Cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin for type 1 diabetes: A population-based cohort followed over 10 years.

AIMS: This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: Individual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £). RESULTS: The NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.

Using 2nd generation basal insulins in type 2 diabetes: Costs and savings in a comparative economic analysis in Italy, based on the BRIGHT study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To evaluate the economic impact of using 2nd generation basal insulin analogs, Glargine 300 Units/ml (Gla-300) vs Degludec 100 Units/ml (IDeg-100), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS AND RESULTS: An economic analysis was conducted using findings from the BRIGHT study (the first controlled, head-to-head study comparing Gla-300 vs IDeg-100), and costs for the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS). A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA) were conducted. Only pharmacological costs were included in the analysis. The CMA estimated patient treatment costs at 24 weeks and 1 year; the BIA assessed the economic impact of treating the overall Italian population of T2D insulin-naïve patients, who initiated insulin treatment during the period September 2017-August 2018 (N = 55 318). In the BIA, four different scenarios were compared: i) all patients receive IDeg-100 (Scenario A); ii) 61% of patients receive Gla-300, 39% IDeg-100 (Scenario B); iii) 80% of patients receive Gla-300, 20% IDeg-100 (Scenario C); iv) all patients treated with Gla-300 (Scenario D). The average treatment costs per patient were lower with Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 (at 24 weeks: €129 vs €161; at 1 year: €324 vs €409, respectively). Results of the BIA showed that comparing Scenario D vs Scenario A, total savings would amount to €1.76 million at 24 weeks, €4.73 million at 1 year, €5.53 million at 2 years. CONCLUSION: A larger use of Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 for the treatment of T2D patients would lead to a relevant reduction of therapy costs in Italy.

Evaluating the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) for type 2 diabetes in Spain based on real-world clinical evidence.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus comparator regimens for type 2 diabetes in Spain, based on real-world evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data were taken from the European Xultophy Treatment Retrospective Audit (EXTRA) real-world evidence study in which patients failing to meet glycaemic targets were switched to IDegLira. Baseline regimens (prior to IDegLira treatment) were categorized as: multiple daily insulin injections (MDI; 28%); glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in combination with insulin (24%); basal insulin (19%); GLP-1 receptor agonists (10%); and non-injectable medications (19%). The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to project long-term outcomes for patients switching to IDegLira or continuing their baseline regimens (excluding non-injectable regimens). Costs were accounted from a Spanish National Health System perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% annually and sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was projected to reduce the incidence of diabetes-related complications and improve quality-adjusted life expectancy versus all four comparators. IDegLira reduced direct medical costs versus GLP-1 receptor agonists in combination with insulin, and versus GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy, and was therefore considered dominant (cost saving while improving outcomes). IDegLira was found to be cost-effective versus MDI and basal insulin with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of EUR 3013 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained and EUR 6890 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term projections based on real-world evidence indicated that IDegLira is likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs or be cost-effective compared with other injectable regimens in people with type 2 diabetes in Spain.

Short-term cost-utility of degludec versus glargine U100 for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular events: A Canadian setting (DEVOTE 9).

AIMS: To evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to estimate costs (2017 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and clinical outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) with degludec vs glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon. The model captured first major adverse cardiovascular event, death, severe hypoglycaemia and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by a post hoc subgroup analysis of the DEVOTE trial (NCT01959529), which compared the cardiovascular safety of degludec and glargine U100 in patients with T2D who are at high cardiovascular risk. High hypoglycaemia risk was defined as the top quartile of patients (n = 1887) based on an index of baseline hypoglycaemia risk factors. RESULTS: In patients at high hypoglycaemia risk, degludec was associated with mean cost savings (CAD 129 per patient) relative to glargine U100, driven by a lower incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and severe hypoglycaemia, which offset the slightly higher cost of treatment with degludec. A reduced risk of cardiovascular death and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+0.0132 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U100. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes. CONCLUSION: Over a 2-year period, degludec improved clinical outcomes at a lower cost as compared to glargine U100 in patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria.

BACKGROUND: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria. METHODS: A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. RESULTS: In Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DMB/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DMBOT and 91.3% in T2DMB/B. CONCLUSION: Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

The management of type 2 diabetes with fixed-ratio combination insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal-bolus therapy (insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart): A short-term cost-effectiveness analysis in the UK setting.

AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK. METHODS: A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

Ideglira is Associated With Improved Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Cost Savings Compared with Insulin Glargine U100 Plus Insulin Aspart in the U.S.

OBJECTIVE: In the DUAL (Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes) VII trial, IDegLira (a combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide) was compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. Both treatment approaches achieved similar glycemic control, but there were differences in hypoglycemia, changes in body weight, and injection frequency. The aim of the present analysis was to assess the short-term cost effectiveness of IDegLira versus insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus not meeting glycemic targets on basal insulin in the U.S. METHODS: A cost-utility model was developed to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes associated with the 2 treatments over a 1-year time horizon, capturing the impact on quality of life of hypoglycemic events, body mass index, and injection frequency. Costs were captured from a healthcare payer perspective in 2017 U.S. dollars ($). RESULTS: IDegLira was associated with improved quality of life by 0.12 quality-adjusted life years compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart. The key drivers of this difference were reduced injection frequency and hypoglycemic events avoided. IDegLira was associated with increased annual drug costs, but this was entirely offset by reduced needle costs and reduced costs of self-monitoring of blood glucose testing. IDegLira was associated with total annual cost savings of $743 per patient. CONCLUSION: IDegLira was found to improve quality-adjusted life expectancy and reduce costs when compared with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes not achieving glycemic control on basal insulin in the U.S. ABBREVIATIONS: ADA = American Diabetes Association; BMI = body mass index; CI = confidence interval; DUAL = Dual Action of Liraglutide and Insulin Degludec in Type 2 Diabetes; GLP-1 = glucagon-like peptide-1; HbA1c = glycated hemoglobin; ICER = incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IU = international units; QALY = quality-adjusted life year; SMBG = self-monitoring of blood glucose.

[Effectiveness of one-year insulin glargine and insulin glulisine basal-bolus treatment in people with type 2 diabetes. An analysis from drug reimbursement perspective]. / A glargin és glulizin inzulinnal folytatott bázis-bolus kezelési rendszer egyéves eredményessége 2-es típusú cukorbetegségben. Elemzés a gyógyszerár-támogatás tükrében.

INTRODUCTION: Being entitled for no patient co-payment, the Hungarian reimbursement condition of analogue insulins as part of basal-bolus treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) requires that two HbA1c levels should achieve <8.0% target value within 12 months (measured two months apart) after switching from treatment with human insulins. Achieving this target, the treatment should be considered effective from drug reimbursement perspective. AIM: The aims of the study were to investigate the effectiveness of insulin glargine + insulin glulisine basal-bolus regimen from the payer's perspective and to investigate the ability to maintain the achieved glycaemic control in previously uncontrolled T2DM patients (HbA1c >9.0%). METHOD: This one-year, non-interventional study included patients with T2DM inadequately controlled (HbA1c >9.0%) on previous human basal-bolus treatment. The main outcomes were the proportion of patients who achieved the adequate glycaemic control (defined by the reimbursement rules) and the proportion of patients who achieved reimbursement rules defined HbA1c <8.0% target value by the 6 months after switch and could maintain this glycaemic control for upcoming further 6 months. As safety outcome, the hypoglycaemic events were recorded. RESULTS: Out of the 557 patients enrolled, 287 had available data to be included in the efficacy analysis. Out of the 287 efficacy analysis patients, 169 (58.9%) achieved the reimbursement rules defined glycaemic control. At 6 months, 167 patients had HbA1c value <8.0% and 152 (91.0%) remained in this target range until the end of the 12-month observational period. Overall, 1221 non-severe and 6 severe hypoglycaemic events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients with T2DM who were newly switched to insulin glargine + glulisine basal-bolus treatment could achieve the reimbursement rule criteria requiring for prescription of the analogue insulins with no co-payment beyond 1 year of treatment in Hungary. However, the results revealed that glycaemic control assessment with HbA1c measurements had not met the reimbursement requirements in a significant part of patients. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(50): 2122-2128.

Severe hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin-treated diabetes: impact on healthcare resources.

AIMS: To assess resource utilization associated with severe hypoglycaemia across three insulin regimens in a large phase 3a clinical programme involving people with Type 1 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin, people with Type 2 diabetes treated with multiple daily injections and people with Type 2 diabetes treated with basal-oral therapy. METHODS: Data relating to severe hypoglycaemia events (defined as episodes requiring external assistance) from the insulin degludec and insulin degludec/insulin aspart programme (15 trials) were analysed using descriptive statistics. Comparators included insulin glargine, biphasic insulin aspart, insulin detemir and sitagliptin. Mealtime insulin aspart was used in some regimens. This analysis used the serious adverse events records, which documented the use of ambulance/emergency teams, a hospital/emergency room visit ≤ 24 h, or a hospital visit > 24 h. RESULTS: In total, 536 severe hypoglycaemia events were analysed, of which 157 (29.3%) involved an ambulance/emergency team, 64 (11.9%) led to hospital/emergency room attendance of ≤ 24 h and 36 (6.7%) required hospital admission (> 24 h). Although there were fewer events in people with Type 2 diabetes compared with Type 1 diabetes, once a severe episode occurred, the tendency to utilize healthcare resources was higher in Type 2 diabetes vs. Type 1 diabetes. A higher proportion (47.6%) in the basal-oral therapy group required hospital treatment for > 24 h versus the Type 1 diabetes (5.0%) and Type 2 diabetes multiple daily injections (5.3%) groups. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that severe hypoglycaemia events often result in emergency/ambulance calls and hospital treatment, incurring a substantial health economic burden, and were associated with all insulin regimens.

[POET2 registry: Comparison of annual direct medical costs of treating type 2 diabetes after addition of insulin NPH or insulin glargine to oral antidiabetic therapy in the Czech Republic]. / Registr POET2: srovnání prímých rocních zdravotnických nákladu na lécbu diabetu 2. typu po zahájení lécby inzulinem NPH nebo inzulinem glargin v kombinaci s perorálními antidiabetiky v Ceské republice.

INTRODUCTION: Poor glycemic control and the resulting development of complications of type 2 diabetes (DM2T) increase treatment costs. If adequate glycemic control cannot be achieved by lifestyle modifications and oral antidiabetic (OAD) therapy, initiation of insulin therapy is recommended. Cost effectiveness of basal insulins of the type NPH or glargine in combination with OAD for the treatment of DM2T was examined in a number of pharmacoeconomic studies. However, none of these studies were conducted in the Czech Republic. Therefore, the aim of the project POET2 was to compare annual direct medical costs of treating DM2T after addition of insulin NPH or glargine to OAD therapy in a clinical practice setting in the Czech Republic. METHODOLOGY: Data collected from 1967 patients who met the criteria for inclusion into the non-interventional prospective registry POET2 (DM2T, ongoing OAD therapy, glycated hemoglobin HbA1c > 6 % IFCC) and who were observed for 12 months following the start of insulin therapy (glargine: n = 1061 vs NPH: n = 906) were analysed. Costs of treatment were analysed from the perspective of health insurance companies and included costs of medication, medical devices and medical procedures. RESULTS: In both treatment groups a reduction of HbA1c (glargine group: by 1.77 % IFCC vs NPH group: by 1.73 % IFCC) and fasting plasma glucose (glargine group: by 3.67 mmol/l vs NPH group: by 3.63 mmol/l) was observed. Insulin glargine therapy was associated with the incidence of a significantly lower number of documented symptomatic hypoglycemic events (glargine group: 0.840 events per patient and year of treatment vs. NPH group: 1.053 events per patient and year of treatment; p < 0.05). Overall annual direct medical costs associated with the initiation of basal insulin treatment were higher on average by 2547.07 CZK among patients treated with insulin glargine (glargine group: 12173.09 ± 4169.44 CZK vs NPH group: 9626.02 ± 3432.79 CZK; p < 0.001) due to higher costs of medication (glargine group: 7992.97 ± 4001.81 CZK vs NPH group: 3784.2 ± 3181.48 CZK; p < 0.001). By contrast, costs of medical devices (glargine group: 2332.08 ± 917.84 CZK vs NPH group: 3893.95 ± 989.79 CZK; p < 0.001) and medical procedures (glargine group: 1848.04 ± 684.89 CZK vs NPH group: 1947.87 ± 685.43 CZK; p < 0.001) were lower among patients treated with insulin glargine. CONCLUSION: Addition of basal insulin to OAD therapy was an efficacious therapeutic intervention for the treatment of DM2T in a clinical practice setting in the Czech Republic. Overall annual direct medical costs were higher among patients treated with insulin glargine than among patients treated with insulin NPH. However, costs of medical devices and medical procedures were lower in the insulin glargine group. In addition, incidence of hypoglycemia was significantly lower among patients treated with insulin glargine.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin - from the UK health care cost perspective.

AIMS: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are considered appropriate for treatment with a basal insulin analogue, using a short-term economic model. METHODS: Meta-analysis data from three phase III clinical studies were used to populate a simple and transparent short-term model. The costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar were calculated over a 12-month period. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the degree of uncertainty surrounding the results. RESULTS: IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option versus IGlar in patients with T2DM using basal insulin. Base case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated at £15,795 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and £13,078 per QALY, which are below commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that hypoglycaemia event rates had an important effect on the results. With higher event rates for non-severe hypoglycaemia IDeg was less costly and more effective than IGlar (dominant). Conversely, using lower event rates for severe hypoglycaemia generated higher ICERs. Using hypoglycaemia rates from a subgroup of patients who experienced ≥1 hypoglycaemic event per year IDeg was highly cost-effective versus IGlar; with estimated ICERS of £4887 and £2625 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term modelling approach allows the economic evaluation of newer insulin analogues when advanced long-term modelling based on HbA1c differences is inappropriate. For patients with T2DM who are considered appropriate for treatment with a basal insulin analogue, IDeg is a cost-effective treatment option compared with IGlar and offers additional benefits to subgroups of patients, such as those suffering from recurrent 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.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin detemir or NPH insulin in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands.

AIMS: To estimate short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin based on the incidence of mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. METHODS: A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on mild (self-treated) hypoglycaemia and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of mild hypoglycaemia were used for NPH insulin and insulin detemir. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy. Pharmacy costs were accounted using published prices and defined daily doses for both insulins. Costs were expressed in 2010 euros (€). RESULTS: Treatment with insulin detemir was associated with fewer mild hypoglycaemic events than NPH insulin (mean rates of 26.3 vs. 35.5 events per person-year), leading to an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of approximately 0.019 (0.030) quality-adjusted life years (standard deviation). Annual costs were € 573.55 (110.42) vs. € 332.76 (62.18) in Denmark for insulin detemir and NPH insulin, respectively. These values were € 545.79 (106.54) vs. € 306.12 (57.78) in Sweden, € 720.10 (140.74) vs. € 408.73 (78.61) in Finland and € 584.01 (109.47) vs. € 359.60 (64.84) in the Netherlands. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were approximately € 12,644 (Denmark), € 12,612 (Sweden), € 16,568 (Finland) and € 12,216 (the Netherlands) per quality-adjusted life year gained for insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin detemir is likely to be cost-effective vs. NPH insulin in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Increased pharmacy costs with insulin detemir should not be a barrier to therapy based on these findings.

Cost-effectiveness of switching patients with type 2 diabetes from insulin glargine to insulin detemir in Chinese setting: a health economic model based on the PREDICTIVE study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from insulin glargine (IGla) to insulin detemir (IDet) in patients with type 2 diabetes in the setting of Chinese secondary and tertiary hospitals. METHODS: A published and validated computer simulation model of diabetes (the Center for Outcomes Research model) was used to make the long-term (30 years) projection of health economic outcomes. Patient demographic information and clinical end points were derived from a subgroup analysis of the Predictable Results and Experience in Diabetes through Intensification and Control to Target: an International Variability Evaluation (PREDICTIVE) study. Baseline risk factors and racial characteristic data were obtained from Chinese cohort studies. The diabetes management and complications costs were obtained from Chinese published data and adjusted to 2010 values by using the Chinese consumer price index. An annual discounting rate of 3% was used for both health and cost outcomes, and one-way sensitivities analysis was performed, which illustrated that the results were robust. RESULTS: Conversion to IDet from IGla was projected to improve patient life expectancy by 0.06 year and 0.48 quality-adjusted life-years. Drug costs and management costs of diabetes mellitus were increased by US$368 (US$17,466 vs. US$17,097) and US$31 (US$5464 vs. US$5433), respectively. However, the costs of complications, including cerebrovascular disease, renal complications, ulcer/amputation/neuropathy, eye complications, and hypoglycemia events, were reduced by US$819 (US$21,294 vs. US$22,114), resulting in a total direct medical cost saving of US$420 when converting to IDet. CONCLUSIONS: Conversion to IDet from an IGla regimen improved life expectancy and was a cost-saving treatment approach in a Chinese setting.

Insulin management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Insulin therapy is recommended for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and an initial A1C level greater than 9 percent, or if diabetes is uncontrolled despite optimal oral glycemic therapy. Insulin therapy may be initiated as augmentation, starting at 0.3 unit per kg, or as replacement, starting at 0.6 to 1.0 unit per kg. When using replacement therapy, 50 percent of the total daily insulin dose is given as basal, and 50 percent as bolus, divided up before breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Augmentation therapy can include basal or bolus insulin. Replacement therapy includes basal-bolus insulin and correction or premixed insulin. Glucose control, adverse effects, cost, adherence, and quality of life need to be considered when choosing therapy. Metformin should be continued if possible because it is proven to reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in overweight patients with diabetes. In a study comparing premixed, bolus, and basal insulin, hypoglycemia was more common with premixed and bolus insulin, and weight gain was more common with bolus insulin. Titration of insulin over time is critical to improving glycemic control and preventing diabetes-related complications.

Utilisation Trend of Long-Acting Insulin Analogues including Biosimilars across Europe: Findings and Implications.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus rates and associated costs continue to rise across Europe enhancing health authority focus on its management. The risk of complications is enhanced by poor glycaemic control, with long-acting insulin analogues developed to reduce hypoglycaemia and improve patient convenience. There are concerns though with their considerably higher costs, but moderated by reductions in complications and associated costs. Biosimilars can help further reduce costs. However, to date, price reductions for biosimilar insulin glargine appear limited. In addition, the originator company has switched promotional efforts to more concentrated patented formulations to reduce the impact of biosimilars. There are also concerns with different devices between the manufacturers. As a result, there is a need to assess current utilisation rates for insulins, especially long-acting insulin analogues and biosimilars, and the rationale for patterns seen, among multiple European countries to provide future direction. Methodology. Health authority databases are examined to assess utilisation and expenditure patterns for insulins, including biosimilar insulin glargine. Explanations for patterns seen were provided by senior-level personnel. RESULTS: Typically increasing use of long-acting insulin analogues across Europe including both Western and Central and Eastern European countries reflects perceived patient benefits despite higher prices. However, activities by the originator company to switch patients to more concentrated insulin glargine coupled with lowering prices towards biosimilars have limited biosimilar uptake, with biosimilars not currently launched in a minority of European countries. A number of activities were identified to address this. Enhancing the attractiveness of the biosimilar insulin market is essential to encourage other biosimilar manufacturers to enter the market as more long-acting insulin analogues lose their patents to benefit all key stakeholder groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are concerns with the availability and use of insulin glargine biosimilars among European countries despite lower costs. This can be addressed.

Ongoing efforts to improve the management of patients with diabetes in Bangladesh and the implications.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence rates of patients with diabetes are growing across countries, and Bangladesh is no exception. Associated costs are also increasing, driven by costs associated with the complications of diabetes including hypoglycemia. Long-acting insulin analogues were developed to reduce hypoglycemia as well as improve patient comfort and adherence. However, they have been appreciably more expensive, reducing their affordability and use. Biosimilars offer a way forward. Consequently, there is a need to document current prescribing and dispensing rates for long-acting insulin analogues across Bangladesh, including current prices and differences, as a result of affordability and other issues. METHODS: Mixed method approach including surveying prescribing practices in hospitals coupled with dispensing practices and prices among community pharmacies and drug stores across Bangladesh. This method was adopted since public hospitals only dispense insulins such as soluble insulins free-of-charge until funds run out and all long-acting insulin analogues have to be purchased from community stores. RESULTS: There has been growing prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulins in Bangladesh in recent years, now accounting for over 80% of all insulins dispensed in a minority of stores. This increase has been helped by growing prescribing and dispensing of biosimilar insulin glargine at lower costs than the originator, with this trend likely to continue with envisaged growth in the number of patients. Consequently, Bangladesh can serve as an exemplar to other low- and middle-income countries struggling to fund long-acting insulin analogues for their patients. CONCLUSIONS: It was encouraging to see continued growth in the prescribing and dispensing of long-acting insulin analogues in Bangladesh via the increasing availability of biosimilars. This is likely to continue benefitting all key stakeholder groups.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec 200 units/mL (degludec) versus insulin glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) from a Dutch societal perspective. METHODS: A previously published model estimated costs [2018 euros (EUR)] and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec compared with glargine U300 over a 1-year time horizon. The model captured hypoglycaemia rates and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by CONCLUDE (NCT03078478), a head-to-head randomised controlled trial in insulin-experienced patients with type 2 diabetes. RESULTS: Treatment with degludec was associated with mean annual cost savings (EUR 24.71 per patient) relative to glargine U300, driven by a lower basal insulin dose and lower severe hypoglycaemia rate with degludec compared with glargine U300. Lower rates of non-severe nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+ 0.0045 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U300. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This short-term analysis, informed by the latest clinical trial evidence, demonstrated that degludec was a cost-effective treatment option relative to glargine U300. As such, our modelling analysis suggests that degludec would represent an efficient use of Dutch public healthcare resources in this patient population.

Evaluation of the Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of IDegLira Versus Basal Insulin and Basal-Bolus Therapy in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Based on Attainment of Clinically Relevant Treatment Targets.

BACKGROUND: Effective glycemic control can reduce the risk of complications and their related costs in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Many patients fail to reach hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≤ 6.5% or < 7.0%, often due to adverse effects of treatment, such as hypoglycemia and weight gain. Glycemic targets should be individualized and consider multiple factors, including the risk of adverse events and the patient's characteristics and comorbid conditions. OBJECTIVE: To compare the odds and annual cost of achieving treatment targets, which incorporate HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%, with insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus basal insulin and basal-bolus therapy. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DUAL V and DUAL VII 26-week trials, which randomized patients with T2D uncontrolled (HbA1c 7%-10%) on insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) and metformin to IDegLira or continued IGlar U100 titration (DUAL V) or IGlar U100 + insulin aspart (DUAL VII), all with metformin. Proportions of patients achieving HbA1c targets (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) by the end of trial were assessed via 3 outcomes: alone, without either hypoglycemia or weight gain (double composite outcome), or without a combination of hypoglycemia and weight gain (triple composite outcome). The cost per patient achieving the triple composite outcome at each HbA1c target (< 7.5%, < 8.0%, and ≤ 9.0%) was calculated by dividing the annual cost of treatment by the proportion of patients achieving the target. This short-term (1-year) cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer. RESULTS: More patients achieved HbA1c < 7.5% (P < 0.0001) and < 8.0% (P = 0.0003), and a similar percentage achieved HbA1c ≤ 9.0% with IDegLira versus IGlar U100 (DUAL V). Similar proportions of patients achieved all 3 HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with basal-bolus therapy (DUAL VII). The odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes were significantly higher for IDegLira versus IGlar U100 or basal-bolus for all 3 HbA1c targets (P < 0.0001 in each case) in both trials. For each $1 spent on IDegLira, the equivalent annual costs per patient to achieve HbA1c targets of < 7.5%, < 8.0%, or ≤ 9.0% without hypoglycemia and without weight gain were $2.43, $2.10, and $2.05, respectively, for IGlar U100 and $6.33, $5.80, and $6.06, respectively, for basal-bolus therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from DUAL V and DUAL VII, this analysis showed that a greater or similar proportion of patients with T2D reached HbA1c targets with IDegLira compared with IGlar U100/basal-bolus therapy. Odds of achieving double or triple composite outcomes of HbA1c reduction without hypoglycemia and/or without weight gain were greatest for IDegLira. Short-term cost analyses based on the triple composite outcomes suggest that IDegLira is a cost-effective treatment option in the United States compared with either uptitration of IGlar U100 or basal-bolus therapy. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by Novo Nordisk A/S. The analysis was based on the DUAL V (NCT01952145) and DUAL VII (NCT02420262) trials, which were funded and conducted by Novo Nordisk. This post hoc analysis was conceived and interpreted by the authors and drafted with medical writing support that was funded by Novo Nordisk. Novo Nordisk also reviewed the manuscript for medical accuracy. Hunt and Malkin are employees of Ossian Health Economics and Communications, which received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk during the conduct of this study and has received consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, unrelated to this study. Mocarski, Ranthe, and Schiffman are employees of Novo Nordisk and Novo Nordisk A/S. Cannon has received speaker fees/honoraria from Abbvie, Amgen, and Janssen; speaker fees from Novo Nordisk; and has stock ownership in Novo Nordisk. Bargiota has received speaker fees/honoraria from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novartis. Billings has received personal fees from Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Dexcom, unrelated to this study. Leiter reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier, and GSK, unrelated to this study. Doshi has no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose. Parts of this study were presented as a poster at the AMCP Managed Care & Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.