Evaluation of the cost and medical resource use outcomes associated with nasal glucagon versus injectable glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia in people with diabetes in Canada: a modeling analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Treatments for severe hypoglycemia aim to restore blood glucose through successful administration of rescue therapy, and choosing the most effective and cost-effective option will improve outcomes for patients and may reduce costs for healthcare payers. The present analysis aimed to compare costs and use of medical services with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon in people with type 1 and 2 diabetes in Canada when used to treat severe hypoglycemic events when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrates using an economic model, based on differences in the frequency of successful administration of the two interventions. METHODS: A decision tree model was prepared in Microsoft Excel to project outcomes with nasal glucagon and injectable glucagon. The model structure reflected real-world decision-making and treatment outcomes, based on Canada-specific sources. The model captured the use of glucagon, emergency medical services (EMS), emergency room, inpatient stay, and follow-up care. Costs were accounted for in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD). RESULTS: Nasal glucagon was associated with reduced use of all medical services compared with injectable glucagon. EMS call outs were projected to be reduced by 45%, emergency room treatments by 52%, and inpatient stays by 13%. Use of nasal glucagon was associated with reduced direct, indirect, and combined costs of CAD 1,249, CAD 460, and CAD 1,709 per severe hypoglycemic event, respectively, due to avoided EMS call outs and hospital costs, resulting from a higher proportion of successful administrations. CONCLUSIONS: When a patient with type 1 or type 2 diabetes is being treated for a severe hypoglycemic event when impaired consciousness precludes treatment with oral carbohydrate, use of nasal glucagon was projected to be dominant versus injectable glucagon in Canada reducing costs and use of medical services.

The rising cost of commonly used emergency department medications (2006-15).

OBJECTIVE: We determine how aggregate costs have changed for commonly used emergency department (ED) medications, and assess drivers of cost increases. METHODS: Using the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS), we identified the top 150 ED medications administered and prescribed at discharge in 2015. We used average wholesale prices (AWP) for each year from 2006 to 15 from the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics Inc.). Average wholesale price per patient (AWPP) was calculated by dividing AWP by drug uses. This was then multiplied by the total drug administrations or prescriptions to estimate the total cost in a given the year. All prices were converted to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: Aggregate costs of drugs administered in the ED increased from $688.7 million in 2006 to $882.4 million in 2015. For discharge prescriptions, aggregate costs increased from $2.031 billion in 2006 to $4.572 billion in 2015. AWPP for drugs administered in the ED in 2015 was 14.5% higher than in 2006 and 24.3% higher at discharge. The largest absolute increase in AWPP for drugs administered was for glucagon, which increased from $111 in 2006 to $235 in 2015. The largest AWPP increase at discharge was for epinephrine auto-injector, which increased from $124 in 2006 and to $481 in 2015. CONCLUSION: Over the course of the study period, the aggregate costs of the most common medications administered in the ED increased by 28% while the costs of medications prescribed at discharge increased 125%.

A ready-to-use liquid glucagon for treatment of severe hypoglycemia demonstrates reduced healthcare payer costs in a budget impact model.

Research aim: To model the annual value of a novel ready-to-use, room-temperature stable liquid glucagon rescue pen and prefilled syringe (GRP, G-PFS; Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) for treatment of severe hypoglycemia events (SHE) versus current lyophilized powder glucagon emergency kits (GEK). GRP is a prefilled auto-injector designed to promptly administer concentrated liquid glucagon in a simple two-step process. G-PFS is a stable liquid formulation of glucagon in a prefilled syringe. In simulated emergencies, GRP and G-PFS demonstrated high functional efficacy, where 99% of users successfully administered a full-dose of drug. Studies with currently available injectable GEK suggest very low success rates (6-31%). The high functional efficacy of GRP and G-PFS significantly reduces user errors and may reduce utilization across emergency medical services (EMS), emergency departments (ED), and inpatient and outpatient costs for SHE.Methods: To estimate the economic impact of GRP and G-PFS, we developed a one-year budget impact model from a US commercial health plan perspective. Cost offsets from successful glucagon administration incorporated EMS, ED, inpatient, and outpatient utilization. Diabetes prevalence and event probabilities were estimated from publicly-available sources and clinical expert opinion. Costs (US$) were obtained from the 2018 Medicare Fee Schedules and adjusted to represent commercial payer costs.Results: GRP and G-PFS led to fewer EMS, ED, inpatient, and outpatient costs compared to GEK and no kit, resulting in total per-patient SHE costs of $2,564, $3,606, and $3,849, respectively. Costs for 1 million covered lives were 8.2 million following the introduction of GRP and G-PFS compared to almost 9 million before GRP and G-PFS.Limitations: The model is limited by reliance on assumptions based on expert opinion for key variables, primarily the probability of: (1) ambulance calls, (2) ambulance transport to the ED, and (3) non-ambulance transport to the ED.Conclusions: A budget impact model suggests GRP and G-PFS can lead to significant annual cost savings for US commercial payers.

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for the US setting. METHODS: A health economic model was developed to estimate mean costs per SHE for which treatment was attempted using NG or IG, which differed only in the probability of treatment success, based on a published usability study. The budget impact of NG was projected over 2 years for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (T2D-BB). Epidemiologic and cost data were sourced from the literature and/or fee schedules. RESULTS: Mean costs were $992 lower if NG was used compared with IG per SHE for which a user attempted treatment. NG was estimated to reduce SHE-related spending by $1.1 million and $230 000 over 2 years in 10 000 patients each with T1D and T2D-BB, respectively. Reduced spending resulted from reduced professional emergency services utilization as successful treatment was more likely with NG. CONCLUSIONS: The usability advantage of NG over IG was projected to reduce SHE-related treatment costs in the US setting. NG has the potential to improve hypoglycemia emergency care and reduce SHE-related treatment costs.

Economic Model Predictive Control of Bihormonal Artificial Pancreas System Based on Switching Control and Dynamic R-parameter.

BACKGROUND: Blood glucose (BG) regulation is a long-term task for people with diabetes. In recent years, more and more researchers have attempted to achieve automated regulation of BG using automatic control algorithms, called the artificial pancreas (AP) system. In clinical practice, it is equally important to guarantee the treatment effect and reduce the treatment costs. The main motivation of this study is to reduce the cure burden. METHODS: The dynamic R-parameter economic model predictive control (R-EMPC) is chosen to regulate the delivery rates of exogenous hormones (insulin and glucagon). It uses particle swarm optimization (PSO) to optimize the economic cost function and the switching logic between insulin delivery and glucagon delivery is designed based on switching control theory. RESULTS: The proposed method is first tested on the standard subject; the result is compared with the switching PID and the switching MPC. The effect of the dynamic R-parameter on improving the control performance is illustrated by comparing the results of the EMPC and the R-EMPC. Finally, the robustness tests on meal change (size and timing), hormone sensitivity (insulin and glucagon), and subject variability are performed. All results show that the proposed method can improve the control performance and reduce the economic costs. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation results verify the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm on improving the tracking performance, enhancing robustness, and reducing economic costs. The method proposed in this study owns great worth in practical application.

Glucagon Is a Safe and Inexpensive Initial Strategy in Esophageal Food Bolus Impaction.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the utility of pharmacologic agents and endoscopic technique used for esophageal food bolus impaction. AIM: To evaluate the utility of glucagon and the technique used for endoscopic removal, including the rate of success and the adverse events of the techniques. METHODS: The database of the largest healthcare provider in southeastern Wisconsin was retrospectively reviewed for patients presenting with esophageal food bolus impaction. Data extracted included glucagon administration and its success rate, outcome of radiographic studies, and the endoscopic method of removal and adverse events associated with it, including 30-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 750 patients were identified with food bolus impaction from 2007 to 2012. Glucagon was administered in 440 patients and was successful in 174 (39.5%). Endoscopic removal was performed in 470 patients and was successful in 469 (99.8%). The push technique was utilized in 209 patients, reduction in the bolus size by piecemeal removal followed by the push technique was utilized in 97 patients, and the pull technique was utilized in 107 patients. There were no perforations with endoscopic removal. Only 4.5% of the X-rays performed reported a possible foreign body within the esophagus. Glucagon was a significantly less-expensive strategy than endoscopic therapy (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Glucagon is low cost, is moderately effective, and may be considered as an initial strategy. Endoscopic removal regardless of technique is safe and effective. The yield of radiography is poor in the setting of food bolus impaction.

Glucagon in the artificial pancreas: supply and marketing challenges.

The use of glucagon, in conjunction with insulin, in a dual chamber pump (artificial pancreas, AP) is a working goal for multiple companies and researchers. However, capital investment to create, operate, and maintain facilities with sufficient scale to produce enough glucagon to treat millions of patients, at a level of profit that makes it feasible, will be substantial. It can be assumed that the marketplace will expect the daily cost of glucagon (to the consumer) to be similar to the daily cost of insulin. After one subtracts wholesaler and pharmacy markup, there may be very few dollars remaining for the drug company to cover profit, capital expenditures, marketing, burden, and other costs. Without the potential for adequate margins, manufacturers may not be willing to take the risk. Assuming that the projections discussed in this article are in the right ballpark, advance planning for the supply for glucagon needs to start today and not wait for the AP to come to market.

[Costs of antihyperglycemic drugs and consumables and treatment satisfaction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Results of the health care research study LIVE-DE (long-acting insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin in Germany)]. / Kosten für antihyperglykämische Arznei- und Verbrauchsmittel und Therapiezufriedenheit bei Typ-2-Diabetes. Ergebnisse der Versorgungsforschungsstudie LIVE-DE.

BACKGROUND: Economic aspects and patient-reported outcomes play an increasing role in the choice of therapeutic options. The aim of the LIVE-DE study (Long-acting insulin glargine versus NPH insulin cost evaluation in Germany[DE]) was to assess expenditures incurred in the care of diabetic patients, as well treatment satisfaction of patients with type 2 diabetes treated with insulin glargine (GLAR) or NPH insulin (NPH). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective, non-interventional, cross-sectional study was undertaken in Germany of 1,602 insulin-treated patients (982 on GLAR, 620 on NPH), enrolled from 199 randomly selected general practitioner or internal medicine specialist practices. Total cost of diabetes care (insulins, oral antidiabetic drugs, glucagon use, consumables for insulin administration and blood glucose self-monitoring devices) were calculated from total recorded expenditures, for a period of six months, from the perspective of statutory health insurance. Cost data were obtained from publicly available sources, based on the prices in the year 2007. Patient treatment satisfaction was assessed using previously validated questionnaires (SF-12, PAID, DTSQ, ITEQ). RESULTS: Physicians prescribed GLAR more often than NPH combined with oral antidiabetic drugs (43 % vs 16%), whereas NPH was more often used in an intensified insulin regimen compared to GLAR (79 % vs 49%). The mean total costs per patient over six months were lower in GLAR than NPH treated patients (658258 vs 685242 Euros [EUR]; p<0.001). The higher drug costs for basal insulin in the GLAR group (19497 vs 11674 EUR) were counterbalanced by lower costs for bolus insulin (96133 vs 158133 EUR), test strips (287137 vs 321142 EUR) and needles (4031 vs 4640 EUR). Only in the NPH group was glucagon use documented (in four patients). Patients treated with GLAR reported significantly higher treatment satisfaction. After adjustment of empirical results (by analysis of covariance), mean total costs of diabetes were higher in GLAR patients (+73.1 EUR; p<0.001). But treatment satisfaction remained significantly higher with GLAR. CONCLUSION: Based on the comparison of total diabetes treatment costs under real-life conditions between glargine and NPH insulin based treatment regimens, these results indicate that the choice of a given treatment should be determined by medical advantages and patients' preferences. Because of a lower injection rate and a higher patient treatment satisfaction, the use of glargine as first-line therapeutic approach is justified in order to achieve target glycemic control in insulin dependent type 2 diabetics.

Biogenetic glucagon: new preparation. Four times more expensive for the same service.

(1) Human biogenetic glucagon has replaced traditional glucagon of animal origin. It is the same substance but is obtained through a different manufacturing process. (2) The file on the efficacy and safety of biogenetic glucagon is limited. It suggests nevertheless that the hyperglycaemic effect of biogenetic glucagon is equivalent to that of animal glucagon and that the underlying biotechnology does not introduce new risks. (3) The main indication for glucagon is in the treatment of severe hypoglycaemia in insulin-treated diabetic patients. In this indication glucagon is usually administered by persons with no medical training (relatives) who must be taught when and how to use the drug appropriately. (4) Glucagon has been used for more than 25 years in the treatment of acute betablocker intoxication. Despite the absence of randomised trials most authors consider it superior to beta-adrenergic agonists in severe cases.