Cardiovascular outcomes and healthcare costs of liraglutide versus basal insulin for type 2 diabetes patients at high cardiovascular risk.

We aimed to compare the (1) clinical outcomes including composite cardiovascular outcomes, cardiovascular death, and all-cause death, and (2) healthcare costs of using liraglutide and basal insulin as an initial treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and high cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk. This is a retrospective cohort study using Taiwan's Health and Welfare Database. A total of 1057 patients treated with liraglutide were identified and matched with 4600 patients treated with basal insulin. The liraglutide group had a lower risk of a composite CVD outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.85; p < 0.01), all-cause mortality (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.28-0.59; p < 0.0001), and nonfatal stroke (HR 0.54; 95% CI 0.34-0.87; p = 0.01). Compared to the basal insulin group, the liraglutide group had lower median per-patient-per-month (PPPM) inpatient, emergency room (ER), and total medical costs, but higher median PPPM outpatient, total pharmacy, and total costs (all p < 0.0001). In conclusion, compared to basal insulin, liraglutide was found to be associated with reduced risk of a composite CVD outcome, nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality among high CVD risk patients with T2DM. In addition, liraglutide users had lower inpatient, ER, and total medical costs, but they had higher outpatient and total pharmacy costs.

Cost analysis of insulin degludec in comparison with insulin detemir in treatment of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes in the UK.

Objective: With healthcare systems under increasing financial pressure from costs associated with diabetes care, it is important to assess which treatments provide clinical benefits and represent best value. This study evaluated the annual costs of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin detemir (IDet) in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in the UK. Research design and methods: Using data from a randomized, treat-to-target, non-inferiority trial-BEGIN YOUNG 1-annual costs with degludec versus IDet in children and adolescents aged 1-17 years with T1D were estimated, as costs of these insulins and hyperglycemia with ketosis events. Analyses by age group (1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years) and scenario (no ketosis benefit, no dose benefit, hyperglycemia with ketones >0.6 and >3.0 mmol/L and the additional costs of twice-daily IDet in 64% of patients) were also performed. Results: The mean annual cost per patient was estimated as £235.16 for degludec vs £382.91 for IDet, resulting in an annual saving of £147.75 per patient. These substantial cost savings were driven by relative reductions in the frequency of hyperglycemia with ketosis and basal insulin dose with degludec versus IDet. Annual savings in favor of degludec were observed across each age group (£122.63, £140.59 and £172.50 for 1-5, 6-11 and 12-17 years age groups, respectively). Five scenario analyses further demonstrated the robustness of the results, which included no ketosis or dose benefits in favor of degludec. Conclusions: Degludec provides appreciable annual cost savings compared with IDet in children and adolescents with T1D in a UK setting. While a cost-effectiveness analysis could incorporate the health impact of treatment complications better than the present cost analysis, the strong generalizability of the data from this study suggests that degludec can help healthcare providers to maximize health outcomes despite increasingly stringent budgets.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Utility Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first. CONCLUSIONS: iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.

Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus insulin glargine for Thai type 2 diabetes from a payer's perspective.

AIMS: An economic evidence is a vital tool that can inform the decision to use costly insulin analogs. This study aimed to evaluate long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) compared with insulin glargine (IGlar) in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the Thai payer's perspective. METHODS: Long-term costs and outcomes were projected using a validated IMS CORE Diabetes Model, version 8.5. Cohort characteristics, baseline risk factors, and costs of diabetes complications were derived from Thai data sources. Relative risk was derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was presented in 2015 US Dollars (USD). A series of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: IDet yielded slightly greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (8.921 vs 8.908), but incurred higher costs than IGlar (90,417.63 USD vs 66,674.03 USD), resulting in an ICER of ∼1.7 million USD per QALY. The findings were very sensitive to the cost of IDet. With a 34% reduction in the IDet cost, treatment with IDet would become cost-effective according to the Thai threshold of 4,434.59 USD per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with IDet in patients with T2DM who had uncontrolled blood glucose with oral anti-diabetic agents was not a cost-effective strategy compared with IGlar treatment in the Thai context. These findings could be generalized to other countries with a similar socioeconomics level and healthcare systems.

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.

[Comparative analysis of insulin glargine vs. insulin detemir: A cost-minimization study applicable to Colombia]. / Análisis comparativo de insulina glargina frente a la insulina detemir: un modelo de minimización de costos aplicable en Colombia.

INTRODUCTION: More than 90% of subjects diagnosed with diabetes mellitus present with type 2, which is recognized for peripheral insulin resistance. OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs of achieving glycemic target with the use of basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine (IG) once a day vs. insulin detemir (ID) once or twice a day, with a cost minimization model built from a third-party payer perspective in Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of comparative clinical trials between IG and ID in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes was performed to determine data of use, effectiveness and frequency of and adverse events. The goal of glycemic control (effectiveness measure) was defined as HbA1c=7%. The costs of insulin were extracted from the Integrated System of Medication Prices 2012 (Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social de Colombia) and the IMS Consulting Group mobile average cost for the past year as of December, 2012. Sensitivity analyses were performed via Montecarlo simulations for dose and medication costs (insulin). RESULTS: Five publications met inclusion criteria. The range of the difference between insulin doses was 3.2 IU to 33 IU. The percentage of patients requiring two ID doses was 12.6-100%. There were no significant differences in hypoglycemic events. For both retail and institutional channels, there was a higher differential cost between IG vs. ID favoring IG in 4 and 5 studies, respectively. For the retail channel only one study showed the opposite results. CONCLUSIONS: As only medication costs are considered, differences in insulin units between IG and ID result in a differential cost in favor of IG that makes it a cost/effective alternative.

Análisis comparativo de insulina glargina frente a la insulina detemir: un modelo de minimización de costos aplicable en Colombia / Comparative analysis of insulin glargine vs. insulin detemir: A cost-minimization study applicable to Colombia

Introducción. Más del 90 % de los individuos diagnosticados con diabetes mellitus presentan el tipo 2, cuya resistencia periférica a la acción de la insulina es conocida. Objetivo. Desarrollar un modelo de minimización de costos del tratamiento con insulina glargina una vez al día o con insulina detemir, una o dos veces al día, en pacientes con diabetes mellitus de tipo 2 que requieren insulina, desde la perspectiva del tercer pagador en Colombia. Materiales y métodos. Se hizo una búsqueda sistemática de estudios clínicos comparativos de la administración de insulina glargina e insulina detemir en pacientes con diabetes mellitus de tipo 2 que requieren insulina, con el fin de extraer los datos sobre su uso y efectividad, y sobre la frecuencia de eventos secundarios. La meta establecida de control glucémico fue de HbA1c=7 %. Los costos de la insulina se tomaron del Sistema Integrado de Precios de Medicamentos, 2012, del Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social, y los precios por tableta se basaron en el promedio móvil de doce meses en diciembre de 2012 según el IMS Consulting Group. Los análisis de sensibilidad se hicieron con simulaciones de Montecarlo para las dosis y los costos de la insulina. Resultados. Cinco publicaciones cumplieron con los criterios de inclusión. El rango de la diferencia entre dosis de insulina fue de 3,2 a 33 UI. El porcentaje de pacientes que requirieron dos dosis de insulina detemir estuvo entre 12,6 y 100 %. No hubo diferencias significativas en los eventos hipoglucémicos. Tanto para el canal de compra al por menor como para el de compras institucionales, la diferencia de costos entre la insulin glargina y la detemir favoreció a la primera en cuatro y cinco estudios, respectivamente. Solo un estudio mostró lo contrario en lo concerniente a la venta al por menor. Conclusiones. La diferencia en cuanto a la dosis promedio entre la insulina ganglir y la detemir, genera costos anuales que favorecen el uso de la insulina ganglir, lo que la convierte en una alternativa costo-efectiva frente a la determir.

Introduction: More than 90% of subjects diagnosed with diabetes mellitus present with type 2, which is recognized for peripheral insulin resistance. Objective: To determine the costs of achieving glycemic target with the use of basal insulin analogs, insulin glargine (IG) once a day vs. insulin detemir (ID) once or twice a day, with a cost minimization model built from a third-party payer perspective in Colombia. Materials and methods: A systematic review of comparative clinical trials between IG and ID in patients with insulin-resistant type 2 diabetes was performed to determine data of use, effectiveness and frequency of and adverse events. The goal of glycemic control (effectiveness measure) was defined as HbA1c=7%. The costs of insulin were extracted from the Integrated System of Medication Prices 2012 (Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social de Colombia) and the IMS Consulting Group mobile average cost for the past year as of December, 2012. Sensitivity analyses were performed via Montecarlo simulations for dose and medication costs (insulin). Results: Five publications met inclusion criteria. The range of the difference between insulin doses was 3.2 IU to 33 IU. The percentage of patients requiring two ID doses was 12.6-100%. There were no significant differences in hypoglycemic events. For both retail and institutional channels, there was a higher differential cost between IG vs. ID favoring IG in 4 and 5 studies, respectively. For the retail channel only one study showed the opposite results. Conclusions: As only medication costs are considered, differences in insulin units between IG and ID result in a differential cost in favor of IG that makes it a cost/effective alternative.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: There is limited evidence with respect to the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin in people with diabetes outside the 'western' world. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of starting basal insulin treatment with insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) in Mexico, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Algeria. METHODS: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical outcomes, baseline characteristics and health state utility data were taken from the A1chieve study. A 1-year analysis was also conducted based on treatment costs and quality-of-life data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of GDP per capita, and WHO-CHOICE recommendations (ICER < 3.0) used to define cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Starting insulin detemir was associated with a projected increase in life expectancy (≥1 year) and was considered cost-effective in all of the studied populations with ICERs of -0.02 (Mexico), 0.00 (South Korea), 0.48 (India), 0.12 (Indonesia), and 0.88 (Algeria) GDP/quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was maintained after conducting sensitivity analyses in the 30-year and 1-year analyses. A projected increase in treatment costs was partially offset by a reduction in complications. The difference in overall costs between insulin detemir and OGLDs alone was USD518, 1431, 3510, 15, and 5219, respectively. CONCLUSION: Changes in clinical outcomes associated with starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve individuals with T2D resulted in health gains that made the intervention cost-effective in five countries with distinct healthcare resources.