Cargando…
Cost-Effectiveness of Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Patients with Poorly Controlled Type 2 Diabetes in Finland
INTRODUCTION: Although primarily utilized in type 1 diabetes, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful treatment alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes who are unable to achieve good glycemic control despite optimization of multiple daily injections (MDI). The aim o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Healthcare
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6437241/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30730036 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13300-019-0575-9 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Although primarily utilized in type 1 diabetes, continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) represents a useful treatment alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes who are unable to achieve good glycemic control despite optimization of multiple daily injections (MDI). The aim of the analysis reported here was to investigate the long-term cost-effectiveness of CSII versus MDI in type 2 diabetes patients with poor glycemic control in Finland. METHODS: The IQVIA CORE Diabetes Model was used to make long-term projections of the clinical and economic outcomes associated with CSII use in type 2 diabetes, based on clinical input data from the OpT2mise trial, which showed that CSII was associated with a 1.1% decrease in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with poor glycemic control at baseline. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective and the time horizon was that of patient lifetimes. Future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3% per annum. RESULTS: Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with MDI (8.15 vs. 7.83 QALYs, respectively), as well as higher mean lifetime costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of Euro (EUR) 47,834 per QALY gained for CSII versus MDI. The higher treatment costs in the CSII group were partly mitigated by a 15% reduction in diabetes-related complication costs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that CSII was most cost-effective in patients with the highest baseline HbA1c values. CONCLUSION: In Finland, CSII is likely to represent a cost-effective treatment alternative for patients with type 2 diabetes with poor glycemic control despite optimization of MDI. In such patients, CSII is associated with improved clinical outcomes relative to MDI, with the higher acquisition costs partly offset by a lower lifetime incidence and cost of diabetes-related complications. FUNDING: Medtronic International Sàrl. |
---|