Cargando…

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting

BACKGROUND: Understanding 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 (glarg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Evans, Marc, Mehta, Roopa, Gundgaard, Jens, Chubb, Barrie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30097995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0478-1
_version_ 1783360163547185152
author Evans, Marc
Mehta, Roopa
Gundgaard, Jens
Chubb, Barrie
author_facet Evans, Marc
Mehta, Roopa
Gundgaard, Jens
Chubb, Barrie
author_sort Evans, Marc
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Understanding 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. METHODS: Data 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 REGISTRATION: SWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600). FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0478-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6167291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61672912018-10-08 Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting Evans, Marc Mehta, Roopa Gundgaard, Jens Chubb, Barrie Diabetes Ther Original Research BACKGROUND: Understanding 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. METHODS: Data 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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 REGISTRATION: SWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600). FUNDING: Novo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0478-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users. Springer Healthcare 2018-08-10 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6167291/ /pubmed/30097995 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0478-1 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
Evans, Marc
Mehta, Roopa
Gundgaard, Jens
Chubb, Barrie
Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title_full Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title_fullStr Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title_full_unstemmed Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title_short Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting
title_sort cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec vs. insulin glargine u100 in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in a uk setting
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6167291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30097995
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-018-0478-1
work_keys_str_mv AT evansmarc costeffectivenessofinsulindegludecvsinsulinglargineu100intype1andtype2diabetesmellitusinauksetting
AT mehtaroopa costeffectivenessofinsulindegludecvsinsulinglargineu100intype1andtype2diabetesmellitusinauksetting
AT gundgaardjens costeffectivenessofinsulindegludecvsinsulinglargineu100intype1andtype2diabetesmellitusinauksetting
AT chubbbarrie costeffectivenessofinsulindegludecvsinsulinglargineu100intype1andtype2diabetesmellitusinauksetting