Cargando…

DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal–bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollock, Richard F., Valentine, William J., Marso, Steven P., Gundgaard, Jens, Hallén, Nino, Hansen, Lars L., Tutkunkardas, Deniz, Buse, John B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29713962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0430-4
_version_ 1783328682610262016
author Pollock, Richard F.
Valentine, William J.
Marso, Steven P.
Gundgaard, Jens
Hallén, Nino
Hansen, Lars L.
Tutkunkardas, Deniz
Buse, John B.
author_facet Pollock, Richard F.
Valentine, William J.
Marso, Steven P.
Gundgaard, Jens
Hallén, Nino
Hansen, Lars L.
Tutkunkardas, Deniz
Buse, John B.
author_sort Pollock, Richard F.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal–bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal–bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. RESULTS: Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs. CONCLUSION: The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal–bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0430-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5984933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59849332018-06-13 DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK Pollock, Richard F. Valentine, William J. Marso, Steven P. Gundgaard, Jens Hallén, Nino Hansen, Lars L. Tutkunkardas, Deniz Buse, John B. Diabetes Ther Original Research INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in the basal–bolus subgroup of the head-to-head cardiovascular (CV) outcome trial, DEVOTE. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was conducted over a 2-year time horizon using a decision analytic model to compare costs in patients receiving once daily degludec or glargine U100, both as part of a basal–bolus regimen, in addition to standard care. Clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were taken exclusively from DEVOTE, whilst health-related quality of life utilities and UK-specific costs (expressed in 2016 GBP) were obtained from the literature. The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the National Health Service. RESULTS: Degludec was associated with mean cost savings of GBP 28.78 per patient relative to glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes at high CV risk. Cost savings were driven by the reduction in risk of diabetes-related complications with degludec, which offset the higher treatment costs relative to glargine U100. Degludec was associated with a mean improvement of 0.0064 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with glargine U100, with improvements driven predominantly by lower rates of severe hypoglycemia with degludec versus glargine U100. Improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy combined with cost neutrality resulted in degludec being dominant over glargine U100. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the incremental cost-utility ratio was stable to variations in the majority of model inputs. CONCLUSION: The present short-term modeling analysis found that for the basal–bolus subgroup of patients in DEVOTE, with a high risk of CV events, degludec was cost neutral (no additional costs) compared with glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon in the UK setting. Furthermore, there were QALY gains with degludec, particularly due to the reduction in the risk of severe hypoglycemia. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk A/S. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01959529. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0430-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Healthcare 2018-04-30 2018-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5984933/ /pubmed/29713962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0430-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Research
Pollock, Richard F.
Valentine, William J.
Marso, Steven P.
Gundgaard, Jens
Hallén, Nino
Hansen, Lars L.
Tutkunkardas, Deniz
Buse, John B.
DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title_full DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title_fullStr DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title_full_unstemmed DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title_short DEVOTE 5: Evaluating the Short-Term Cost-Utility of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Basal–Bolus Regimens for Type 2 Diabetes in the UK
title_sort devote 5: evaluating the short-term cost-utility of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine u100 in basal–bolus regimens for type 2 diabetes in the uk
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5984933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29713962
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0430-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pollockrichardf devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT valentinewilliamj devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT marsostevenp devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT gundgaardjens devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT hallennino devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT hansenlarsl devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT tutkunkardasdeniz devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT busejohnb devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk
AT devote5evaluatingtheshorttermcostutilityofinsulindegludecversusinsulinglargineu100inbasalbolusregimensfortype2diabetesintheuk