Dataset Information

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for the US setting. METHODS:A health economic model was developed to estimate mean costs per SHE for which treatment was attempted using NG or IG, which differed only in the probability of treatment success, based on a published usability study. The budget impact of NG was projected over 2 years for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin (T2D-BB). Epidemiologic and cost data were sourced from the literature and/or fee schedules. RESULTS:Mean costs were $992 lower if NG was used compared with IG per SHE for which a user attempted treatment. NG was estimated to reduce SHE-related spending by $1.1?million and $230?000 over 2 years in 10?000 patients each with T1D and T2D-BB, respectively. Reduced spending resulted from reduced professional emergency services utilization as successful treatment was more likely with NG. CONCLUSIONS:The usability advantage of NG over IG was projected to reduce SHE-related treatment costs in the US setting. NG has the potential to improve hypoglycemia emergency care and reduce SHE-related treatment costs.

SUBMITTER: Pohlmann J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6955465 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

Pöhlmann Johannes J Mitchell Beth D BD Bajpai Sanjay S Osumili Beatrice B Valentine William J WJ

Journal of diabetes science and technology 20190130 5

<h4>Background</h4>Severe hypoglycemic events (SHEs) in patients with diabetes are associated with substantial health care costs in the United States (US). Injectable glucagon (IG) is currently available for treatment of severe hypoglycemia but is associated with frequent handling errors. Nasal glucagon (NG) is a novel, easier-to-use treatment that is more often administered successfully. The economic impact of this usability advantage was explored in cost-offset and budget impact analyses for t ...[more]

PMID: 30700165

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs depression has a recurrent course, relapse and recurrence prevention is essential.AimsIn our randomised controlled trial (registered with the Nederlands trial register, identifier: NTR1907), we found that adding preventive cognitive therapy (PCT) to maintenance antidepressants (PCT+AD) yielded substantial protective effects versus antidepressants only in individuals with recurrent depression. Antidepressants were not superior to PCT while tapering antidepressants (PCT/-AD). To inform decision-makers on treatment allocation, we present the corresponding cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and budget impact.MethodData were analysed (n = 289) using a societal perspective with 24-months of follow-up, with depression-free days and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) as health outcomes. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were derived to provide information about cost-effectiveness. The budget impact was examined with a health economic simulation model.ResultsMean total costs over 24 months were €6814, €10 264 and €13 282 for AD+PCT, antidepressants only and PCT/-AD, respectively. Compared with antidepressants only, PCT+AD resulted in significant improvements in depression-free days but not QALYs. Health gains did not significantly favour antidepressants only versus PCT/-AD. High probabilities were found that PCT+AD versus antidepressants only and antidepressants only versus PCT/-AD were dominant with low willingness-to-pay thresholds. The budget impact analysis showed decreased societal costs for PCT+AD versus antidepressants only and for antidepressants only versus PCT/-AD.ConclusionsAdding PCT to antidepressants is cost-effective over 24 months and PCT with guided tapering of antidepressants in long-term users might result in extra costs. Future studies examining costs and effects of antidepressants versus psychological interventions over a longer period may identify a break-even point where PCT/-AD will become cost-effective.Declaration of interestC.L.H.B. is co-editor of PLOS One and receives no honorarium for this role. She is also co-developer of the Dutch multidisciplinary clinical guideline for anxiety and depression, for which she receives no remuneration. She is a member of the scientific advisory board of the National Insure Institute, for which she receives an honorarium, although this role has no direct relation to this study. C.L.H.B. has presented keynote addresses at conferences, such as the European Psychiatry Association and the European Conference Association, for which she sometimes receives an honorarium. She has presented clinical training workshops, some including a fee. She receives royalties from her books and co-edited books and she developed preventive cognitive therapy on the basis of the cognitive model of A. T. Beck. W.A.N. has received grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and the European Union and honoraria and speakers' fees from Lundbeck and Aristo Pharma, and has served as a consultant for Daleco Pharma.

Project description:BackgroundThe elicitation of contact information, notification and testing of sex partners of HIV infected patients (aPS), is an effective HIV testing strategy in low-income settings but may not necessarily be affordable. We applied WHO guidelines and the International Society for Pharmaco-economics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines to conduct cost and budget impact analyses, respectively, of aPS compared to current practice of HIV testing services (HTS) in Kisumu County, Kenya.MethodsUsing study data and time motion studies, we constructed an Excel-based tool to estimate costs and the budget impact of aPS. Cost data were collected from selected facilities in Kisumu County. We report the annual total and unit costs of HTS, incremental total and unit costs for aPS, and the budget impact of scaling up aPS over a 5-year horizon. We also considered a task-shifted scenario that used community health workers (CHWs) rather than facility based health workers and conducted sensitivity analyses assuming different rates of scale up of aPS.ResultsThe average unit costs for HIV testing among HIV-infected index clients was US$ 25.36 per client and US$ 17.86 per client using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental costs for providing enhanced aPS in Kisumu County were US$ 1,092,161 and US$ 753,547 per year, using nurses and CHWs, respectively. The average incremental cost of scaling up aPS over a five period was 45% higher when using nurses compared to using CHWs (US$ 5,460,837 and US$ 3,767,738 respectively). Over the five years, the upper-bound budget impact of nurse-model was US$ 1,767,863, 63% and 35% of which were accounted for by aPS costs and ART costs, respectively. The CHW model incurred an upper-bound incremental cost of US$ 1,258,854, which was 71.2% lower than the nurse-based model. The budget impact was sensitive to the level of aPS coverage and ranged from US$ 28,547 for 30% coverage using CHWs in 2014 to US$ 1,267,603 for 80% coverage using nurses in 2018.ConclusionScaling aPS using nurses has minimal budget impact but not cost-saving over a five-year period. Targeting aPS to newly-diagnosed index cases and task-shifting to community health workers is recommended.

Project description:IntroductionReady-to-use glucagon represents a significant advancement in the management of severe hypoglycemia for people with diabetes and their caregivers. This indirect treatment comparison (ITC) evaluated the efficacy and safety differences among the three ready-to-use glucagon treatments, Baqsimi® (nasal glucagon), Gvoke® (glucagon injection) and Zegalogue® (dasiglucagon injection), in adults and children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of Baqsimi, Gvoke or Zegalogue versus reconstituted, injectable glucagon (IG) in reversing insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Bayesian fixed-effect network meta-analysis was used to perform the ITC. Study endpoints included proportion of participants achieving treatment success, maximum blood glucose achieved, time to achieve treatment success and maximum blood glucose and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE).ResultsTen clinical trials were included in the ITC (four for Baqsimi, three for Gvoke, and three for Zegalogue). All three treatments achieved high proportions of treatment success (> 98%). In adults, the efficacy results from combined T1D and T2D analysis were consistent with the T1D analysis, except statistically significantly faster in achieving treatment success for Baqsimi vs Gvoke in the combined analysis (13.96 vs 14.66 min). The mean maximum blood glucose values were also statistically significantly lower for Baqsimi (168 mg/dl) vs Gvoke (220 mg/dl) and Zegalogue (190 mg/dl). There was a trend towards a lower number of adults experiencing ≥ 1 TEAE with Baqsimi compared to Gvoke or Zegalogue, but no statistical significance was reached.ConclusionBaqsimi, Gvoke and Zegalogue had comparable high proportions of treatment success in reversing insulin-induced hypoglycemia. Baqsimi achieved a lower mean maximum blood glucose value, which may have implications for the re-establishment of euglycemia. These findings may help support patients, caregivers and health care providers in their decision-making process when discussing various ready-to-use glucagon treatment options.

Dataset Information

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

Publications

Nasal Glucagon Versus Injectable Glucagon for Severe Hypoglycemia: A Cost-Offset and Budget Impact Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets