Dataset Information

Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compared to conventional human basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn; NPH) the long-acting analogue insulin glargine (GLA) is associated with a number of advantages regarding metabolic control, hypoglycaemic events and convenience. However, the unit costs of GLA exceed those of NPH. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence comparing GLA with NPH in basal-bolus treatment (intensified conventional therapy; ICT) of type 1 diabetes in order to facilitate informed decision making in clinical practice and health policy.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed for the period of January 1st 2000 to December 1st 2009 via Embase, Medline, the Cochrane Library, the databases GMS (German Medical Science) and DAHTA (Deutsche Agentur für Health Technology Assessment), and the abstract books of relevant international scientific congresses. Retrieved studies were reviewed based on predefined inclusion criteria, methodological and quality aspects. In order to allow comparison between studies, currencies were converted using purchasing power parities (PPP).

Results

A total of 7 health economic evaluations from 4 different countries fulfilled the predefined criteria: 6 modelling studies, all of them cost-utility analyses, and one claims data analysis with a cost-minimisation design. One cost-utility analysis showed dominance of GLA over NPH. The other 5 cost-utility analyses resulted in additional costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for GLA, ranging from € 3,859 to € 57,002 (incremental cost effectiveness ratio; ICER). The cost-minimisation analysis revealed lower annual diabetes-specific costs in favour of NPH from the perspective of the German Statutory Health Insurance (SHI).

Conclusions

The incremental cost-utility-ratios (ICER) show favourable values for GLA with considerable variation. If a willingness-to-pay threshold of £ 30,000 (National Institute of Clinical Excellence, UK) is adopted, GLA is cost-effective in 4 of 6 cost utility analyses (CUA) included. Thus insulin glargine (GLA) seems to offer good value for money. Comparability between studies is limited because of methodological and country specific aspects. The results of this review underline that evaluation of insulin therapy should use evidence on efficacy of therapy from information synthesis. The concept of relating utility decrements to fear of hypoglycaemia is a plausible approach but needs further investigation. Also future evaluations of basal-bolus insulin therapy should include costs of consumables such as needles for insulin injection as well as test strips and lancets for blood glucose self monitoring.

SUBMITTER: Hagenmeyer EG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3200149 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.

Hagenmeyer Ernst-Günther EG Koltermann Katharina C KC Dippel Franz-Werner FW Schädlich Peter K PK

Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E 20111006 1

<h4>Background</h4>Compared to conventional human basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn; NPH) the long-acting analogue insulin glargine (GLA) is associated with a number of advantages regarding metabolic control, hypoglycaemic events and convenience. However, the unit costs of GLA exceed those of NPH. This study aims to systematically review the economic evidence comparing GLA with NPH in basal-bolus treatment (intensified conventional therapy; ICT) of type 1 diabetes in order to facilitate ...[more]

PMID: 21978524

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsA variety of basal insulin preparations are used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We aimed to summarize scientific evidence on relative efficacy and safety of insulin glargine (IGlar) and other insulins in T2DM.MethodsA systematic review was carried out in major medical databases up to December 2012. Relevant studies compared efficacy and safety of IGlar, added to oral drugs (OAD) or/and in combination with bolus insulin, with protamine insulin (NPH) or premixed insulin (MIX) in the same regimen, as well as with insulin detemir (IDet), in T2DM. Target HbA1c level without hypoglycemic events was considered the primary endpoint.ResultsTwenty eight RCTs involving 12,669 T2DM patients followed for 12-52 weeks were included in quantitative analysis. IGlar + OAD use was associated with higher probability of reaching target HbA1c level without hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 1.32 [1.09, 1.59]) or MIX without OAD (RR = 1.61 [1.22, 2.13]) and similar effect as IDet + OAD (RR = 1.07 [0.87, 1.33]) and MIX + OAD (RR = 1.09 [0.86, 1.38]). IGlar + OAD demonstrated significantly lower risk of symptomatic hypoglycemia as compared to NPH + OAD (RR = 0.89 [0.83, 0.96]), MIX + OAD (RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]) and MIX without OAD(RR = 0.75 [0.68, 0.83]), but not with IDet + OAD (RR = 0.99 [0.90, 1.08]). In basal-bolus regimens, IGlar demonstrated similar proportion of T2DM patients achieving target HbA1c as compared to NPH (RR = 1.14 [0.91, 1.44]) but higher than MIX (RR = 1.26 [1.12, 1.42) or IDet (RR = 1.38 [1.11, 1.72]). The risk of severe hypoglycemia was lower in IGlar than in NPH (RR = 0.77 [0.63, 0.94]), with no differences in comparison with MIX (RR = 0.74 [0.46, 1.20]) and IDet (RR = 1.10 [0.54, 2.25]). IGlar + OAD has comparable safety profile to NPH, with less frequent adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation than MIX + OAD (RR = 0.41 [0.22, 0.76]) and IDet + OAD (RR = 0.40 [0.24, 0.69]). Also severe adverse reactions were less common for IGlar + OAD when compared to MIX + OAD (RR = 0.71 [0.52; 0.98]).ConclusionFor the majority of examined efficacy and safety outcomes, IGlar use in T2DM patients was superior or non-inferior to the alternative insulin treatment options.

Project description:BackgroundChronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Many diabetes patients will eventually require insulin treatment to maintain good glycaemic control. There are still uncertainties about the optimal insulin treatment regimens for type 2 diabetes, but the long-acting insulin analogues seem beneficial. Several reviews have compared either insulin detemir or insulin glargine to NPH insulin, but research directly comparing both insulin analogues is limited.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with each other in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Search strategyWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, online registries of ongoing trials and abstract books. Date of last search was January 2011.Selection criteriaAll randomised controlled trials comparing insulin detemir with insulin glargine with a duration of 12 weeks or longer were included.Data collection and analysisTwo authors independently selected the studies and extracted the data. Pooling of studies by means of random-effects meta-analysis was performed.Main resultsThis review examined four trials lasting 24 to 52 weeks involving 2250 people randomised to either insulin detemir or glargine. Overall, risk of bias of the evaluated studies was high. Insulin glargine was dosed once-daily in the evening. Insulin detemir was initiated once-daily in the evening with the option of an additional dose in the morning in three studies and initiated twice-daily in one study. Of randomised patients 13.6% to 57.2% were injecting insulin detemir twice-daily at the end of trial.Glycaemic control, measured by glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and HbA1c equal to or less than 7% with or without hypoglycaemia, did not differ statistically significantly between treatment groups.The results showed no significant differences in overall, nocturnal and severe hypoglycaemia between treatment groups.Insulin detemir was associated with less weight gain. Treatment with insulin glargine resulted in a lower daily basal insulin dose and a lower number of injection site reactions.There was no significant difference in the variability of FPG or glucose values in 24-hour profiles between treatment groups. It was not possible to draw conclusions on quality of life, costs or mortality. Only one trial reported results on health-related quality of life and showed no significant differences between treatment groups.Authors' conclusionsOur analyses suggest that there is no clinically relevant difference in efficacy or safety between insulin detemir and insulin glargine for targeting hyperglycaemia. However, to achieve the same glycaemic control insulin detemir was often injected twice-daily in a higher dose but with less weight gain, while insulin glargine was injected once-daily, with somewhat fewer injection site reactions.

Project description:This long-term study was designed to further characterise the retinal safety profile of insulin glargine and human neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.An open-label, 5 year, randomised (1:1), multicentre, stratified, parallel-group study conducted in the USA and Canada enrolled individuals with type 2 diabetes and either no or non-proliferative retinopathy (less than severe; Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] level less than 53 in both eyes) who were treated with oral hypoglycaemic agents (OHAs) alone, insulin alone or OHAs with insulin for >/=3 months prior to study entry and a baseline HbA(1c) level of 6.0-12.0%. Patients were randomised by the investigator according to the centralised interactive voice response system to receive twice-daily NPH insulin (n = 509) or once-daily basal insulin glargine (n = 515). The investigator was not blinded to the treatment group to which each participant had been assigned. The main objective of this study was to compare the progression of diabetic retinopathy between treatment groups by analysing the percentage of patients with three or more step progression in the ETDRS retinopathy patient-level severity scale after treatment with either basal insulin. Masked, centralised grading of seven-field stereoscopic fundus photographs was used.Similarly sustained glycaemic control was observed in both the insulin glargine and NPH insulin treatment groups. Despite a slightly greater severity of diabetic retinopathy for the insulin glargine group at baseline, three or more step progression in ETDRS score from baseline to end-of-study was similar between treatment groups (14.2% [53/374] of insulin glargine-treated patients vs 15.7% [57/363] of NPH-treated patients); the difference in the incidence of progression was -1.98% (95% CI -7.02, 3.06%). Other measures of retinopathy-the development of proliferative diabetic retinopathy and progression to clinically significant macular oedema-occurred to a similar degree in both treatment groups. No other safety issues, such as unexpected adverse events for either insulin emerged during the 5 year study. However, NPH insulin treatment was associated with a higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine.This study shows no evidence of a greater risk of the development or progression of diabetic retinopathy with insulin glargine vs NPH insulin treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00174824This study was sponsored by sanofi-aventis.

Dataset Information

Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Health economic evaluations comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets