Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Evans M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7467476 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Evans Marc M Moes Robert G J RGJ Pedersen Katrine S KS Gundgaard Jens J Pieber Thomas R TR

Advances in therapy 20200418 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 we ...[more]

PMID: 32306247

Similar Datasets

Project description:Aims/hypothesisA head-to-head randomised trial was conducted to evaluate hypoglycaemia safety with insulin degludec 200 U/ml (degludec U200) and insulin glargine 300 U/ml (glargine U300) in individuals with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin.MethodsThis randomised (1:1), open-label, treat-to-target, multinational trial included individuals with type 2 diabetes, aged ≥18 years with HbA1c ≤80 mmol/mol (9.5%) and BMI ≤45 kg/m2. Participants were previously treated with basal insulin with or without oral glucose-lowering drugs (excluding insulin secretagogues) and had to fulfil at least one predefined criterion for hypoglycaemia risk. Both degludec U200 and glargine U300 were similarly titrated to a fasting blood glucose target of 4.0-5.0 mmol/l. Endpoints were assessed during a 36 week maintenance period and a total treatment period up to 88 weeks. There were three hypoglycaemia endpoints: (1) overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia (either severe, an event requiring third-party assistance, or confirmed by blood glucose [<3.1 mmol/l] with symptoms); (2) nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (severe or confirmed by blood glucose with symptoms, between 00:01 and 05:59 h); and (3) severe hypoglycaemia. The primary endpoint was the number of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemic events in the maintenance period. Secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints included the number of nocturnal symptomatic events and number of severe hypoglycaemic events during the maintenance period.ResultsOf the 1609 randomised participants, 733 of 805 (91.1%) in the degludec U200 arm and 734 of 804 (91.3%) in the glargine U300 arm completed the trial (87.3% and 87.8% completed on treatment, respectively). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two treatment arms. For the primary endpoint, the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia was not significantly lower with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 (rate ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% CI 0.73, 1.06]). As there was no significant difference between treatments for the primary endpoint, the confirmatory testing procedure for superiority was stopped. The pre-specified confirmatory secondary hypoglycaemia endpoints were analysed using pre-specified statistical models but were now considered exploratory. These endpoints showed a lower rate of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia (RR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48, 0.84]) and severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07, 0.57]) with degludec U200 vs glargine U300.Conclusions/interpretationThere was no significant difference in the rate of overall symptomatic hypoglycaemia with degludec U200 vs glargine U300 in the maintenance period. The rates of nocturnal symptomatic and severe hypoglycaemia were nominally significantly lower with degludec U200 during the maintenance period compared with glargine U300.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03078478 FUNDING: This trial was funded by Novo Nordisk (Bagsvaerd, Denmark).

Project description: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 (HbA1c) 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.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsThe 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 registrationSWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).FundingNovo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.

Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U300 in the Netherlands: Evidence From a Randomised Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets