Projected long-term outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with fast-acting insulin aspart vs conventional insulin aspart in the UK setting

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.

Glycaemic efficacy and safety of mealtime faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

To summarize all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and provide precise effect estimates of glycaemic efficacy/safety of faster-acting insulin aspart administered by injection as compared to insulin aspart in people with diabetes mellitus.

METHODS

PubMed/Cochrane Library were systematically searched till October 10, 2020, to identify RCTs with duration ≥16 weeks, evaluating efficacy/safety of mealtime injections of faster aspart compared to insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Studies using faster aspart as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion were excluded. Continuous and dichotomous outcome variables (expressed as estimated treatment difference and rate ratio in RCTs, respectively) were pooled using generic inverse variance method with fixed/random-effects model. For each outcome variable, subgroup analysis between type 1 diabetes mellitus and type 2 diabetes mellitus was performed.

RESULTS

We included five RCTs; three of type 1 diabetes mellitus (n = 1963) and two of type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 1780). All had low risk of bias. Faster aspart was associated with small but significant improvement in HbA_1c than insulin aspart (MD: -0.06%, 95% CI: -0.10, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 19%). HbA_1c reduction was statistically significant only in type 1 diabetes mellitus on subgroup analysis (MD: -0.08%, 95% CI: -0.14, -0.02, p = 0.005, I²  = 47%). Besides, faster aspart was associated with reduced postprandial plasma glucose (PPG) increment at 1 h/2 h after meal test and increased 1,5-anhydroglucitol compared to insulin aspart. Early postprandial hypoglycaemic episodes were higher with faster aspart; however, overall and nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were not different from insulin aspart.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart is associated with reduced HbA_1c , PPG increment and comparable overall hypoglycaemic episodes with regard to insulin aspart.

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.

A survey of physician experience and treatment satisfaction using fast-acting insulin aspart in people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes

AIMS

This survey aimed to explore real-world physician experiences and treatment satisfaction with fast-acting insulin aspart (faster aspart) in clinical practice across Europe and Canada.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online web-based survey was used for physicians treating people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. General practitioners and specialists, with experience using faster aspart, were interviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 191 physicians participated in the survey. Most of their patients (68% of those with T1D and 63% of those with T2D) were previously treated with another mealtime insulin before switching to faster aspart. At the time of initiating faster aspart, nearly half of patients had an HbA_1c level between 7.5% (59 mmol/mol) and 8.5% (69 mmol/mol). The main prescription drivers for faster aspart, versus other mealtime insulins, were faster onset of action, improved postprandial glucose (PPG) control, and dosing flexibility. Most physicians were more satisfied with faster aspart than other mealtime insulins regarding at-meal (66%) and post-meal (71%) dosing flexibility, improved PPG levels (66%), and onset of action (61%). Main reasons for not prescribing faster aspart included a good response to current treatment (76%) or patient reluctance to switch (57%). Overall, 12% of patients discontinued faster aspart, for reasons including concerns of hypoglycemia (17%), poor adherence (17%), and level of patient co-pay (17%). More than half of physicians had fewer concerns regarding postprandial hyperglycemia, and were more confident in their patients reaching their HbA_1c target with faster aspart than with other mealtime insulins.

LIMITATIONS

The findings of this survey are based heavily on physicians' experiences, and could therefore be subject to recall bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Reported physician and patient experiences of using faster aspart have been positive, and better PPG control and increased dosing flexibility are expected to improve glycemic management.

A review of the NG17 recommendations for the use of basal insulin in type 1 diabetes

AIMS

To revisit the data analysis used to inform National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) NG17 guidance for initiating basal insulin in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (diabetes).

METHODS

We replicated the data, methodology and analysis used by NICE diabetes in the NG17 network meta-analysis (NMA). We expanded this data cohort to a more contemporary data set (extended 2017 NMA) and restricted the studies included to improve the robustness of the data set (restricted 2017 NMA) and in a post hoc analysis, changed the index comparator from neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin twice daily to insulin detemir twice daily.

RESULTS

The absolute changes in HbA_1c were similar to those reported in the NG17. However, all 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c point estimates crossed the line of null effect, except for detemir twice daily (in the NICE and extended 2017 NMAs) and NPH four times daily. In the detemir twice-daily centred post hoc analysis, the 95% credible intervals for change in HbA_1c crossed the line of null effect for all basal therapies, except NPH.

CONCLUSIONS

In NG17, comparisons of basal insulins were based solely on efficacy of glycaemic control. Many of the trials used in this analysis were treat-to-target, which minimize differences in HbA_1c . In the NMAs, statistical significance was severely undermined by the wide credible intervals. Despite these limitations, point estimates of HbA_1c were used to rank the insulins and formed the basis of NG17 guidance. This study queries whether such analyses should be used to make specific clinical recommendations.

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

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of IDegLira versus basal-bolus therapy (BBT) with insulin glargine U100 plus up to 4 times daily insulin aspart for the management of type 2 diabetes in the UK.

METHODS

A Microsoft Excel model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of IDegLira versus BBT over a 1-year time horizon. Clinical input data were taken from the treat-to-target DUAL VII trial, conducted in patients unable to achieve adequate glycaemic control (HbA1c <7.0%) with basal insulin, with IDegLira associated with lower rates of hypoglycaemia and reduced body mass index (BMI) in comparison with BBT, with similar HbA1c reductions. Costs (expressed in GBP) and event-related disutilities were taken from published sources. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

IDegLira was associated with an improvement of 0.05 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) versus BBT, due to reductions in non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes and BMI with IDegLira. Costs were higher with IDegLira by GBP 303 per patient, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 5924 per QALY gained for IDegLira versus BBT. ICERs remained below GBP 20 000 per QALY gained across a range of sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

IDegLira is a cost-effective alternative to BBT with insulin glargine U100 plus insulin aspart, providing equivalent glycaemic control with a simpler treatment regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on basal insulin in the UK.

The value of fast-acting insulin aspart compared with insulin aspart for patients with diabetes mellitus treated with bolus insulin from a UK health care system perspective

BACKGROUND

Fast-acting insulin aspart is a new formulation of the rapid-acting insulin analogue insulin aspart and represents an advancement over current rapid-acting insulin analogues in terms of onset of action and postprandial glucose control. The objective of the current analysis was to demonstrate the cost impact of prescribing fast-acting insulin aspart instead of insulin aspart, to highlight the value of fast-acting insulin aspart for the treatment of people with diabetes requiring mealtime insulin.

METHODS

A cost-impact analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). The analysis excluded patients' out-of-pocket expenses, carers' costs and lost productivity. The time horizon of the analysis was 1 year, and no discounting was therefore applied.

RESULTS

The displacement of insulin aspart with fast-acting insulin aspart is cost neutral for the UK NHS. Fast-acting insulin aspart is at price parity to insulin aspart in terms of the vial and Penfill® cartridge and is available in the FlexTouch® pen at the same price as the insulin aspart FlexPen® (and thus cheaper than the insulin aspart FlexTouch® pen). Patients using the insulin aspart FlexPen® will be upgraded to the FlexTouch® pen device, which is preferred by patients and healthcare professionals, on switching to fast-acting insulin aspart, at no additional cost.

CONCLUSIONS

Fast-acting insulin aspart offers additional clinical benefit but at no additional cost when compared with insulin aspart, and thus provides value to the UK NHS.

Projected long-term outcomes in patients with type 1 diabetes treated with fast-acting insulin aspart vs conventional insulin aspart in the UK setting

AIM

To assess the impact of faster aspart vs insulin aspart on long-term clinical outcomes and costs for patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) in the UK setting.

METHODS

The QuintilesIMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical outcomes and costs over patient lifetimes in a cohort with data on baseline characteristics from the "onset 1" trial. Treatment effects were taken from the 26-week main phase of the onset 1 trial, with costs and utilities based on literature review. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually.

RESULTS

Projections indicated that faster aspart was associated with improved discounted quality-adjusted life expectancy (by 0.13 quality-adjusted life-years) vs insulin aspart. Improved clinical outcomes resulted from fewer diabetes-related complications and a delayed time to their onset with faster aspart. Faster aspart was found to be associated with reduced costs vs insulin aspart (cost savings of £1715), resulting from diabetes-related complications avoided and reduced treatment costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Faster aspart was associated with improved clinical outcomes and cost savings vs insulin aspart for patients with T1DM in the UK setting.