practices for 12 months. Patients had type 2 diabetes (90 patients) or cardiovascular disease (170 patients). Costs for pharmaceuticals prescribed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) were obtained retrospectively at 12 months. Sociodemographic data and health-related quality-of-life (QoL) were recorded from questionnaires. Clinical measures (including body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, high and low density lipoprotein (LDL), and HbA1c) were also collected.

Results:

Mean pharmaceutical costs for DM patients (AU$4119) was greater than CVD patients (AU$2424). The largest contributor to costs in both groups was pharmaceuticals used for management of conditions other than CVD or DM. QoL (EQ5D) and BMI were significant predictors of costs in both groups. A history of cardiac events, HbA1c, age, and unemployment were significant predictors of costs in the DM group. A diagnosis of heart failure, frequency of hospital admissions, and LDL levels were significant predictors of costs in the CVD group. Roughly one third of total variation of costs can be explained by the regressors in both models.

Limitations:

Generalizability will be limited as data was derived from a trial and the study was not powered for this post-hoc analysis. Missing data imputation and self-reporting bias may also impact on results.

Conclusions:

Factors such as QoL BMI, HbA1c levels, and a history of cardiac events are significant predictors of costs. The results suggest there may be a place for interventions that improve quality-of-life and concurrently reduce pharmaceutical costs in patients with CVD or DM.     

Healthcare utilization changes in relation to treatment intensification with insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Data from a large US managed-care organization

ABSTRACT

Objective: Most patients with type 2 diabetes eventually require exogenous insulin therapy to achieve good glycemic control due to the progressive nature of the disease. Insulin aspart is a rapid-acting insulin analog developed for prandial use. This study aimed to illustrate the implications on healthcare costs of adding insulin aspart to basal therapy in a real-world setting.

Methods: Patients with type 2 diabetes who intensified previous basal therapy with insulin aspart were identified from a large commercial US healthcare data source between April 2007 and September 2008. Patients were required to have received basal insulin treatment with or without concomitant oral antidiabetic (OAD) therapy for at least 90 days pre- and post-initiation of insulin aspart. Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, to analyze the difference of self-comparison between pre- and post insulin aspart add-on.

Results: In total, 1,739 patients with an average age of 56 years were identified, of whom 55% were male. After initiation of insulin aspart, a significant improvement in glycemic control was observed (change in HbA_1c: –0.5%, p=0.0013). Similarly, a reduction of 0.4% in HbA_1c was observed for the subpopulation of 151 patients, who had both pre-and post-index HbA_1c data (p=0.0085). Also, significantly fewer patients used OADs after insulin aspart initiation (56 vs. 64%, p< 0.0001). Overall and diabetes-related healthcare costs also significantly decreased by $2,283 and $2,028, respectively (p≤0.0001). Diabetes-related inpatient visits appear to be the main contributor to total cost (46%); however, after initiation of insulin aspart the number of inpatient visits decreased by 0.50 visits/patient/year (p< 0.05). This decrease was reflected in a large reduction in cost related to inpatient visits ($3,019/patient).

Limitations: A regression to the mean effect may be associated with this pre-post comparison. The ability to make conclusions regarding cause and effect may be limited due to the retrospective design of this study.

Conclusions: Patients with type 2 diabetes achieved better glycemic control and needed less OAD treatment after adding insulin aspart to previous basal therapy. Furthermore, patients experienced on average reduced healthcare utilization after initiation of insulin aspart, which resulted in significant cost savings.