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.

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.

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.

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.

The Cost-Effectiveness of an Advanced Hybrid Closed-Loop System Compared to Standard Management of Type 1 Diabetes in a Singapore Setting

Background: Despite advances in technology, glycemic outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) remain suboptimal. The MiniMed 780G (MM780G) advanced hybrid closed-loop (AHCL) system is the latest technology for T1D management with established safety and efficacy. This study explores the cost-effectiveness of MM780G AHCL compared against multiple daily injections (MDI) plus intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitor (isCGM). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was conducted, simulating lifetime outcomes for 1000 T1D individuals, with baseline hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%, using the IQVIA Core Diabetes Model (CDM) v9.5. A Singapore health care payer perspective was taken with 2023 costs applied. Treatment effects were taken from the ADAPT study and treatment-related events from a combination of sources. T1D complication costs were derived from local literature, and health state utilities and disutilities from published literature. Scenario analyses and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) explored uncertainty. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds set to Singapore Dollars (SGD) 45,000 (United States Dollars [USD] 33,087) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and Singapore's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of SGD 114,165 (USD 83,941) per QALY. Results: A switch from MDI plus isCGM to MM780G resulted in expected gains in life-years (+0.78) and QALYs (+1.45). Cost savings through reduction in T1D complications (SGD 25,465; USD 18,723) partially offset the higher treatment costs in the AHCL arm (+SGD 74,538; +USD 54,805), resulting in an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SGD 33,797 (USD 24,850) per QALY gained. Findings were robust, with PSA outputs indicating 81% and 99% probabilities of cost-effectiveness at the stated WTP thresholds. Conclusion: MM780G is a cost-effective option for people with T1D managed in a Singapore setting.

Bench-Side Dose Accuracy of an Open-Source Ultra-Low-Cost Insulin-Pump, With Testing Conducted to IEC 60601-2-24

With the prevalence of diabetes higher than ever, governments and people with diabetes are facing significant treatment and indirect costs associated with managing their condition. An ultra-low-cost insulin pump is a possible solution to improving health disparities. This article presents test results for an insulin-pump built from low-cost components (bill of materials < $US100). All testing was completed in accordance with IEC60601-2-24, and results were benchmarked against a commercial pump. Results showed the ultra-low-cost pump has comparable accuracy to the commercially available insulin pump with testing displaying an overall accuracy of 0.089% and -0.392%, respectively. These results show that an ultra-low-cost pump can accurately deliver insulin in limited bench testing. Testing in other environments and scenarios is required to fully meet IEC60601-2-24 standards.

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.

Insulin Fills by Medicare Enrollees and Out-of-Pocket Caps Under the Inflation Reduction Act

This study uses data from IQVIA’s National Prescription Audit to assess the association of the Inflation Reduction Act’s cap on cost sharing with insulin fills by Medicare beneficiaries.

Cost-Related Insulin Rationing in US Adults Younger Than 65 Years With Diabetes

This study uses 2021 National Health Interview Survey data to examine the prevalence of insulin rationing among adults younger than 65 years in the US by demographic characteristics.

Clinical, Economic, and Patient-Reported Benefits of Connected Insulin Pen Systems: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this systematic literature review was to evaluate the available literature concerning the clinical, economic, and patient-reported benefits of insulin pen platforms, including connected insulin pens/caps/sleeves and insulin platforms, as well as mobile apps capable of receiving near real-time insulin dosing information.

METHODS

Medline and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library were searched for published literature between January 2015 and May 2021, and manual searches for conference abstracts from 2018 to May 2021 were performed. These searches were supplemented by internet searches for relevant literature and clinical trials. Study selection involved the population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, time frame, and study design outline. Included studies investigated connected insulin systems or connected caps/sleeves enabling pens to be connected, or apps able to connect to these systems, in individuals of all ages with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus.

RESULTS

Searches identified a total of 26 publications (mostly observational studies and conference abstracts) for inclusion, representing ten unique, predominantly small studies. Evidence in this field is still in its early stages, and only two randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Available results showed that connected insulin pens and their systems potentially helped reduce suboptimal insulin use and may therefore improve glycemic control. Satisfaction of people with diabetes with the technologies used was high, and economic benefits were noted. Features of effective connected insulin pen devices include simplicity of use and data upload/sharing, useful "point-of-care" alerts, and simple and understandable data presentation to facilitate more effective consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

Connected insulin pen systems could be increasingly considered as part of routine clinical care for insulin-treated persons with diabetes who must manage the complexity of their daily insulin routine. Future research focusing on the way data obtained from these devices can be most effectively used alongside other information is urgently needed.

Incentivizing Prescription Drug Switching to Reduce Patient and Health Plan Spending: A Microsimulation Model

OBJECTIVES

Most spending for prescription drugs is on branded drugs that do not have direct generic equivalents but many of these drugs do have therapeutic alternatives within class. We estimate the potential savings from providing patients a financial incentive to switch from a higher cost drug to a lower cost, therapeutic alternative drug.

METHODS

We used individual state-transition microsimulations to model medication use and spending with and without financial incentives over a 12-month time horizon with a healthcare sector perspective. Costs and utilization inputs were from individuals on branded insulins or multiple sclerosis drugs enrolled in a regional mixed-model health maintenance organization. Base-case model used a one-time financial incentive of $83 and $250 offered to patients on higher cost insulin and multiple sclerosis treatments, respectively, to switch to lower cost drugs within class.

RESULTS

Savings per individual offered an incentive in the insulin and multiple sclerosis classes were, respectively, $84 (95% CI $46-$122) and $2,127 (95% CI $267-$3,987). Varying the incentive size and switch probability resulted in maximum savings of $712 at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size $250 for the insulin drug class. For the multiple sclerosis drug class, maximum savings of $5945 was at elasticity of 0.2 and incentive size of $1000. Short time horizon makes our savings estimates conservative.

CONCLUSIONS

If programs such as financial incentives could encourage even a small proportion of patients to switch among drugs within therapeutic class, then substantial savings could be generated.

A century past the discovery of insulin: global progress and challenges for type 1 diabetes among children and adolescents in low-income and middle-income countries

Type 1 diabetes is on the rise globally; however, the burden of mortality remains disproportionate in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). As 2021 marks 100 years since the discovery of insulin, we revisit progress, global burden of type 1 diabetes trends, and understanding of the pathogenesis and management practices related to the disease. Despite much progress, inequities in access and availability of insulin formulations persist and are reflected in differences in survival and morbidity patterns related to the disease. Some of these inequities have also been exacerbated by health-system challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a clear opportunity to improve access to insulin and related essential technologies for improved management of type 1 diabetes in LMICs, especially as a part of universal health coverage. These improvements will require concerted action and investments in human resources, community engagement, and education for the timely diagnosis and management of type 1 diabetes, as well as adequate health-care financing. Further research in LMICs, especially those in Africa, is needed to improve our understanding of the burden, risk factors, and implementation strategies for managing type 1 diabetes.

Changes in Type 2 Diabetes Medication Utilization and Costs in the United States, 2014-2019

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe national changes in utilization and associated costs of antidiabetic medications in the United States from 2014 to 2019, across different drug classes and insurance plans.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined administrative claims from a large national pharmacy benefits manager from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019. Patients aged 18 years and above enrolled in commercial, Medicare, or Medicaid health plans who filled ≥1 prescription claim for an antidiabetic medication(s) during the 6-year period were included. Utilization was examined as the total number of 30-day adjusted prescription fills per user per month (PUPM). Gross costs were calculated as the sum of plan costs (net of rebates) and member out-of-pocket costs. Differences in mean utilization and costs PUPM between 2014 and 2019 for each medication class were calculated.

RESULTS

The final analytic sample increased from 745,290 patients in 2014 to 1,596,006 in 2019. Antidiabetic medication utilization increased by 8.8% from 2014 to 2019, driven by increases in sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor (48.7%; P<0.001), glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (11.8%; P<0.001), insulin (8.1%; P<0.001), and metformin (2.9%; P<0.05) utilization. Average costs PUPM rose 47.5% (P<0.001), from $126.52 in 2014 to $186.58 in 2019. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and combination drugs contributed significantly to these increased costs, with 6-year cost differences of 57.3%, 46.9%, and 47.2%, respectively (all P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates a shift in antidiabetic medication class utilization from 2014 to 2019, where associated costs net of rebates significantly increased to a disproportionately greater extent than the significant increase in utilization PUPM.

Use of the Whole Country Insulin Consumption Data in Israel to Determine the Prevalence of Type 1 Diabetes in Children <5 Years of Age Before and During Rotavirus Vaccination

BACKGROUND

Recent studies showed that rotavirus vaccination may affect the prevalence of type 1 diabetes (T1D). The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of early childhood (<5 years) T1D before and during the introduction of rotavirus vaccination in Israel by syndromic surveillance.

METHODS

Data on insulin purchases reported by Israel's four Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) were retrieved from the National Program for Quality Indicators in Community Healthcare.

RESULTS

During the prevaccination years (2002-2007), a steady increase in insulin purchases was reported in the young (<5 years). The period percent change (PC) of children <5 years old diagnosed with T1D inferred from purchased insulin prescriptions increased by 50.0%, and the annual percent change (APC) increased by 10.0% (p = 0.01). During the period of free, universal Rotavirus vaccination (2011-2018), the PC for T1D diagnoses among children <5 years of age decreased by 3.8% with an APC of -2.5% (p = 0.14). There was a significant difference (p = 0.002) between the increasing trend in insulin use before vaccination versus the decreasing trend after vaccination.

CONCLUSION

Rotavirus vaccination correlated with attenuation of the increasing rate in the prevalence of T1D in <5-year-old children in Israel.

A global perspective on the issue of access to insulin

The discovery of insulin in 1921 changed the prognosis for people with type 1 diabetes. A century later, availability and affordability of insulin remain a challenge in many parts of the globe. Using the WHO's framework on understanding the life cycle of medicines, this review details the global and national challenges that affect patients' abilities to access and afford insulin. Current research and development in diabetes has seen some innovations, but none of these have truly been game-changing. Currently, three multinational companies control over 95% of global insulin supply. The inclusion of insulin on the WHO's Prequalification Programme is an opportunity to facilitate entry of new companies into the market. Many governments lack policies on the selection, procurement, supply, pricing and reimbursement of insulin. Moreover, mark-ups in the supply chain also affect the final price to the consumer. Whilst expenses related to diabetes are mostly covered by insurance in high-income countries, many patients from low- and middle-income countries have to pay out of their own pockets. The organisation of diabetes management within the healthcare system also affects patient access to insulin. The challenges affecting access to insulin are complex and require a wide range of solutions. Given that 2021 marks the centenary of the discovery of insulin, there is need for global advocacy to ensure that the benefits of insulin and innovations in diabetes care reach all individuals living with diabetes.

Real-world clinical outcomes and costs in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients after initiation of insulin therapy: A German claims data analysis

BACKGROUND

This study describes real-world treatment-related outcomes and healthcare costs of German type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) patients who initiated insulin therapy.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis includes German claims data from 01/01/2012 until 31/12/2016. Identification of eligible patients took place between 01/01/2013 and 31/12/2015, allowing for at least 1 year of follow-up. Clinical outcomes, such as HbA1c values and body mass index, were observed in a subpopulation participating in a Disease Management Program. Healthcare expenditures were evaluated for the first year of therapy.

RESULTS

Overall, 27,340 insulin starters with T2D were observed (mean age: 72.2 years, female: 51.4%). Treatment-related outcomes were evaluated in a subsample of 12,034 patients. Patients who started insulin combined with other antidiabetic drugs (ADs) achieved their HbA1c goals more frequently than patients on insulin monotherapy (+10.7 percentage points [pp] vs. +21.1 pp for insulin plus metformin). All-cause costs were by far highest among patients with insulin monotherapy (€ 12,283 per patient-year) compared with patients receiving a combined AD regimen (€ 9,947-10,509 per patient-year).

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in HbA1c values were not in favor of insulin monotherapy, compared to regimens including other ADs. It was also associated with higher costs, suggesting that insulin alone is a suboptimal treatment.

Addressing Insulin Access and Affordability: An Endocrine Society Position Statement

Rising costs have made access to affordable insulin far more difficult for people with diabetes, especially low-income individuals, those on high deductible health plans, beneficiaries using Medicare Part B to cover insulin delivered via pump, Medicare beneficiaries in the Part D donut hole, and those who turn 26 and must transition from their parents' insurance, to manage their diabetes and avoid unnecessary complications and hospitalizations. For many patients with diabetes, insulin is a life-saving medication. Policymakers should immediately address drivers of rising insulin prices and implement solutions that would reduce high out-of-pocket expenditures for patients. The Endocrine Society recommends policy options to expand access to lower cost insulin in this paper.

Cost-effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists versus insulin for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a real-world study and systematic review

BACKGROUND

To conduct a real-word-study-based cost-effectiveness analysis of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) versus insulin among type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy and a systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses incorporating real-world effectiveness and cost data were conducted for a cohort of 1022 propensity-score-matched pairs of GLP-1RA and insulin users from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2007-2016. Study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events, healthcare costs, and cost per case of event prevented. Costs were in 2019 US dollars. Analyses were performed from a third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. Structured systematic review procedures were conducted to synthesize updated evidence on the cost-effectiveness of GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

RESULTS

Over a mean follow-up of 2.3 years, the NNT using a GLP-1RA versus insulin to prevent one case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia was 57 and 30, respectively. Using GLP-1RAs instead of insulin cost US$54,851 and US$29,115 per case of all-cause mortality and hospitalized hypoglycemia prevented, respectively, from the payer perspective, and saved US$19,391 and US$10,293, respectively, from the healthcare sector perspective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin being cost-effective for preventing one case of all-cause mortality or hospitalized hypoglycemia ranged from 60 to 100%. The systematic review revealed a cost-effective profile of using GLP-1RAs versus insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Using GLP-1RAs versus insulin for type 2 diabetes patients requiring intensified injection therapy in clinical practice is cost-effective.

Association of Out-of-Pocket Spending With Insulin Adherence in Medicare Part D

This cross-sectional study examines whether efforts to limit out-of-pocket spending for enrollees in nonsubsidized Medicare Part D plans are associated with insulin adherence rates among these patients.