Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Insulin Detemir Compared to Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Spain.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

An Excel^® (Microsoft Corporation) model was adapted to estimate the short-term (1-year) cost effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients initiating insulin treatment with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Spain.

Methods

Clinical benefits included the non-severe hypoglycemia rate for T1DM and T2DM, and weight change for T2DM. Three scenarios were included with different hypoglycemia rates estimated on the basis of clinical trials and observational studies. Costs, estimated from perspective of the Spanish Public Healthcare System (Euros 2014), included insulin treatment and non-severe hypoglycemia management costs. Non-severe hypoglycemia, defined as a self-managed event, implied the use of extra glucose testing strips and a general practitioner visit during the week following the event for 25% of patients. An average disutility value was associated to non-severe hypoglycemia events and, for T2DM, to one body mass index unit gain to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

For the three scenarios a range of 0.025-0.076 QALYs for T1DM and 0.014-0.051 QALYs for T2DM were gained for IDet versus NPH due to non-severe hypoglycemia and weight gain avoidance, in return of an incremental cost of €145-192 for T1DM and €128-206 for T2DM. This resulted in the IDet versus NPH incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging between €1910/QALY and €7682/QALY for T1DM and €2522/QALY and €15,009/QALY for T2DM.

Conclusion

IDet was a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the first year of treatment of patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM in Spain, with ICERs under the threshold value commonly accepted in Spain (€30,000/QALY).

Funding

Novo Nordisk.

SUBMITTER: Morales C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4674462 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:There is currently a lack of evidence from direct comparisons of treatment outcomes with lixisenatide versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH)-insulin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients with suboptimal glycaemic control with oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs). Hence, the current analysis indirectly compared available evidence on the risk of hypoglycaemia and weight change between lixisenatide and NPH-insulin based on randomized controlled trial (RCT) data with exenatide, insulin glargine and placebo as common references.A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane database and clinical registries identified English- and German-language articles published from January 1980 to October 2012 reporting data from RCTs. Only publications of trials that reported outcomes from 24 to 30 weeks comparing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists or basal insulin versus another antidiabetic agent or placebo were included. Hypoglycaemia, patients at glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) target and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) were treated as binary variables, with risk ratios and odds ratios (ORs) calculated. HbA1c and body weight were treated as continuous variables with difference in mean change from baseline (MD) calculated. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models and indirect comparisons were performed according to Bucher's method.Seven RCTs (n=3,301 patients) comparing the efficacy and safety of lixisenatide, exenatide, insulin glargine and NPH-insulin with different antidiabetic treatments in adult patients with T2DM were included in the final analysis. In the adjusted indirect comparison, there was a significant difference in symptomatic hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.38; 95% CI = [0.17, 0.85]) and in confirmed hypoglycaemia (OR = 0.46; 95% CI = [0.22, 0.96]) favouring lixisenatide over NPH-insulin and comparable changes in HbA1c from baseline (MD = 0.07%; 95% CI = [-0.26%, 0.41%]). In contrast to NPH-insulin, there was a significant reduction in body weight with lixisenatide (MD = -3.62 kg; 95% CI = [-5.86 kg, -1.38 kg]) at study completion. The number of discontinuations due to AEs numerically favoured NPH-insulin over lixisenatide (OR = 2.64; 95% CI = [0.25, 27.96]), with a broad confidence interval.Lixisenatide treatment was associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia and a greater weight loss compared with NPH-insulin. Glycaemic control with lixisenatide treatment was comparable with NPH-insulin. These data suggest that lixisenatide is a beneficial treatment option for T2DM patients with inadequate glycaemic control on OADs, and is associated with reduced risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare real-world outcomes of initiating insulin glargine (GLA) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin among employees with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had both employer-sponsored health insurance and short-tem-disability coverages.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingMarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters/Health and Productivity Management Databases 2003-2009.ParticipantsAdult employees with T2DM who were previously treated with oral antidiabetic drugs and/or glucagon-like-peptide 1 receptor agonists and initiated GLA or NPH were included if they were continuously enrolled in healthcare and short-term-disability coverages for 3 months before (baseline) and 1 year after (follow-up) initiation. Treatment selection bias was addressed by 2:1 propensity score matching. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using different matching ratios.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes during 1-year follow-up were measured and compared: insulin treatment persistence and adherence; hypoglycaemia rates and daily average consumption of insulin; total and diabetes-specific healthcare resource utilisation and costs and loss in productivity, as measured by short-term disability, and the associated costs.ResultsA total of 534 patients were matched and analysed (GLA: 356; NPH 178) with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. GLA patients were more persistent and adherent (both p<0.05), had lower rates of hospitalisation (23% vs 31.4%; p=0.036) and endocrinologist visits (19.1% vs 26.9%; p=0.038), similar hypoglycaemia rates (both 4.4%; p=1.0), higher diabetes drug costs ($2031 vs $1522; p<0.001), but similar total healthcare costs ($14 550 vs $16 093; p=0.448) and total diabetes-related healthcare costs ($4686 vs $5604; p=0.416). Short-term disability days and costs were numerically lower in the GLA cohort (16.0 vs 24.5 days; p=0.086 and $2824 vs $4363; p=0.081, respectively). Sensitivity analyses yielded similar findings.ConclusionsInsulin GLA results in better persistence and adherence, compared with NPH insulin, with no overall cost disadvantages. Better persistence and adherence may lead to long-term health benefits for employees with T2DM.