Biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 vs. insulin glargine in insulin naïve type 2 diabetes patients: modelling the long-term health economic implications in a Swedish setting.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term clinical and economic outcomes of biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 (BIAsp 70/30) treatment vs. insulin glargine in insulin naïve, type 2 diabetes patients failing oral antidiabetic drugs in a Swedish setting. METHODS: A published and validated computer simulation model (the CORE Diabetes Model) was used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and costs over patient lifetimes. Cohort characteristics [54.5% male, mean age 52.4 years, 9 years mean diabetes duration, mean glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 9.77%] and treatment effects were based on results from the Initiate Insulin by Aggressive Titration and Education (INITIATE) clinical trial. Direct medical costs were accounted in 2006 Swedish Kronor (SEK) and economic and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 treatment when compared with insulin glargine treatment was associated with improvements in discounted life expectancy of 0.21 years (13.10 vs. 12.89 years) and QALE of 0.21 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (9.16 vs. 8.96 QALYs). Reductions in the incidence of diabetes-related complications in the BIAsp 70/30 treatment arm led to reduced total costs of SEK 10,367 when compared with insulin glargine (SEK 396,475 vs. SEK 406,842) over patient lifetimes. BIAsp 70/30 treatment was projected to be dominant (cost and lifesaving) when compared with insulin glargine in the base case analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Biphasic insulin aspart 70/30 treatment was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced costs compared with insulin glargine treatment over patient lifetimes. These results were driven by improved HbA1c levels associated with BIAsp 70/30 compared with insulin glargine and the accompanying reduction in diabetes-related complications despite increases in body mass index.

PROactive 06: cost-effectiveness of pioglitazone in Type 2 diabetes in the UK.

AIMS: To determine the cost-effectiveness of adding pioglitazone to existing treatment regimens in patients with Type 2 diabetes with a history of macrovascular disease who are at high risk of further cardiovascular events. METHODS: We conducted two analyses. A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) based on data from the PROspective pioglitAzone Clinical Trial In macroVascular Events (PROactive) Study was performed to estimate the impact of additional pioglitazone treatment on life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) and macrovascular events. PROactive data was then used as a basis for a lifetime modelling analysis using a modified version of the validated CORE diabetes model that simulated the same outcomes over a 35-year time horizon. We accounted for direct medical costs from a health-care payer perspective and related these to the clinical outcomes from the study. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5% per annum and extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to account for uncertainty in input parameters. RESULTS: (i) Within-trial CEA: compared with placebo, pioglitazone was associated with improved life expectancy (undiscounted 0.0109 years), increased QALE [0.0190 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] and slightly higher costs ( pounds 102 per patient). After a mean treatment period of 3 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of pioglitazone vs. placebo was pounds 5396 per QALY gained. The ICERs were relatively insensitive to cost and utility values and were most sensitive to event rates in the pioglitazone arm. (ii) Long-term CEA: pioglitazone was associated with improvements in clinical outcomes based on model projections beyond the PROactive Study. Patients treated with pioglitazone could expect improved life expectancy (undiscounted 0.406 years), increased QALE (0.152 QALYs) and higher costs of care ( pounds 619 per patient) compared with those on existing treatment alone. The base case analysis indicated that the ICER of pioglitazone vs. placebo was pounds 4060 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed there was an 84.3% likelihood that pioglitazone would be considered cost-effective in the UK using a willingness-to-pay threshold of pounds 30 000 per QALY gained. These long-term results were most sensitive to variation in the time horizon, the duration of cardiovascular benefit of pioglitazone, and changes in mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of pioglitazone to existing therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes at high risk of further cardiovascular events is cost-effective and represents good value for money by currently accepted standards in the UK.