Health care resource utilization and expenditures associated with the use of insulin glargine

Development and Implementation of a Collaborative Team Care Model for Effective Insulin Use in an Academic Medical Center Primary Care Network

Improving glycemic control across a primary care diabetes population is challenging. This article describes the development, implementation, and outcomes of the Diabetes Care Collaborative Model (DCCM), a collaborative team care process focused on promoting effective insulin use targeting patients with hyperglycemia in a patient-centered medical home model. After a pilot, the DCCM was implemented in 18 primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. Its implementation was associated with improvements in glycemic control and increase in insulin prescription longitudinally and across the entire population, with a >1% reduction in the proportion of glycated hemoglobin >9% at 2 years after the implementation compared with the 2 years prior ( P < .001). Facilitating factors included diverse stakeholder engagement, institutional alignment of priorities, awarding various types of credits for participation and implementation to providers, and a strong theoretical foundation using the principles of the collaborative care model.

Resource use and outcomes associated with initiation of injectable therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction:

Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often requires intervention with oral and injectable therapies. Across National Health Service (NHS) England, injectable therapies may be initiated in secondary, intermediate or primary care. We wished to understand resource utilization, pathways of care, clinical outcomes, and experience of patients with T2DM initiated on injectable therapies.

Method:

We conducted three service evaluations of initiation of injectable therapies (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or basal insulin) for T2DM in primary, secondary and intermediate care. Evaluations included retrospective review of medical records and service administration; prospective evaluation of NHS staff time on each episode of patient contact during a 3-month initiation period; patient-experience survey for those attending for initiation. Data from each evaluation were analysed separately and results stratified by therapy type.

Results:

A total of 133 patients were included across all settings; 54 were basal-insulin initiations. After initiation, the mean HbA_1c level fell for both types of therapies, and weight increased for patients on basal insulin yet fell for patients on GLP-1 RA. The mean cost of staff time per patient per initiation was: £43.81 for GLP-1 RA in primary care; £243.49 for GLP-1 RA and £473.63 for basal insulin in intermediate care; £518.99 for GLP-1 RA and £571.11 for basal insulin in secondary care. Patient-reported questionnaires were completed by 20 patients, suggesting that patients found it easy to speak to the diabetes team, had opportunities to discuss concerns, and felt that these concerns were addressed adequately.

Conclusion:

All three services achieved a reduction in HbA_1c level after initiation. Patterns of weight gain with basal insulin and weight loss with GLP-1 RA were as expected. Primary care was less resource-intensive and costly, and was driven by lower staff costs and fewer clinic visits.

Meta-analysis of individual patient data to assess the risk of hypoglycaemia in people with type 2 diabetes using NPH insulin or insulin glargine

AIM

To estimate absolute and relative incidence rates of hypoglycaemia when using once-daily evening or morning regimens of insulin glargine (glargine) versus once-daily evening NPH insulin (NPH) using individual patient data (IPD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trials with accessible IPD and including white European people with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) using glargine or NPH once-daily (with oral glucose-lowering drugs) were identified. Two study pools were analysed: evening glargine versus evening NPH (pool 1); and morning glargine versus evening NPH (pool 2). The number-needed-to-treat to avoid hypoglycaemia was calculated for glargine versus NPH.

RESULTS

In study pool 1 (n = 2711), the risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was approximately halved with glargine compared with NPH [odds ratios (OR): 0.44-0.52, p < 0.001-0.047]. This led to a significant reduction in anytime risk of symptomatic hypoglycaemia [plasma glucose (PG) <3.9 mmol/l, OR: 0.64, p = 0.018; PG <2.0 mmol/l, OR: 0.51, p < 0.001]. In study pool 2 (n = 470), although a strong numerical reduction in all types of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed (OR: 0.16-0.64), statistical significance was reached only for symptomatic hypoglycaemia with PG <3.9 mmol/l (p < 0.001). Eight (pool 1) or five (pool 2) people with T2DM needed to use glargine rather than NPH to avoid one person from experiencing a nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic event within a median of about 25 weeks of starting insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis of open-label studies provides confidence that reductions of around 50% of risk for nocturnal hypoglycaemia can be achieved with using glargine instead of NPH.

Pharmacoeconomics and aging

The aging of the general population in industrialized countries has brought to public attention the increasing incidence of age-related clinical conditions, because the long-term impact of diseases on functional status and on costs are greater in older people than in any other age group. With the aging of the population, it is becoming increasingly important to quantify the burden of illness in the elderly; this will be vital not only in planning for the necessary health services that will be required in coming years, but also in order to measure the benefit to be expected from interventions to prevent disability in older people. The management of multiple and chronic disorders has become a more important issue for healthcare authorities because of increasing requests for medical assistance and healthcare interventions. Among these, pharmacological treatments and drug utilization in older people are pressing issues for healthcare managers and politicians; indeed, a relatively small proportion of the population accounts for a substantial part of public drug costs. Two key sources of pressure are well known: the growing number of elderly persons, who are the highest per-capita users of medicines, and the introduction of new, often more expensive, medicines. On the other hand, the development of strategies for controlling costs, while providing the elderly with equitable access to needed pharmaceuticals, should be based on an evaluation of the economic impact of pharmacological care in older people, taking into account the burden of illness, drug utilization data, drug technology assessment evidence and results. Furthermore, there are major factors affecting pharmacological care in older people: for example inappropriate prescribing, lack of adherence and compliance, and the burden of adverse drug events. The assessment of these factors should be considered a priority in pharmacoeconomic evaluations in the aging population, and the most relevant evidence will be reviewed in this paper with examples referring to particular settings or conditions and diseases, such as the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes and chronic pain.

Managing diabetes-related costs and quality of life issues: Value of insulin analogs and pens for inpatient use

Diabetes mellitus is a serious disease that is growing at an epidemic rate, yet it can be managed and controlled with appropriate individualized therapy. In the hospital, costs can be reduced and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) improved by optimal glycemic and blood pressure control, minimal or no hypoglycemia, minimal glucose fluctuations, fewer or no complications, and a shorter length of stay. Insulin analogs and pens are tools that have been used successfully to manage hyperglycemia in the inpatient and outpatient settings. Limited evidence suggests that these advances in insulin therapy may increase HRQOL and improve cost-effectiveness in hospitalized patients compared with regular and NPH insulin and vial/syringe administration of insulin, although additional data are needed to confirm these findings. Most insulin algorithms used in hospitals rely on analogs for basal and prandial glucose control; however, analogs have not been extensively evaluated in clinical trials in this patient population. More studies are needed to evaluate the impact of insulin pen and analog use on HRQOL and costs in hospitalized patients.

Direct costs associated with initiating NPH insulin versus glargine in patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective database analysis

AIMS

To compare total costs and risk of hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) initiated on NPH insulin versus glargine in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This study used claims data (10/2001 to 06/2005) from a privately insured U.S. population of adult T2D patients who were initiated on NPH or glargine following a 6-month insulin-free period. A sample of 1698 glargine-treated and 400 NPH-treated patients met the inclusion criteria. Total and diabetes-related costs (inflation-adjusted to 2006) were calculated for 6-month pre- and post-index periods and compared between 400 patient pairs matched by a propensity score method.

RESULTS

In the post-index 6-month period, glargine patients incurred higher diabetes-related drug costs than NPH patients ($785 versus $632, p<0.0001) but there were no significant differences in diabetes-related medical or total costs, or all other total cost categories. Compared to the pre-index period, glargine patient costs declined by $2420 (p=0.058) whereas NPH patient costs declined by $4200 (p=0.046), with no statistically significant group differences (p=0.469). Among patients with hypoglycemia-related claims (0.75% in both groups), mean hypoglycemia-related costs were $85 and $202 for NPH and glargine patients, respectively (p=0.564).

CONCLUSION

Initiation of either NPH or glargine was associated with major cost reductions and infrequent hypoglycemia-related claims.

A comparison of costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who initiated therapy with exenatide or insulin glargine

BACKGROUND

Exenatide (Byetta) and insulin glargine (Lantus) are antidiabetic agents that are typically used after lack of response to an oral antidiabetic agent(s). Although previous research has examined the impact of these medications on glycaemic control, there is little information about the relative costs associated with the medications.

OBJECTIVE

To compare costs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with exenatide or insulin glargine from a US third-party payer perspective.

METHODS

Data from a large, national administrative claims database were used in this study. The intent-to-treat (ITT) cohort included adults who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and initiated therapy with either exenatide (n = 4090) or insulin glargine (n = 1660). In addition, included patients were required to have no diagnoses of type 1 diabetes, to have received at least two prescriptions for an oral antidiabetic agent in the 6 months prior to first use of either exenatide or insulin glargine and to have continuous insurance coverage from 6 months before, to 12 months after, initiation on ITT medication. Annual total medical costs and total diabetes-related medical costs, in $US, year 2007 values, were estimated using stepwise multivariate regressions. Major cost components were also examined using either stepwise multivariate regressions or a two-part model that controlled for the probability of using the service. Smearing estimates were used to transform estimated log costs into costs. The analysis controlled for the potential impact of patient demographics, general health, prior resource use, co-morbidities and complications, and timing of treatment initiation.

RESULTS

Compared with insulin glargine, initiation of exenatide was associated with significantly lower total direct medical costs ($US19,293 vs $US23,782; p < 0.0001), inpatient costs ($US4121 vs $US7532; p < 0.0001), outpatient costs ($US9501 vs $US12,885; p < 0.0001), emergency department (ED) costs ($US82 vs $US131; p < 0.0001), total diabetes-related medical costs ($US7833 vs $US8536; p < 0.0001), diabetes-related inpatient costs ($US2172 vs $US3538; p < 0.0001) and diabetes-related outpatient costs ($US2739 vs $US3249; p < 0.0001). Initiation of exenatide was associated with significantly higher total overall drug costs ($US6885 vs $US5936; p < 0.0001) and diabetes-related drug costs ($US3160 vs $US2422; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the use of insulin glargine, use of exenatide was associated with significantly lower annual total direct medical costs and significantly lower total diabetes-related medical costs, despite higher total drug costs and higher diabetes-related drug costs. In addition, exenatide was associated with significantly lower total inpatient, outpatient, ED, and diabetes-related inpatient and outpatient costs.

The cost-effectiveness of insulin glargine vs. neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in type 2 diabetes: a focus on health economics

Diabetes mellitus is a major public health problem, in particular because of long-term complications affecting essential organs, such as the eyes and kidneys, which can lead to a reduction in life expectancy and high healthcare costs. The number of individuals with diabetes mellitus is projected to rise worldwide from 171 million people in 2000 to 366 million people in 2030. With the number of patients with diabetes continually growing, the burden of pressure on worldwide health systems is huge. Accordingly, regulatory and marketing approvals of new medicines are beginning to incorporate economic evaluation techniques to determine their cost-effectiveness. Overall, the studies included in this review show that the initiation of insulin glargine is cost-effective and is expected to lead to substantial improvements in both life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted LYs compared with neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin.

Resource utilisation and costs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with insulin glargine or conventional basal insulin under real-world conditions in Germany: LIVE-SPP study

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the total costs relevant to diabetes care in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) treated at specialised diabetes practices with either insulin glargine- or conventional basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH])-based therapies from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective.

METHODS

The Long Acting Insulin Glargine Versus NPH Cost Evaluation in Specialised Practices (LIVE-SPP) study is an observational, retrolective, multicentre longitudinal cost comparison in adults with T2D. Costs were evaluated from the German SHI perspective based on official 2005 prices. Average total costs per patient for insulin glargine-versus NPH-based therapies were compared using multivariate general linear modelling. Sensitivity analyses were performed by varying the main cost factors by +/- 25%.

RESULTS

Patients (n=1,024, 512 patients per cohort) were on average 62 years of age, with an average 8-year diabetes history at study start. The average unadjusted total annual costs per patient were euro 1,868.41 (95% CI 1,744.27-1,992.56) for insulin glargine-based vs. euro 2,063.72 (95% CI 1,922.91-2,204.54) for NPH-based therapies. Average adjusted total annual costs per patient between insulin glargine- (euro 1,241.13) and NPH-based therapies (euro 1,607.86) were statistically significantly different (p=0.0004). The economic advantage for insulin glargine-based therapies resulted mainly from fewer blood glucose measurements and other diabetes-related materials (e.g. needles). The savings remained stable in one-way sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIVE-SPP study suggests that insulin glargine-based therapies may offer an economic advantage over NPH-based therapies.