RESUMO
Objetivo: Analizar la costo-efectividad del uso de Detemir frente a otras insulinas (Glargine e NPH) para tratamiento de diabetes tipo 2 en Colombia. Métodos: Mediante un modelo deMarkov se analizó la costo-efectividad desde la perspectiva del tercero pagador, en una cohorte de 10000 personas de 45 años, en un horizonte temporal de 5 años. Como desenlaces se evaluaron eventos cardiovasculares y muertes evitadas -medidas en Años de Vida Salvados (AVS)- relacionadas con eventos de hipoglicemia severa. Los costos se tomaron de bases de datos de prestadores de servicios de salud a precios 2013. Se utilizó una tasa de descuento del 3% para costos y resultados. Se aplicó un análisis de sensibilidad para comprobar la robustez del modelo. Resultados: Detemir presentó un menor número de eventos de hipoglicemia severa (730) frente a Glargine (1.910) y NPH (2.140), y un menor número de eventos macrovasculares (1.053) y microvasculares (1.019) frente a Glargine (1.116,1.037, respectivamente) y NPH (1.129 y 1.042, respectivamente). Detemir evitó 122 y 147 muertes frente a Glargine y NPH, respectivamente, equivalentes a 4.233 y 3.513 AVS, respectivamente. Tras el descuento el ICER por AVS con Detemir frente a Glargine fue de USD $ 998,39 y frente a NPH fue de USD $4.096,86. En el análisis de sensibilidad tipo Montecarlo, Detemir se mantiene costo-efectivo en el 100% de los casos, según el umbral propuesto por la OMS. Conclusiones: Detemir, desde la perspectiva del tercero pagador, es costo-efectivo frente a Glargine y NPH para tratamiento de diabetes tipo 2 en Colombia.
Objective: Analyze the cost-effectiveness of using Detemir versus using other insulins (Glargine and NPH insulin) for treatment of type 2 diabetes in Colombia. Methods: A Markov model was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness of Determir from a third-party payer's perspective in a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients, aged 45 years, with type 2 diabetes in risk of cardiovascular events and death in a 5-year time horizon. Both cardiovascular events and deaths avoided -expressed in Life-Year Saved- related to severe hypoglycemia events were considered as outcomes. Costs were obtained from health care providers databases at 2013 prices. A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and outcomes. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the robustness of the model. Results: In the model, using Detemir has fewer numbers of severe hypoglycemic events (730) versus NPH insulin (1,910) and Glargine (2,140), and fewer number of macrovas-cular (1,053) and microvascular (1,019) events versus Glargine (1,116; 1,037) and NPH (1,129; 1,042). Using Detemir, 122 and 147 deaths were avoided compared to Glargine and NPH respectively; those figures are respectively equivalent to 4,233and 3,513 Life-Year Saved. As discount was applied the ICER per Life-Year Saved for Detemir versus Glargine was US$ 998.39 and USD 4,096.86 against NPHinsulin. In the Montecarlo sen-sitivity analysis Detemir remains cost effective in 100% of cases according to the WHO-proposed threshold. Conclusion: From a third-party payer's perspective,Detemir is cost-effective compared to Glargine and NPH insulin for treatment of type 2 diabetes in Colombia.
