Healthcare costs and adherence associated with human regular U-500 versus high-dose U-100 insulin in patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the characteristics, costs, and adherence of patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) compared with those of patients receiving high-dose (≥150 units/day) U-100 insulin. METHODS: Data from Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, July 1, 2008, through December 31, 2010, were used. The U-100 cohort received ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin for ≥31 days during the first 60 days after the index date. The U-500R cohort received ≥2 prescriptions of U-500R after the index date. Analyses were performed on propensity-matched cohorts. The changes in annualized costs were compared between the 2 cohorts using paired t tests. Adherence was assessed by the proportion of days covered (PDC) and compared using a 2-sample t test. Glycemic efficacy data were not available in this database. RESULTS: There were 1,044 U-500R-treated patients (19.1% with type 1 diabetes [T1D]) and 11,520 U-100-treated patients (23.8% with T1D) identified, from which 1,039 matched pairs were obtained. The mean decrease of $1,290 in annual pharmacy costs for the U-500R cohort was significantly different from the mean increase of $2,586 for the U-100 cohort (P<.001; 95% confidence interval, -$4,345 to -$3,422). More U-500R patients experienced hypoglycemia (17.3% vs. 11.8%; P<.001), but the hypoglycemia rate per person and related costs were not significantly different between cohorts. Finally, the mean 12-month PDC was 65.0% for U-500R versus 47.6% for U-100 patients (P<.0001). CONCLUSION: Compared with treatment with ≥150 units/day of U-100 insulin, treatment with U-500R was associated with decreases in pharmacy costs, a higher percentage of patients experiencing hypoglycemia, and greater treatment adherence.

Cost, healthcare resource utilization, and adherence of individuals with diabetes using U-500 or U-100 insulin: a retrospective database analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To describe costs, healthcare resource utilization, and adherence of US patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), compared to patients receiving high-dose (>200 units/day) U-100 insulins (U-100) by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases (7/1/2008 to 12/31/2010). Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted on cost (medical, pharmacy, and overall costs) and on healthcare resource utilization variables (overall, diabetes-related, and non-diabetes-related medical visits). Adherence rates to the index insulins were assessed by proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Seven hundred and eleven (19%) patients in the U-500R cohort and 1508 (6%) patients in the U-100 cohort met selection criteria. Propensity score matching resulted in 684 matched pairs. Mean change in annualized pharmacy costs was in favor of the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (-$1258 vs $3345, a difference of -$4603, p < 0.0001). Mean overall cost increase in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort was also lower ($1999 vs $9104, a difference of -$7105, p = 0.005). The proportion of patients with at least one coded hypoglycemic event during the 12-month post-index period was higher in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (17.1% vs 11.7%, p < 0.005), but neither hypoglycemia rate (2.73 vs 2.90 events per person) nor hypoglycemia-specific costs (mean $1669 vs $1543) were significantly different. No significant differences were noted between cohorts for change (post-pre) in any resource utilization category. PDC was greater in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (65.2% vs 39.5%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Claims data are not as accurate as empirical evaluation by a clinician. Glycemic control data were not available for this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring high-dose insulin, treatment with U-500R vs high-dose U-100 insulins is associated with significant decreases in pharmacy and overall costs, slightly higher hypoglycemia incidence, no difference in hypoglycemia-specific costs or in resource utilization, and better adherence.