Cargando…

An estimation of the long-term clinical and economic benefits of insulin lispro in Type 1 diabetes in the UK

AIMS: To determine the long-term health economic benefits associated with lispro vs. regular human insulin (RHI) in UK Type 1 diabetic (T1DM) patients using the previously published and validated CORE Diabetes Model. METHODS: A literature review designed to capture clinical benefits associated with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pratoomsoot, C, Smith, H T, Kalsekar, A, Boye, K S, Arellano, J, Valentine, W J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228293/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19709151
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02775.x
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: To determine the long-term health economic benefits associated with lispro vs. regular human insulin (RHI) in UK Type 1 diabetic (T1DM) patients using the previously published and validated CORE Diabetes Model. METHODS: A literature review designed to capture clinical benefits associated with lispro and T1DM cohort characteristics specific to UK was undertaken. Clinical benefits were derived from a Cochrane meta-analysis. The estimated difference (weighted mean) in glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) was −0.1% (95% confidence interval −0.2 to 0.0%) for lispro vs. RHI. Severe hypoglycaemia rates for lispro and RHI were 21.8 and 46.1 events per 100 patient years, respectively. Costs and disutilities were accounted for severe hypoglycaemia rates. All costs were accounted in 2007 £UK from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3.5% annually. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, lispro was projected to be dominant compared with RHI. Lispro was associated with improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) of approximately 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) vs. RHI (7.60 vs. 7.50 QALYs). Lifetime direct medical costs per patient were lower with lispro treatment, £70 576 vs. £72 529. Severe hypoglycaemia rates were the key driver in terms of differences in QALE and lifetime costs. Sensitivity analyses with assumptions around time horizon, discounting rates and benefits in terms of glycaemic control or hypoglycaemic event rates revealed that lispro remained dominant. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that lispro is likely to improve QALE, reduce frequency of diabetes-related complications and lifetime medical costs compared with RHI.