Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Pharmacological Treatment With Insulin and Insulin Analogs for Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Colombia

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness relationship of insulins and insulin analogs in diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) and 2 (DM2), from the perspective of the Colombian health system.

METHODS

A short-term decision tree model (SM) was built, the outcome of which was severe/nocturnal hypoglycemia, and a long-term Markov model for quality-adjusted life-years. The probabilities were calculated through a literature review of effectiveness and safety. The costs are estimated from official databases. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

For DM1, in prandial insulins, and for both models, the cost-effective interventions (CEIs) are aspartate and lispro. In basal insulins, the CEIs are NPH and glargine U-100 in both models. In the comparison of detemir and NPH, detemir generates lower nocturnal hypoglycemia and higher quality-adjusted life-years; however, in the long-term Markov model, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio exceeds the threshold. For DM2, in the prandial insulin, and for both models, aspartate is a CEI and the glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. In basal insulin, the CEIs are glargine U-100 and detemir (for nocturnal hypoglycemia) in both models and glargine U-300 is also a CEI in the SM. Finally, in the group of combinations, iGlarLixi is dominant over IDegLira.

CONCLUSIONS

The results favor the use of analog insulins over human insulins, the former reducing the possibility of acute events and chronic complications to a greater extent.

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema.

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies included were published between 2011-2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded.

METHODS

The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%).

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

SUPPLEMENTAL DIGITAL CONTENT

A Finnish-language version of the abstract of this review is available: http://links.lww.com/SRX/A68 .

Examining the Impact of Structural Uncertainty Across 10 Type 2 Diabetes Models: Results From the 2022 Mount Hood Challenge

OBJECTIVES

The Mount Hood Diabetes Challenge Network aimed to examine the impact of model structural uncertainty on the estimated cost-effectiveness of interventions for type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

Ten independent modeling groups completed a blinded simulation exercise to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 3 interventions in 2 type 2 diabetes populations. Modeling groups were provided with a common baseline population, cost and utility values associated with different model health states, and instructions regarding time horizon and discounting. We collated the results to identify variation in predictions of net monetary benefit (NMB) and the drivers of those differences.

RESULTS

Overall, modeling groups agreed which interventions had a positive NMB (ie, were cost-effective), Although estimates of NMB varied substantially-by up to £23 696 for 1 intervention. Variation was mainly driven through differences in risk equations for complications of diabetes and their implementation between models. The number of modeled health states was also a significant predictor of NMB.

CONCLUSIONS

This exercise demonstrates that structural uncertainty between different health economic models affects cost-effectiveness estimates. Although it is reassuring that a decision maker would likely reach similar conclusions on which interventions were cost-effective using most models, the range in numerical estimates generated across different models would nevertheless be important for price-setting negotiations with intervention developers. Minimizing the impact of structural uncertainty on healthcare decision making therefore remains an important priority. Model registries, which record and compare the impact of structural assumptions, offer one potential avenue to improve confidence in the robustness of health economic modeling.

Basal Insulinotherapy in Patients Living with Diabetes in France: The EF-BI Study

INTRODUCTION

Second-generation basal insulins like glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) have a longer duration of action and less daily fluctuation and interday variability than first-generation ones, such as glargine 100 U/mL (Gla-100). The EF-BI study, a nationwide observational, retrospective study, was designed to compare persistence, acute care complications, and healthcare costs associated with the initiation of such basal insulins (BI) in a real-life setting in France.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the French healthcare claims database (SNDS). Adult patients living with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T1DM or T2DM) initiating Gla-300 or Gla-100 ± other hypoglycemic medications between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, and without any insulin therapy over the previous 6 months were included. Persistence was defined as remaining on the same insulin therapy until discontinuation defined by a 6 month period without insulin reimbursement. Hospitalized acute complications were identified using ICD-10 codes. Total collective costs were established for patients treated continuously with each basal insulin over 1-3 years. All comparisons were adjusted using a propensity score based on initial patient/treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 235,894 patients with T2DM and 6672 patients with T1DM were included. Patients treated with Gla-300 were 83% (T1DM) and 44% (T2DM) less likely to discontinue their treatment than those treated with Gla-100 after 24 months (p < 0.0001). The annual incidence of acute hospitalized events in patients with T2DM treated with Gla-300 was 12% lower than with Gla-100 (p < 0.0001) but similar in patients with T1DM. Comparison of overall costs showed moderate but statistically significant differences in favor of Gla-300 versus Gla-100 for all patients over the first year, and in T2DM only over a 3-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Use of Gla-300 resulted in a better persistence, less acute hospitalized events at least in T2DM, and reduced healthcare expenditure. These real-life results confirmed the potential interest of using Gla-300 rather than Gla-100.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of once-daily insulin glargine 300 U/mL versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL using the BRAVO diabetes model

AIMS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to compare insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) versus insulin degludec 100 U/mL (IDeg-100) in insulin-naïve adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) sub-optimally controlled with oral anti-diabetic drugs (OADs).

METHODS

The BRAVO diabetes model was used to assess costs and outcomes for once-daily Gla-300 versus once-daily IDeg-100 from a US healthcare sector perspective. Baseline clinical data were based on BRIGHT, a 24-week, non-inferiority, randomised control trial comparing Gla-300 and IDeg-100 in adults with T2D sub-optimally controlled with OADs (with or without glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists). Treatment costs were based on doses observed in BRIGHT as well as net prices. Costs associated with complications were based on published literature. Lifetime costs (US$) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were predicted and used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates; extensive scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Overall lifetime medical costs were estimated to be $327,904 and $330,154 for people receiving Gla-300 and IDeg-100, respectively; insulin costs were $43,477 and $44,367, respectively. People receiving Gla-300 gained 8.024 QALYs and 18.55 life-years, while people receiving IDeg-100 gained 7.997 QALYs and 18.52 life-years. Because Gla-300 was associated with a cost-saving of $2250 and 0.027 additional QALYs, it was considered to be dominant compared with IDeg-100. Results of the scenario and sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results.

CONCLUSION

Gla-300 was the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg-100 based on the willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results remained robust against a wide range of alternative assumptions on key parameters.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting, Long-Acting, Ultralong-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

Review and estimation of disutility for joint health states of severe and nonsevere hypoglycemic events in diabetes

Aim: Many economic evaluations used linear or log-transformed additive methods to estimate the disutility of hypoglycemic events in diabetes, both nonsevere (NSHEs) and severe (SHEs). Methods: We conducted a literature search for studies of disutility for hypoglycemia. We used additive, minimum and multiplicative methods, and the adjusted decrement estimator to estimate the disutilities of joint health states with both NSHEs and SHEs in six scenarios. Results: Twenty-four studies reported disutilities for hypoglycemia in diabetes. Based on construct validity, the adjusted decrement estimator method likely provides less biased estimates, predicting that when SHEs occur, the additional impact from NSHEs is marginal. Conclusion: Our proposed new method provides a different perspective on the estimation of quality-adjusted life-years in economic evaluations of hypoglycemic treatments.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Insulin glargine 300 U/mL and insulin degludec: A review of the current evidence comparing these two second-generation basal insulin analogues

For most people with type 2 diabetes (T2D), treatment intensification with the addition of basal insulin therapy is required to maintain glycaemic control. However, this often does not happen in real-life practice promoting the development of long-term diabetes-related complications. The second-generation basal insulin analogues glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) and degludec (IDeg) provide pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic improvements that may allow them to be more effective in appropriately managing diabetes compared with first-generation basal insulin analogues. Both Gla-300 and IDeg have been extensively studied vs the first-generation basal insulin glargine 100 U/mL, demonstrating comparable efficacy in terms of glycaemic control, and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia. The BRIGHT randomized controlled trial is the first direct comparison of the efficacy and safety profiles of Gla-300 and IDeg in patients with T2D. Moreover, real-world data have been used to assess the effectiveness of these basal insulins during routine clinical practice. Further research is required to determine if the properties of Gla-300 and IDeg may lead to improvements in healthcare-related costs and the quality of life of patients, which are important factors for informing clinical decisions.

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.

Are newer insulin analogues better for people with Type 1 diabetes?

Achieving optimal blood glucose control in Type 1 diabetes is a delicate balance between ensuring tight glycaemic control and achieving this without the expense of hypoglycaemia and weight gain, two major factors impacting quality of life. This is a real challenge for people with Type 1 diabetes and underpins many of the struggles they face in self-managing on a day-to-day basis. The main goals of insulin delivery are to try to simulate the physiology of β-cell insulin secretion as closely as possible and to overcome the challenges of peripheral insulin administration by achieving rapidity of onset with mealtime insulins and stability of the glucose-lowering effects of long-acting insulins. Since the early days of human insulin use, there have been many developments in insulin formulations that aim to achieve these goals as much as possible, thus contributing to better glycaemic control whilst minimizing hypoglycaemia. In the present review we discuss the currently available insulin analogues and the challenges of achieving glucose control using current analogues in those on multiple daily injections, and appraise the evidence base for newer-generation insulin analogues, such as insulin degludec, glargine U300, faster-acting insulin aspart and BioChaperone lispro. We also highlight new insulins in development and unmet needs in people with Type 1 diabetes.

Risk of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality for users of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100-A Danish cohort study

AIMS

Real-world evidence of the safety of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 is sparse. This study sought to investigate the risk of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality after initiation of degludec or glargine U100 in the population of Denmark.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All Danish people with diabetes initiating treatment on degludec (n=5159) or glargine (n=4041) in 2016 to 2017 were included in the study. The effect of insulin treatment on the endpoints of major cardiovascular events, severe hypoglycaemia, and all-cause mortality was analysed with Cox proportional hazard models. The models were adjusted for age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetes type, highest completed education, and annual income. The model of severe hypoglycaemia was also adjusted for severe hypoglycaemia prior to baseline. The model of mortality was also adjusted for history of alcohol abuse, use of antidepressants, use of opioids, and use of anxiolytics. Lastly, the models of major cardiovascular events and mortality were also adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index.

RESULTS

Use of degludec resulted in an almost twofold decrease in risk of death (hazard rate [HR]: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65) compared with use of glargine. No statistically significant risk changes were found for major cardiovascular events (HR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.62-1.19) and severe hypoglycaemia (HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.66-1.93). The proportion of cause of death due to malignant neoplasm of pancreas was almost doubled for glargine compared with degludec.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that insulin degludec has a safer profile with respect to all-cause mortality as compared with insulin glargine U100.

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 (T2DM_BOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM_B/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 T2DM_BOT and 91.3% in T2DM_B/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.

Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Glargine 100 U/mL Versus Insulin Degludec for the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in China

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate the efficacy and safety as well as the long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine 100 U/mL (IGlar) versus insulin degludec (IDeg) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective.

METHODS

A systematic search of English and Chinese electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IGlar with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM was performed, followed by a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of IGlar versus IDeg. The CORE Diabetes Model was used to estimate lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, and cost-effectiveness of IGlar versus IDeg. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the underlying parameter uncertainty.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. The IGlar group showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c) from baseline compared to the IDeg group (mean difference [MD] 0.08%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-0.14%, P = 0.02). Body mass index (BMI) control was numerically better in the IGlar group than in the IDeg group (MD 0.07 kg/m², 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.14 kg/m², P  = 0.08). In terms of hypoglycemia, the incidence of non-severe overall hypoglycemia was comparable between the IDeg and IGlar patient groups (P  > 0.05), while the incidence of non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (relative risk [RR 0.79], 95% CI 0.70-0.90, P < 0.01) and the event rates of non-severe overall (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) and non-severe nocturnal hypoglycemia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, P < 0.01) were lower in the IDeg group. The incidences and event rates of both severe overall and nocturnal hypoglycemia were similar for the two groups (P  > 0.05). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that IGlar is the dominant treatment option compared with IDeg, with a lifetime savings of 1004 Chinese yuan in direct medical costs and a net gain of 0.015 QALYs per patient. Both one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

IGlar is a cost-saving option with incremental effectiveness compared with IDeg for the treatment of T2DM in China.

FUNDING

Sanofi China.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal-bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial.

METHODS

A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies.

Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Basal-Bolus Therapy

INTRODUCTION

With one of the fastest aging populations in the world, demographic changes in Japan are a major public health concern due to the substantial burden that aging-associated diseases, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), place on public healthcare systems. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of switching Japanese patients with T2D receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy from their previous basal insulin to insulin degludec (degludec) under conditions of routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A previously published, open-source model developed in Microsoft Excel was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching basal-bolus insulin therapy from patients' previous basal insulin to degludec versus continuing the previous basal insulin therapeutic regimen in terms of costs (2018 Japanese Yen [JPY]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. The model captured hypoglycemia rates and insulin dosing over a 1-year time horizon, and was informed by Japanese real-world evidence from the T2D cohort (N = 135) of the Kumamoto Insulin Degludec Observational study.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec was associated with improved effectiveness (+ 0.0354 QALYs), driven by lower daytime non-severe hypoglycemia rates with degludec, at slightly higher annual treatment costs (JPY 9510) versus continuing the previous basal insulin. Switching basal insulin to degludec was found to be a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (JPY 268,811 per QALY gained) substantially below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 5 million JPY per QALY used in the Japanese Health Technology Assessment framework. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this finding and indicated that the daytime non-severe hypoglycemia benefit with degludec was a key driver of outcomes in the base case.

CONCLUSION

Based on Japanese real-world evidence, our analysis suggests that switching Japanese patients with T2D receiving a basal-bolus regimen from their previous basal insulin to degludec would be highly cost-effective. These data may help decision-makers in Japan allocate healthcare resources efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The KIDUNA study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR): UMIN000021569.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd. Japan.

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.

Superior efficacy of insulin degludec/liraglutide versus insulin glargine U100 as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor therapy: A randomized clinical trial in people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/liraglutide (IDegLira) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (IGlar U100) as add-on to sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this 26-week, phase IIIb, open-label, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, conducted at 74 sites in 11 countries, insulin-naïve people aged ≥18 years with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 53-97 mmol/mol (7.0-11.0%), body mass index 20-40 kg/m² and inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes (T2D) on SGLT2 inhibitor ± oral antidiabetic drugs were randomized 1:1 to once-daily IDegLira or IGlar U100, both as add-on to existing therapy. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c from baseline to week 26.

RESULTS

A total of 210 participants were randomized to each treatment arm. Mean HbA1c reductions were 21 mmol/mol (1.9%-points) with IDegLira and 18 mmol/mol (1.7%-points) with IGlar U100; confirming non-inferiority (P < 0.0001) and superiority of IDegLira (difference in HbA1c change -3.90 mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.45; -2.35 (-0.36%-points; 95% CI -0.50, -0.21)). Superiority for IDegLira over IGlar U100 was also confirmed for: body weight (difference -1.92 kg; 95% CI -2.64, -1.19); severe or blood-glucose-confirmed symptomatic hypoglycaemia (rate ratio 0.42; 95% CI 0.23, 0.75); total daily insulin dose (difference -15.37 U; 95% CI -19.60, -11.13). The overall treatment-emergent adverse event rate was higher with IDegLira as a result of higher increased lipase and nausea rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The favourable safety and efficacy profile of IDegLira in people with uncontrolled T2D on SGLT2 inhibitors, and lower weight gain and hypoglycaemia risk versus IGlar U100, suggest that clinicians should consider IDegLira initiation in this population.

A comparative effectiveness study of degludec and insulin glargine 300 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes

AIMS

To compare the real-world effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) and glargine 300 units/mL (glargine U300) in insulin-naïve adult patients with type 2 diabetes in routine US clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CONFIRM is a non-interventional comparative effectiveness study following US patients across the continuum of care, through electronic medical records from multiple health systems and integrated delivery networks. Propensity-score matching controlled for confounding. The primary endpoint, change in HbA1c from baseline to 180 days of follow-up, was estimated using a repeated-measure of covariance analysis with subject as random effect. Change in the rate of hypoglycaemic episodes (defined using International Classification of Diseases codes 9/10) and change in proportion of patients with hypoglycaemia were estimated using negative binomial and logistic regression, respectively. Time-to-discontinuation of the initial basal insulin/initiation with another prescribed basal insulin was analysed using a Cox Proportional Hazard model.

RESULTS

Data concerning 4056 patients were analysed. After matching, baseline characteristics were comparable (n = 2028 in each group). After 180 days of follow-up, degludec was associated with a larger reduction in HbA1c (estimated treatment difference, -0.27%; P = 0.03), greater reductions in change in rate (rate ratio, 0.70; P < 0.05) and greater reductions in change in the likelihood of hypoglycaemia (odds ratio, 0.64; P < 0.01]) compared with glargine U300. In addition, patients treated with degludec were 27% less likely to discontinue treatment at follow-up compared with those treated with glargine U300 (hazard ratio, 0.73; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly improved HbA1c, larger reductions in rates and likelihood of hypoglycaemia and lower risk of treatment discontinuation were demonstrated with degludec vs glargine U300.

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.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting

BACKGROUND

Understanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.

METHODS

Data from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.

RESULTS

In type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

CONCLUSIONS

The rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.

Quality-of-life and treatment satisfaction in actual clinical practice of patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and hypoglycemia treated with insulin degludec

OBJECTIVE

The frequency of hypoglycemia in patients with T1DM is high and results in a poorer quality-of-life and low treatment satisfaction. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the effect of changing the basal insulin (glargine or detemir) to insulin degludec.

METHODS

An observational analytical study was conducted on a cohort of 110 patients with T1DM. The patients were administered three questionnaires to assess treatment satisfaction (DTSQ-s), fear of hypoglycemia (HFS-II) and quality-of-life (EQ-5D), before the change and at 6 months. A statistical analysis was performed for repeated measures.

RESULTS

The 110 patients with T1DM had a mean diabetes duration of 19.1 (11.6) years, 53.6% were men, the mean age was 43.4 (15.4) years, and the mean BMI was 25.2 (4.2) kg/m². After 6 months, there was a significant reduction in baseline fasting plasma glucose (from 159.1 [68.6] to 132.9 [56.6] mg/dL; p < .001) and HbA1c levels (from 7.82% [1.2] to 7.6% [1.2]; p = .002). A reduction in the number of severe hypoglycemic episodes (0.17 [0.5] vs 0.05 [0.2]; p = .03) was observed. At 6 months, an improvement in the DTSQ-s (from 24.3 [5.5] to 27.3 [5.4]; p < .001) was observed. There was a decrease in the mean number of perceived hypoglycemia (from 2.9 [1.4] to 2.3 [1.4]; p = .003) and hyperglycemia (from 3.5 [1.3] to 2.7 [1.4]; p < .001). There was also a decrease in the mean HFS-II score (from 24.1 [14.0] to 20.0 [13.0]; p < .001). There were no significant differences in the EQ-5D index (from 0.91 [0.14] to 0.89 [0.16]; p = .13). However, there was significant improvement in the EQ-5D as measured by VAS (from 70.5 [16.5] to 73.6 [14.4]; p = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

The change to insulin degludec in patients with T1DM improved their metabolic control, increased their satisfaction with the insulin therapy, and offered them improved quality-of-life.

DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal-Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal-bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal-bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service.

RESULTS

Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs.

CONCLUSION

The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal-bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk A/S.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Serbia

INTRODUCTION

This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis, implementing a simple short-term model, was used to compare treatment costs and outcomes with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Cost-effectiveness was analysed in a 1-year setting, based on data from clinical trials. Costs were estimated from the healthcare payer perspective, the Serbian Health Insurance Fund (RFZO). The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

Degludec is highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100 for people with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. The ICERs are estimated at 417,586 RSD/QALY gained in T1DM, 558,811 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 1,200,141 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal-bolus therapy (T2DMB/B). All ICERs fall below the commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in Serbia (1,785,642 RSD/QALY gained). In all three patient groups, insulin costs are higher with degludec than with glargine U100, but these costs are partially offset by savings from a lower daily insulin dose in T1DM and T2DMBOT, a reduction in hypoglycaemic events in all three patient groups and reduced costs of SMBG testing in the T2DM groups with degludec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSION

Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. Degludec may particularly benefit those suffering from hypoglycaemia or where the patient would benefit from the option of flexible dosing.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

Clinical and Cost Implications of Insulin Degludec in Patients with Type 1 Diabetes and Problematic Hypoglycemia: A Quality Improvement Project

INTRODUCTION

To assess the real-life clinical benefits and cost implications of switching from another basal insulin to insulin degludec (degludec) in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) on basal-bolus regimens with recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

METHODS

Patients with T1D who were aged ≥ 18 years, were on a basal-bolus regimen, and had switched to degludec plus bolus insulin for at least 6 months were included. Patients had to have switched to degludec as a result of recurrent hypoglycemia and/or hypoglycemia unawareness.

RESULTS

Six months of follow-up data were available for 42 patients. At 6 months, there was a significant reduction in median (interquartile range) HbA_1c, from 8.6 (8.0-9.3)% [70 (64-78) mmol/mol] to 8.4 (7.9-8.9)% [68 (63-74) mmol/mol]; p < 0.05. Median daily basal insulin dose reduced significantly from 30.0 (14.7-45.0) to 25.5 (14.0-30.2) units; p < 0.0001. Data from hospital records showed reductions in the frequency of episodes of severe hypoglycemia from eight in the 6 months preceding degludec initiation to two in the 6 months following initiation. In the same period, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) episodes reduced from two before degludec initiation to no episodes after initiation. No patients reported worsening treatment satisfaction after switching to degludec. Considering the reductions in the basal dose required and the frequency of hypoglycemia episodes, we estimate that switching such patients to degludec from other basal insulins could provide significant savings in direct healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

In patients with T1D, switching to degludec was associated with an improvement in HbA_1c and reductions in basal insulin dose, severe hypoglycemia, and DKA. When used in appropriate patients, degludec could lead to significant cost savings.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk.

The clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine in patients with Type I diabetes in Brazil: findings and implications

AIM

Published studies have challenged the cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine versus neutral protamine hagedorn (NPH) insulins in Brazil with limited evidence of increased effectiveness despite considerably higher acquisition costs. However, still a controversy. Consequently, there is a need to address this.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of Type I diabetes patients receiving insulin glargine in Brazil following NPH insulin who met the criteria.

RESULTS

580 patients were enrolled. HbA_1c varied from 8.80 ± 1.98% in NPH insulin users to 8.54 ± 1.88% after insulin glargine for 6 months, which is not clinically significant. Frequency of glycemic control varied from 22.6% with NPH insulin to 26.2% with insulin glargine. No statistically significant difference was observed between controlled and still uncontrolled groups for all analyzed factors including type and frequency of insulin use and carbohydrate counting.

CONCLUSION

Limited differences between NPH insulins and insulin analogs in routine clinical care do not justify an appreciable cost difference.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine u100 for the management of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus - from the Spanish National Health System perspective

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine, from the Spanish NHS in three groups of patients.

METHODS

A short-term cost utility model was developed to estimate effectiveness results in terms of the total number of hypoglycaemic events and their disutility impact throughout the year on the initial level of quality of life for patients in each treatment.

RESULTS

Degludec was the dominant strategy for T2DM BOT and exhibited an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 52.70€/QALY and 11,240.88€/QALY for T1DM B/B and T2DM B/B, respectively. Lower costs are primarily driven by lower nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemic events, which were reduced versus IGlar. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are result of the reduced number of hypoglycaemic events showing 0.0211, 0.0328 and 0.0248 QALYs gained when compared to IGlar for T1DM B/B, T2DM BOT and T2DM B/B, respectively. Different scenario analyses showed that the ICERS were stable to plausible variations in the analysed parameters, except when the same number of SMBG for both treatments is used, with T2DM B/B showing an ICER over the accepted threshold.

CONCLUSION

This analysis demonstrates that degludec is a cost-effective option in the Spanish NHS, when used in patients currently treated with long-acting insulin.

Insulin analogues in type 1 diabetes mellitus: getting better all the time

The treatment of type 1 diabetes mellitus consists of external replacement of the functions of β cells in an attempt to achieve blood levels of glucose as close to the normal range as possible. This approach means that glucose sensing needs to be replaced and levels of insulin need to mimic physiological insulin-action profiles, including basal coverage and changes around meals. Training and educating patients are crucial for the achievement of good glycaemic control, but having insulin preparations with action profiles that provide stable basal insulin coverage and appropriate mealtime insulin peaks helps people with type 1 diabetes mellitus to live active lives without sacrificing tight glycaemic control. Insulin analogues enable patients to achieve this goal, as some have fast action profiles, and some have very slow action profiles, which gives people with type 1 diabetes mellitus the tools to achieve dynamic insulin-action profiles that enable tight glycaemic control with a risk of hypoglycaemia that is lower than that with human short-acting and long-acting insulins. This Review discusses the established and novel insulin analogues that are used to treat patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and provides insights into the future development of insulin analogues.