Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

The cost of influence: How gifts to physicians shape prescriptions and drug costs.

This paper investigates the influence of gifts - monetary and in-kind payments - from drug firms to US physicians on prescription behavior and drug costs. Using causal models and machine learning, we estimate physicians' heterogeneous responses to payments on antidiabetic prescriptions. We find that payments lead to increased prescription of brand drugs, resulting in a cost rise of $23 per dollar value of transfer received. Paid physicians show higher responses when they treat higher proportions of patients receiving a government-funded low-income subsidy that lowers out-of-pocket drug costs. We estimate that introducing a national gift ban would reduce diabetes drug costs by 2%.

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sulfonylureas and newer diabetes drugs as second-line therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1-RA), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) compared with sulfonylureas and glinides (SU). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study based on linked regional healthcare utilization databases. The cohort included all residents in Lombardy aged ≥40 years, treated with metformin in 2014, who started a second-line treatment between 2015 and 2018 with SU, GLP-1-RA, SGLT2i, or DPP-4i. For each cohort member who started SU, one patient who began other second-line treatments was randomly selected and matched for sex, age, Multisource Comorbidity Score, and previous duration of metformin treatment. Cohort members were followed up until December 31, 2022. The association between second-line treatment and clinical outcomes was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated and compared between newer diabetes drugs and SU. RESULTS: Overall, 22 867 patients with diabetes were included in the cohort, among which 10 577, 8125, 2893 and 1272 started a second-line treatment with SU, DPP-4i, SGLT2i and GLP-1-RA, respectively. Among these, 1208 patients for each group were included in the matched cohort. As compared with SU, those treated with DPP-4i, SGLT2i and GLP-1-RA were associated to a risk reduction for hospitalization for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of 22% (95% CI 3% to 37%), 29% (95% CI 12% to 44%) and 41% (95% CI 26% to 53%), respectively. The ICER values indicated an average gain of €96.2 and €75.7 each month free from MACE for patients on DPP-4i and SGLT2i, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Newer diabetes drugs are more effective and cost-effective second-line options for the treatment of type 2 diabetes than SUs.

Medication adherence star ratings measures, health care resource utilization, and cost.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between missed CMS Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence over 3 years for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia medications (9 measures) and health care utilization and relative costs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: The study examined eligible patients who qualified for the diabetes, statin, and renin-angiotensin system antagonist medication adherence measures in 2018, 2019, and 2020 and were continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan from 2017 through 2021. A total of 103,900 patients were divided into 4 groups based on the number of adherence measures missed (3 medication classes over 3 years): (1) missed 0 measures, (2) missed 1 measure, (3) missed 2 or 3 measures, and (4) missed 4 or more measures. To achieve a quality measure, patients had to meet the Pharmacy Quality Alliance 80% threshold of proportion of days covered during the calendar year. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 71.1 years, and 49.9% were female. Compared with patients who missed 0 of 9 adherence measures, those who missed 1 measure, 2 or 3 measures, and 4 or more measures experienced 12% to 26%, 22% to 42%, and 24% to 50% increased risks, respectively, of all-cause and diabetes-related inpatient stays and all-cause and diabetes-related emergency department visits (all  P  values < .01). Additionally, patients who missed 1, 2 or 3, and 4 or more adherence measures experienced 14%, 19%, and 20% higher monthly medical costs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Missing Star Ratings quality measures for medication adherence was associated with an increased likelihood of health care resource utilization and increased costs for patients taking medications to treat diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia.

Incidence of stroke, subsequent clinical outcomes and health care resource utilization in people with type 2 diabetes: a real-world database study in France: "INSIST" study.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at elevated risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) including stroke, yet existing real-world evidence (RWE) on the clinical and economic burden of stroke in this population is limited. The aim of this cohort study was to evaluate the clinical and economic burden of stroke among people with T2D in France. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective RWE study using data from the nationally representative subset of the French Système National des Données de Santé (SNDS) database. We assessed the incidence of stroke requiring hospitalization between 2012 and 2018 among T2D patients. Subsequent clinical outcomes including CVD, stroke recurrence, and mortality were estimated overall and according to stroke subtype (ischemic versus hemorrhagic). We also examined the treatment patterns for glucose-lowering agents and CVD agents, health care resource utilization and medical costs. RESULTS: Among 45,331 people with T2D without baseline history of stroke, 2090 (4.6%) had an incident stroke requiring hospitalization. The incidence of ischemic stroke per 1000 person-years was 4.9-times higher than hemorrhagic stroke (6.80 [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.47-7.15] versus 1.38 [1.24-1.54]). During a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range 0.6; 4.4) from date of index stroke, the rate of CVD, stroke recurrence and mortality per 1000 person-years was higher among hemorrhagic stroke patients than ischemic stroke patients (CVD 130.9 [107.7-159.0] versus 126.4 [117.2-136.4]; stroke recurrence: 86.7 [66.4-113.4] versus 66.5 [59.2-74.6]; mortality 291.5 [259.1-327.9] versus 144.1 [134.3-154.6]). These differences were not statistically significant, except for mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.95 [95% CI 1.66-2.92]). The proportion of patients prescribed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists increased from 4.2% at baseline to 6.6% during follow-up. The proportion of patients prescribed antihypertensives and statins only increased slightly following incident stroke (antihypertensives: 70.9% pre-stroke versus 76.7% post-stroke; statins: 24.1% pre-stroke versus 30.0% post-stroke). Overall, 68.8% of patients had a subsequent hospitalization. Median total medical costs were €12,199 (6846; 22,378). CONCLUSIONS: The high burden of stroke among people with T2D, along with the low proportion of patients receiving recommended treatments as per clinical guidelines, necessitates a strengthened and multidisciplinary approach to the CVD prevention and management in people with T2D.

Progress toward universal health coverage in Vietnam: Evidence on dispensing trends of diabetes medications from 2015 to 2021.

AIMS: This study aims to investigate the trends in treatment coverage through dispensing diabetes medications in Vietnam from 2015 to 2021. The findings will serve to inform health policies to mitigate the health burden of Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: We collected information on major antidiabetic medicines from General Department of Vietnam Customs and payments for antidiabetics via the National Health Insurance Program. We applied ordinary least squares models, accounting for economic and health outcome characteristics, to estimate the association between the annual mass of medications and related factors. RESULTS: Nationally, the total mass/doses of all antidiabetic drugs increased rapidly from 2015 to 2021, based on both databases. Metformin was the most frequently prescribed medicine, with the total mass increasing nearly threefold over the study period. Gliclazide, a Sulfonylureas drug, ranked second. In the multivariate regression analysis, a one-unit increase in adults with diabetes (in 1,000 s) was associated with 0.11 % (95 %CI = 0.0005; 0.0076) and 0.13 % (95%CI = 0.0007; 0.0242) higher mass of Metformin and Glimepiride, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our data suggested that policies changes were related to significant increase in antidiabetic medication dispenses in Vietnam. The high treatment coverage indicates impressive progress in achieving universal health coverage in Vietnam, meeting the UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG).

Impact of cost on prescribing diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes in the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Newer diabetes medications have cardiorenal benefits beyond blood sugar lowering that make them a preferred treatment option in many patients. Despite this, studies have shown that prescribing of these medications remains suboptimal with medication costs being hypothesized as a reason for underutilization. OBJECTIVE: To understand clinicians' decision-making processes for prescribing diabetes medications in older adults, focusing on higher cost medications. METHODS: Observations of patient encounters and semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians from primary care, endocrinology, and geriatrics to elucidate themes into diabetes medication prescribing. A qualitative descriptive approach was used to analyze the data from interviews using an inductive coding scheme with themes derived from the data. RESULTS: Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Five themes were identified: 1) out-of-pocket costs drive prescribing decisions 2) out-of-pocket costs can be variable due to changing insurance plans or changing coverage 3) clinicians have difficulty with determining patient-specific out-of-pocket costs 4) clinicians manage the tradeoffs existing between cost, efficacy, and safety and 5) clinicians can use cost-modifying strategies such as patient assistance. CONCLUSION: Addressing the challenges that medication costs pose to prescribing evidence-based medications for type 2 diabetes is necessary to optimize diabetes care for older adults.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-weekly semaglutide vs. once-daily liraglutide administered subcutaneously in patients with overweight and obesity: a decision analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Obesity presents an enduring and multifaceted dilemma that impacts individuals, society, economies, and healthcare systems alike. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, including liraglutide and semaglutide, have received FDA approval for obesity treatment. This study aims to present a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the cost and clinical outcomes of semaglutide vs. liraglutide on weight loss in people with overweight and obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare the cost and the clinical outcomes of adding weekly 2.4 mg SC semaglutide vs. daily 3.0 mg SC liraglutide or placebo to physical activity and diet control in overweight and obese patients. A clinical outcome of achieving ≥15% weight loss was chosen. A simple decision analysis model from a third-payer perspective was applied. Drug costs were based on the retail price of the USA market. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Results showed that 2.4 mg weekly semaglutide, when added to physical activity and diet control, was the most cost-effective choice in terms of ≥15% weight loss (ICER: $ 7,056/patient/68 weeks). The model was robust against the 50% increase in the unit cost of semaglutide and the 50% decrease in the unit cost of liraglutide, as well as the changes in probabilities by the corresponding 95% confidence intervals across the model. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that employing once-weekly 2.4 mg semaglutide emerges as a remarkably cost-effective option when contrasted with once-daily 3.0 mg liraglutide in patients with overweight and obesity when added to physical activity and diet control.

A systematic review on reporting quality of economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs in China national reimbursement drug list.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine the reporting quality of existing economic evaluations for negotiated glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) included in China National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2013 (CHEERS 2013). METHODS: We performed a systematic literature research through 7 databases to identify published economic evaluations for GLDs included in the China NRDL up to March 2021. Reporting quality of identified studies was assessed by two independent reviewers based on the CHEERS checklist. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed to examine the association between reporting quality and characteristics of the identified studies. RESULTS: We have identified 24 studies, which evaluated six GLDs types. The average score rate of the included studies was 77.41% (SD:13.23%, Range 47.62%-91.67%). Among all the required reporting items, characterizing heterogeneity (score rate = 4.17%) was the least satisfied item. Among six parts of CHEERS, results part scored least at 0.55 (score rate = 54.79%) because of the incompleteness of characterizing uncertainty. Results from the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test showed that model choice, journal type, type of economic evaluations, and study perspective were associated with the reporting quality of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: There remains room to improve the reporting quality of economic evaluations for GLDs in NRDL. Checklists such as CHEERS should be widely used to improve the reporting quality of economic researches in China.

Cost saving analysis of prediabetes intervention modalities in comparison with inaction using Markov state transition model-A multiregional case study.

BACKGROUND: Prediabetes management is a priority for policymakers globally, to avoid/delay type 2 diabetes (T2D) and reduce severe, costly health consequences. Countries moving from low to middle income are most at risk from the T2D "epidemic" and may find implementing preventative measures challenging; yet prevention has largely been evaluated in developed countries. METHODS: Markov cohort simulations explored costs and benefits of various prediabetes management approaches, expressed as "savings" to the public health care system, for three countries with high prediabetes prevalence and contrasting economic status (Poland, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam). Two scenarios were compared up to 15 y: "inaction" (no prediabetes intervention) and "intervention" with metformin extended release (ER), intensive lifestyle change (ILC), ILC with metformin (ER), or ILC with metformin (ER) "titration." RESULTS: T2D was the highest-cost health state at all time horizons due to resource use, and inaction produced the highest T2D costs, ranging from 9% to 34% of total health care resource costs. All interventions reduced T2D versus inaction, the most effective being ILC + metformin (ER) "titration" (39% reduction at 5 y). Metformin (ER) was the only strategy that produced net saving across the time horizon; however, relative total health care system costs of other interventions vs inaction declined over time up to 15 y. Viet Nam was most sensitive to cost and parameter changes via a one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Metformin (ER) and lifestyle interventions for prediabetes offer promise for reducing T2D incidence. Metformin (ER) could reduce T2D patient numbers and health care costs, given concerns regarding adherence in the context of funding/reimbursement challenges for lifestyle interventions.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of metformin versus insulin in the treatment of gestational diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: Although there have been many studies on gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) treatment, there is still a knowledge gap regarding the comparative cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in the treatment phase. Existing studies have focused on treatment efficacy and drug safety, but relatively little has been explored regarding cost-effectiveness analysis. In particular, no comprehensive study has evaluated the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin for GDM treatment. Therefore, this study aimed to fill this knowledge gap by conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two treatments for GDM. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of metformin and insulin in China. Probabilities, costs, and utilities were derived from the literature. The cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated using the roll-back method. The strategy was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥242,938 per QALY. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to assess the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The roll-back analysis indicated that insulin was not cost-effective compared to metformin, resulting in increased costs and decreased QALYs, with a negative ICER. These findings suggested that metformin is a cost-effective option than insulin. Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis showed that the model was robust. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with insulin, metformin is a cost-effective treatment option for GDM.

Prescription-based cost analysis of medicines for cardiovascular risk factors at Indian Council of Medical Research-Rational Use of Medicine Centre Hospitals of India.

OBJECTIVES: India has taken several initiatives to provide health care to its population while keeping the related expenditure minimum. Since cardiovascular diseases are the most prevalent chronic conditions, in the present study, we aimed to analyze the difference in prices of medicines prescribed for three cardiovascular risk factors, based on (a) listed and not listed in the National List of Essential Medicines (NLEM) and (b) generic and branded drugs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outpatient prescriptions for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia were retrospectively analyzed from 12 tertiary centers. The prices of medicines prescribed were compared based on presence or absence in NLEM India-2015 and prescribing by generic versus brand name. The price was standardized and presented as average price per medicine per year for a given medicine. The results are presented in Indian rupee (INR) and as median (range). RESULTS: Of the 4,736 prescriptions collected, 843 contained oral antidiabetic, antihypertensive, and/or hypolipidemic medicines. The price per medicine per year for NLEM oral antidiabetics was INR 2849 (2593-3104) and for non-NLEM was INR 5343 (2964-14364). It was INR 806 (243-2132) for generic and INR 3809 (1968-14364) for branded antidiabetics. Antihypertensives and hypolipidemics followed the trend. The price of branded non-NLEM medicines was 5-22 times higher compared to generic NLEM which, for a population of 1.37 billion, would translate to a potential saving of 346.8 billion INR for statins. The variability was significant for sulfonylureas, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, diuretics, and statins (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The study highlights an urgent need for intervention to actualize the maximum benefit of government policies and minimize the out-of-pocket expenditure on medicines.

Reduction in Diabetes-Related Hospitalizations and Medical Costs After Dexcom G6 Continuous Glucose Monitor Initiation in People with Type 2 Diabetes Using Intensive Insulin Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Some people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) require intensive insulin therapy to manage their diabetes. This can increase the risk of diabetes-related hospitalizations. We hypothesize that initiation of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM), which continuously measures a user's glucose values and provides threshold- and trend-based alerts, will reduce diabetes-related emergency department (ED) and inpatient hospitalizations and concomitant costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of US healthcare claims data using Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart database was performed. The cohort consisted of commercially insured, CGM-naïve individuals with T2D who initiated Dexcom G6 RT-CGM system between August 1, 2018, and March 31, 2021. Twelve months of continuous health plan enrollment before and after RT-CGM initiation was required to capture baseline and follow-up rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations and associated healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) costs. Analyses were performed for claims with a diabetes-related diagnosis code in either (1) any position or (2) first or second position on the claim. RESULTS: A total of 790 individuals met the inclusion criteria. The average age was 52.8 (10.5) [mean (SD)], 53.3% were male, and 76.3% were white. For claims with a diabetes-related diagnosis code in any position, the number of individuals with ≥ 1 ED visit decreased by 30.0% (p = 0.01) and with ≥ 1 inpatient visit decreased by 41.5% (p < 0.0001). The number of diabetes-related visits and average number of visits per person similarly decreased by at least 31.4%. Larger relative decreases were observed for claims with a diabetes-related diagnosis code in the first or second position on the claim. Total diabetes-related costs expressed as per-person-per-month (PPPM) decreased by $341 PPPM for any position and $330 PPPM for first or second position. CONCLUSION: Initiation of Dexcom G6 among people with T2D using intensive insulin therapy was associated with a significant reduction in diabetes-related ED and inpatient visits and related HCRU costs. Expanded use of RT-CGM could augment these benefits and result in further cost reductions.

Application of machine learning in affordable and accessible insulin management for type 1 and 2 diabetes: A comprehensive review.

Proper insulin management is vital for maintaining stable blood sugar levels and preventing complications associated with diabetes. However, the soaring costs of insulin present significant challenges to ensuring affordable management. This paper conducts a comprehensive review of current literature on the application of machine learning (ML) in insulin management for diabetes patients, particularly focusing on enhancing affordability and accessibility within the United States. The review encompasses various facets of insulin management, including dosage calculation and response, prediction of blood glucose and insulin sensitivity, initial insulin estimation, resistance prediction, treatment adherence, complications, hypoglycemia prediction, and lifestyle modifications. Additionally, the study identifies key limitations in the utilization of ML within the insulin management literature and suggests future research directions aimed at furthering accessible and affordable insulin treatments. These proposed directions include exploring insurance coverage, optimizing insulin type selection, assessing the impact of biosimilar insulin and market competition, considering mental health factors, evaluating insulin delivery options, addressing cost-related issues affecting insulin usage and adherence, and selecting appropriate patient cost-sharing programs. By examining the potential of ML in addressing insulin management affordability and accessibility, this work aims to envision improved and cost-effective insulin management practices. It not only highlights existing research gaps but also offers insights into future directions, guiding the development of innovative solutions that have the potential to revolutionize insulin management and benefit patients reliant on this life-saving treatment.

Cost-Effectiveness of Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies for the American College of Physicians.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, costs of antidiabetes medications exceed $327 billion. PURPOSE: To systematically review cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of newer antidiabetes medications for type 2 diabetes. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases from 1 January 2010 through 13 July 2023, limited to English. STUDY SELECTION: Nonindustry-funded CEAs, done from a U.S. perspective that estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for newer antidiabetic medications. Two reviewers screened the literature; disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. DATA EXTRACTION: Cost-effectiveness analyses were reviewed for treatment comparisons, model inputs, and outcomes. Risk of bias (RoB) of the CEAs was assessed using Drummond criteria and certainty of evidence (CoE) was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations). Certainty of evidence was determined using cost per QALY thresholds predetermined by the American College of Physicians Clinical Guidelines Committee; low (>$150 000), intermediate ($50 to $150 000), or high (<$50 000) value per QALY compared with the alternative. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine CEAs were eligible (2 low, 1 high, and 6 some concerns RoB), evaluating glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists (GLP1a), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide agonist (GIP/GLP1a), and insulin. Comparators were metformin, sulfonylureas, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin, and others. Compared with metformin, GLP1a and SGLT2i are low value as first-line therapy (high CoE) but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or background therapy compared with adding nothing (low CoE). Insulin analogues may be similarly effective but more expensive than NPH insulin (low CoE). The GIP/GLP1a value is uncertain (insufficient CoE). LIMITATIONS: Cost-effectiveness analyses varied in methodological approach, assumptions, and drug comparisons. Risk of bias and GRADE method for CEAs are not well established. CONCLUSION: Glucagon-like peptide-1 agonists and SGLT2i are of low value as first-line therapy but may be of intermediate value when added to metformin or other background therapy compared with adding nothing. Other drugs and comparisons are of low or uncertain value. Results are sensitive to drug effectiveness and cost assumptions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians. (PROSPERO: CRD42022382315).

A short-term economic evaluation of early insulin therapy compared to oral anti-diabetic drugs in order to reduce the major adverse events in type 2 diabetes patients in Iran.

OBJECTIVE: While there are some recommendations about early insulin therapy in newly diagnosed Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients, there is not sufficient evidence on this strategy's cost-effectiveness. This study compared early insulin therapy versus oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs) for managing T2DMusing a cost-effectiveness analysis approach in Iran. METHODS: In this economic evaluation, a decision analytic model was designed. The target population was newly diagnosed type 2 diabetic patients, and the study was carried out from the perspective of Iran's healthcare system with a one-year time horizon. Basal insulin, Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and Thiazolidinediones (TZDs) were compared in this evaluation. The main outcome for assessing the effectiveness of each intervention was the reduction in the occurrence of diabetes complications. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The DPP-4 inhibitors strategy was the dominant strategy with the highest effectiveness and the lowest cost. Early insulin therapy was dominated (ICER: $-53,703.18), meaning that it was not cost-effective. The sensitivity analyses consistently affirmed the robustness of the base case findings. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated probabilities of 77%, 22%, and 1% for DPP-4 inhibitors, TZDs strategies, and early insulin therapy, respectively, in terms of being cost-effective. CONCLUSION: In terms of cost-effectiveness, early insulin therapy was not cost-effective compared to OADs for managing newly diagnosed T2DM patients. Future studies in this regard, utilizing more comprehensive evidence, can yield more accurate results.

The impact of a statewide insulin copay cap policy for insured patients with diabetes in Utah.

BACKGROUND: Insulin affordability is a huge concern for patients with diabetes in the United States. On March 30, 2020, Utah signed House Bill 207 into law, aimed at capping copayments for insulin at $30 for a 30-day supply. The bill was enacted on January 1, 2021. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient basal insulin adherence, out-of-pocket costs, health plan costs, total costs on insulin, and hemoglobin A1c (A1c) in prepolicy vs postpolicy periods. METHODS: This study is a retrospective analysis using data from a regional health plan in Utah from October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria were fully enrolled members of all ages, under commercial insurance, with at least 1 fill for any type of insulin in both the preperiod and the postperiod. Adherence was measured by proportion of days covered (PDC). Paired t-tests and Wilcoxon sign rank tests were conducted to compare the health and economic outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 24,150 commercially insured individuals, a total of 244 patients were included. Across all 244 patients, there was a significant decline in monthly median out-of-pocket costs of insulin by 58.5% (P < 0.001), whereas the monthly median health plan costs of insulin increased by 22.0% (P < 0.001). The total monthly costs of insulin (the sum of out-of-pocket and health plan costs) were unchanged (P = 0.115). Only 74 patients with enough basal insulin fills in both periods were included in the analysis for PDC changes. PDC change was not statistically significant (P = 0.43). Among the 74 patients with PDC calculations, 29 patients had A1c recorded in both periods. The change in A1c was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: An insulin copayment max of $30 in Utah demonstrated lower patient out-of-pocket costs, subsidized by the health plan. PDC did not change, and HbA1c did not improve. An assessment of a longer period and on a larger population is needed.

Cost-effectiveness of a Novel Hypoglycaemia Programme: The 'HARPdoc vs BGAT' RCT.

AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of HARPdoc (Hypoglycaemia Awareness Restoration Programme for adults with type 1 diabetes and problematic hypoglycaemia despite optimised care), focussed upon cognitions and motivation, versus BGAT (Blood Glucose Awareness Training), focussed on behaviours and education, as adjunctive treatments for treatment-resistant problematic hypoglycaemia in type 1 diabetes, in a randomised controlled trial. METHODS: Eligible adults were randomised to either intervention. Quality of life (QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L); cost of utilisation of health services (using the adult services utilization schedule, AD-SUS) and of programme implementation and curriculum delivery were measured. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as a measure of trial participant outcome and cost-effectiveness was evaluated with reference to the incremental net benefit (INB) of HARPdoc compared to BGAT. RESULTS: Over 24 months mean total cost per participant was £194 lower for HARPdoc compared to BGAT (95% CI: -£2498 to £1942). HARPdoc was associated with a mean incremental gain of 0.067 QALYs/participant over 24 months post-randomisation: an equivalent gain of 24 days in full health. The mean INB of HARPdoc compared to BGAT over 24 months was positive: £1521/participant, indicating comparative cost-effectiveness, with an 85% probability of correctly inferring an INB > 0. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing health cognitions in people with treatment-resistant hypoglycaemia achieved cost-effectiveness compared to an alternative approach through improved QoL and reduced need for medical services, including hospital admissions. Compared to BGAT, HARPdoc offers a cost-effective adjunct to educational and technological solutions for problematic hypoglycaemia.

The Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of a Fixed-Ratio Combination of Insulin Degludec and Aspart: A Cost of Control Analysis in Australia and India.

OBJECTIVES: The real-world ARISE study demonstrated initiation of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec and aspart (IDegAsp) led to improvements in people achieving key glycemic control targets compared with prior therapies in Australia and India. This study evaluated the short-term cost-effectiveness of IDegAsp in these countries, in terms of the cost per patient achieving these targets. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate the cost of control (treatment costs divided by the proportion of patients achieving each target) of IDegAsp versus prior therapies received in ARISE for 2 endpoints: glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) <7.0%, and HbA1c less than a predefined individual treatment target. Costs, expressed from a healthcare payer perspective, were captured in 2022 Australian dollars (AUD) and 2022 Indian rupees (INR). RESULTS: The number of patients needed to treat to bring one to endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target with IDegAsp was 51% and 87% lower, respectively, than with prior therapies in Australia, and 52% and 66% lower, respectively, versus prior therapies in India. Cost of control was AUD 2449 higher and AUD 64 863 lower with IDegAsp versus prior therapies for endpoints of HbA1c <7.0% and less than an individualized target, respectively, in Australia and INR 211 142 and INR 537 490 lower with IDegAsp compared with prior therapies in India. CONCLUSIONS: IDegAsp was estimated to be cost-effective versus prior therapies when considering an individualized HbA1c target in Australia, and when considering an individualized HbA1c target and HbA1c <7.0% in India.