Cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin for type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Canadian payer setting: modeling analysis

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting, Long-Acting, Ultralong-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues for people with type 1 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

People with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) need treatment with insulin for survival. Whether any particular type of (ultra-)long-acting insulin provides benefit especially regarding risk of diabetes complications and hypoglycaemia is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn) or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogue in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. We explored the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medical Agency (EMA) web pages. We asked pharmaceutical companies, EMA and investigators for additional data and clinical study reports (CSRs). The date of the last search of all databases was 24 August 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a duration of 24 weeks or more comparing one (ultra-)long-acting insulin to NPH insulin or another (ultra-)long-acting insulin in people with T1DM.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed risk of bias using the new Cochrane 'Risk of bias' 2 (RoB 2) tool and extracted data. Our main outcomes were all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life (QoL), severe hypoglycaemia, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke (NFMI/NFS), severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia, serious adverse events (SAEs) and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). We used a random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and calculated risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and 95% prediction intervals for effect estimates. We evaluated the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE instrument.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs. Two studies were unpublished. We obtained CSRs, clinical study synopses or both as well as medical reviews from regulatory agencies on 23 studies which contributed to better analysis of risk of bias and improved data extraction. A total of 8784 participants were randomised: 2428 participants were allocated to NPH insulin, 2889 participants to insulin detemir, 2095 participants to insulin glargine and 1372 participants to insulin degludec. Eight studies contributing 21% of all participants comprised children. The duration of the intervention varied from 24 weeks to 104 weeks. Insulin degludec versus NPH insulin: we identified no studies comparing insulin degludec with NPH insulin. Insulin detemir versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): five deaths reported in two studies including adults occurred in the insulin detemir group (Peto OR 4.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 31.38; 9 studies, 3334 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Three studies with 870 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). There was a reduction in severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir: 171/2019 participants (8.5%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 138/1200 participants (11.5%) in the NPH insulin group experienced severe hypoglycaemia (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.92; 8 studies, 3219 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between 0.34 and 1.39. Only 1/331 participants in the insulin detemir group compared with 0/164 participants in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFMI (1 study, 495 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported NFS. A total of 165/2094 participants (7.9%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 102/1238 participants (8.2%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21; 9 studies, 3332 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 70/1823 participants (3.8%) in the insulin detemir group compared with 60/1102 participants (5.4%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.17; 7 studies, 2925 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin was 0.01%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 8 studies, 3122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin glargine versus NPH insulin (9 RCTs): one adult died in the NPH insulin group (Peto OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.00 to 6.98; 8 studies, 2175 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 1013 participants reported QoL showing no true beneficial effect or harmful effect for either intervention (low-certainty evidence). Severe hypoglycaemia was observed in 122/1191 participants (10.2%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 145/1159 participants (12.5%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.04; 9 studies, 2350 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No participant experienced a NFMI and one participant in the NPH insulin group experienced a NFS in the single study reporting this outcome (585 participants; low-certainty evidence). A total of 109/1131 participants (9.6%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 110/1098 participants (10.0%) in the NPH insulin group experienced SAEs (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.84; 8 studies, 2229 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia was observed in 69/938 participants (7.4%) in the insulin glargine group compared with 83/955 participants (8.7%) in the NPH insulin group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.12; 6 studies, 1893 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The MD in HbA1c comparing insulin glargine with NPH insulin was 0.02%, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.1; 9 studies, 2285 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Insulin detemir versus insulin glargine (2 RCTs),insulin degludec versus insulin detemir (2 RCTs), insulin degludec versus insulin glargine (4 RCTs): there was no evidence of a clinically relevant difference for all main outcomes comparing (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues with each other. For all outcomes none of the comparisons indicated differences in tests of interaction for children versus adults.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Comparing insulin detemir with NPH insulin for T1DM showed lower risk of severe hypoglycaemia in favour of insulin detemir (moderate-certainty evidence). However, the 95% prediction interval indicated inconsistency in this finding. Both insulin detemir and insulin glargine compared with NPH insulin did not show benefits or harms for severe nocturnal hypoglycaemia. For all other main outcomes with overall low risk of bias and comparing insulin analogues with each other, there was no true beneficial or harmful effect for any intervention. Data on patient-important outcomes such as QoL, macrovascular and microvascular diabetic complications were sparse or missing. No clinically relevant differences were found between children and adults.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Glargine and Insulin Detemir in the Basal Regimen for Naïve Insulin Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in Malaysia

Objective

To compare the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogue (LAIA) (insulin Detemir and insulin Glargine) versus NPH insulin in the basal insulin regime for naïve insulin T2DM Malaysian patients.

Methods

The UKPDS-Outcome Model version 2.0 (UKPDS-OM2) was used to evaluate the cost and consequence of diabetes-related complication. The effectiveness of the insulin was derived from the literature review, and the patients’ epidemiology characteristics were retrieved from the Malaysian Diabetes Registry. A discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and health effects. Another simple mathematical model was used to compare the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia events between LAIA and NPH insulin. The outputs of the models were combined to obtain the final result. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the uncertainties.

Results

The net cost difference (without accounting for hypoglycemia) was RM4868 for insulin Glargine and RM6026 for insulin Detemir. The saving from preventing severe hypoglycemia was RM4377 for insulin Glargine and RM12,753 for insulin Detemir. The total additional QALY gained from insulin Glargine was 0.1317 and from insulin Detemir was 0.8376. The sensitivity analysis shows the discount rate, and drug acquisition cost may affect the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value.

Conclusion

Both insulin Detemir and Glargine are cost-effective compared to NPH insulin for T2DM patients, especially when the benefit of reducing the hypoglycemia event rate is taken into account.

Cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin for type 1 diabetes: A population-based cohort followed over 10 years

AIMS

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of long-acting insulin analogues (LAIAs) vs intermediate/long-acting human insulin (ILAHI) for patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

Individual-level analyses were conducted within a longitudinal population-based cohort of 540 propensity score-matched T1D patients (LAIAs, n = 270; ILAHI, n = 270) with over 10 years of follow-up using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, 2004-2013, from third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives. The study outcomes included the number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one case of clinical events (eg, hypoglycaemia, diabetes-related complications), medical costs, and cost per case of events prevented. Cost estimates are presented in 2013 British pounds (GBP, £).

RESULTS

The NNTs using LAIAs vs ILAHI to avoid one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia and any diabetes-related complications were 12, 9 and 10 for mean follow-up periods of 5.84, 6.02 and 3.62 years, respectively. From third-party payer and healthcare sector perspectives, using LAIAs instead of ILAHI saved GBP6924-GBP7116 per case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance prevented, GBP5346-GBP5508 per case of outpatient hypoglycaemia prevented, and GBP3570-GBP3680 per case of any diabetes-related complications prevented. Sensitivity analyses considering sampling uncertainty showed that using LAIAs over ILAHI yields at least a 76% probability of cost-saving for avoiding one case of hypoglycaemia requiring medical assistance, outpatient hypoglycaemia or any diabetes-related complications.

CONCLUSIONS

This real-world evidence reveals that compared with ILAHI, the greater pharmaceutical costs associated with LAIAs for patients with T1D could be substantially offset by savings from averted hypoglycaemia or diabetes-related complications.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the UK using a short-term modeling approach

BACKGROUND

To estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin based on the incidence of non-severe hypoglycemia and changes in body weight in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK.

METHODS

A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on non-severe hypoglycemia, body mass index, and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of non-severe hypoglycemia were employed in the T1D and T2D analyses, while reduced weight gain with IDet was modeled in the T2D analysis only. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy using published utility scores. Pharmacy costs were captured using published prices and defined daily doses. Costs were expressed in 2016 pounds sterling (GBP). Sensitivity analyses were performed (including probabilistic sensitivity analysis).

RESULTS

In T1D, IDet was associated with fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events than NPH insulin (126.7 versus 150.8 events per person-year), leading to an improvement of 0.099 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs with IDet were GBP 60 higher, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 610 per QALY gained. In T2D, mean non-severe hypoglycemic event rates and body weight were lower with IDet than NPH insulin, leading to a total incremental utility of 0.120, accompanied by an annual cost increase of GBP 171, yielding an ICER of GBP 1,422 per QALY gained for IDet versus NPH insulin.

CONCLUSION

Short-term health economic evaluation showed IDet to be a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the UK due to lower rates of non-severe hypoglycemia (T1D and T2D) and reduced weight gain (T2D only).

Effectiveness and safety of insulin glargine versus detemir analysis in patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus type 1 (DM1) is an autoimmune disease characterized by metabolic destruction of pancreatic cells responsible for insulin production, with treatment based on replacing insulin. Long-acting insulin analogs are indicated for patients with DM1 who exhibit important oscillations of their daily glycemia, despite its higher cost. Our study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of two long-acting insulins, insulin glargine and detemir, in treating patients with DM1.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies (cohort and registry) available in the databases and the gray literature, and a complementary search in the Diabetes Care journal. Outcomes assessed were: glycated hemoglobin concentration; fasting plasma or capillary glucose; occurrence of episodes of severe hypoglycemia and occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia. The assessment of methodological quality was performed using the Newcastle score. The meta-analyses were performed on software Review Manager^® 5.2.

RESULTS

Out of 705 publications, 8 cohort studies were included. The quality of these studies was classified as high. In the meta-analysis, results regarding episodes of severe hypoglycemia (p = 0.02) and fasting glucose (p = 0.01) were in favor of detemir. The glycated hemoglobin (p = 0.49; I² = 89) showed high heterogeneity and no statistically significant difference between the two. The meta-analysis of total insulin dose favored glargine (p = 0.006; I² = 75). The rates of nocturnal hypoglycemia (NH) were evaluated only for one study and showed a significant reduction of NH after therapy with detemir, (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Although some outcomes were favorable to detemir insulin analog, it has not been possible to identify important differences of effectiveness and safety between the two analogs. These results can help in the current debate on the inclusion of long-acting analogs on the list of reimbursed medicines in Brazil, especially with the recent introduction of an insulin glargine biosimilar at a considerably lower price.

Basal Insulin Regimens for Adults with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Utility Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of basal insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus in England.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was conducted in accordance with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence reference case. The UK National Health Service and personal and social services perspective was used and a 3.5% discount rate was applied for both costs and outcomes. Relative effectiveness estimates were based on a systematic review of published trials and a Bayesian network meta-analysis. The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used, in which net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated using a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. A wide range of sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Insulin detemir (twice daily) [iDet (bid)] had the highest mean QALY gain (11.09 QALYs) and NMB (£181,456) per patient over the model time horizon. Compared with the lowest cost strategy (insulin neutral protamine Hagedorn once daily), it had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £7844/QALY gained. Insulin glargine (od) [iGlarg (od)] and iDet (od) were ranked as second and third, with NMBs of £180,893 and £180,423, respectively. iDet (bid) remained the most cost-effective treatment in all the sensitivity analyses performed except when high doses were assumed (>30% increment compared with other regimens), where iGlarg (od) ranked first.

CONCLUSIONS

iDet (bid) is the most cost-effective regimen, providing the highest QALY gain and NMB. iGlarg (od) and iDet (od) are possible options for those for whom the iDet (bid) regimen is not acceptable or does not achieve required glycemic control.

How Consistent is the Relationship between Improved Glucose Control and Modelled Health Outcomes for People with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus? a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There are an increasing number of studies using simulation models to conduct cost-effectiveness analyses for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between improvements in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) and simulated health outcomes in type 2 diabetes cost-effectiveness studies.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE to collect cost-effectiveness studies using type 2 diabetes simulation models that reported modelled health outcomes of blood glucose-related interventions in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) or life expectancy (LE). The data extracted included information used to characterise the study cohort, the intervention's treatment effects on risk factors and model outcomes. Linear regressions were used to test the relationship between the difference in HbA_1c (∆HbA_1c) and incremental QALYs (∆QALYs) or LE (∆LE) of intervention and control groups. The ratio between the ∆QALYs and ∆LE was calculated and a scatterplot between the ratio and ∆HbA_1c was used to explore the relationship between these two.

RESULTS

Seventy-six studies were included in this research, contributing to 124 pair of comparators. The pooled regressions indicated that the marginal effect of a 1% HbA_1c decrease in intervention resulted in an increase in life-time QALYs and LE of 0.371 (95% confidence interval 0.286-0.456) and 0.642 (95% CI 0.494-0.790), respectively. No evidence of heterogeneity between models was found. An inverse exponential relationship was found and fitted between the ratio (∆QALY/∆LE) and ∆HbA_1c.

CONCLUSION

There is a consistent relationship between ∆HbA_1c and ∆QALYs or ∆LE in cost-effectiveness analyses using type 2 diabetes simulation models. This relationship can be used as a diagnostic tool for decision makers.

Systematic Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Insulin Analogues in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Insulin analogues have a pharmacokinetic advantage over human insulin and are increasingly used to treat diabetes mellitus. A summary of their cost effectiveness versus other available treatments was required.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to systematically review the published cost-effectiveness studies of insulin analogues for the treatment of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

We searched major databases and health technology assessment agency reports for economic evaluation studies published up until 30 September 2015. Two reviewers performed data extraction and assessed the quality of the data using the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines.

RESULTS

Seven of the included studies assessed short-acting insulin analogues, 12 assessed biphasic insulin analogues, 30 assessed long-acting insulin analogues and one assessed a combination of short- and long-acting insulin analogues. Only 17 studies involved patients with T1DM, all were modelling studies and 12 were conducted in Canada. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for short-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US435,913 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, the ICERs for biphasic insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US57,636 per QALY gained and the ICERs for long-acting insulin analogues ranged from dominant to $US599,863 per QALY gained. A total of 15 studies met all the CHEERS guidelines reporting quality criteria. Only 26 % of the studies assessed heterogeneity in their analyses.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that insulin analogues are cost effective for T1DM; however, evidence for their use in T2DM is not convincing. Additional evidence regarding compliance and efficacy is required to support the broader use of long-acting and biphasic insulin analogues in T2DM. The value of insulin analogues depends strongly on reductions in hypoglycaemia event rates and its efficacy in lowering glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c).

The Health Economic Value of Changes in Glycaemic Control, Weight and Rates of Hypoglycaemia in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

AIMS

Therapy-related consequences of treatment for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM), such as weight gain and hypoglycaemia, act as a barrier to attaining optimal glycaemic control, indirectly influencing the incidence of vascular complications and associated morbidity and mortality. This study quantifies the individual and combined contribution of changes in hypoglycaemia frequency, weight and HbA1c to predicted quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) within a T1DM population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We describe the Cardiff Type 1 Diabetes (CT1DM) Model, originally informed by the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and updated with the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study and Swedish National Diabetes Registry for microvascular and cardiovascular complications respectively. We report model validation results and the QALY impact of HbA1c, weight and hypoglycaemia changes.

RESULTS

Validation results demonstrated coefficients of determination for clinical endpoints of R2 = 0.863 (internal R2 = 0.999; external R2 = 0.823), costs R2 = 0.980 and QALYs R2 = 0.951. Achieving and maintaining a 1% HbA1c reduction was estimated to provide 0.61 additional discounted QALYs. Weight changes of ±1kg, ±2kg or ±3kg led to discounted QALY changes of ±0.03, ±0.07 and ±0.10 respectively, while modifying hypoglycaemia frequency by -10%, -20% or -30% resulted in changes of -0.05, -0.11 and -0.17. The differences in discounted costs, life-years and QALYs associated with HbA1c 6% versus 10% were -£19,037, 2.49 and 2.35 respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a model updated with contemporary epidemiological data, this study presents an outcome-focused perspective to assessing the health economic consequences of differing levels of glycaemic control in T1DM with and without weight and hypoglycaemia effects.

Safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting versus intermediate acting insulin for patients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of long acting insulin for type 1 diabetes.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and grey literature were searched through January 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials or non-randomized studies of long acting (glargine, detemir) and intermediate acting (neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), lente) insulin for adults with type 1 diabetes were included.

RESULTS

39 studies (27 randomized controlled trials including 7496 patients) were included after screening of 6501 titles/abstracts and 190 full text articles. Glargine once daily, detemir once daily, and detemir once/twice daily significantly reduced hemoglobin A1c compared with NPH once daily in network meta-analysis (26 randomized controlled trials, mean difference -0.39%, 95% confidence interval -0.59% to -0.19%; -0.26%, -0.48% to -0.03%; and -0.36%, -0.65% to -0.08%; respectively). Differences in network meta-analysis were observed between long acting and intermediate acting insulin for severe hypoglycemia (16 randomized controlled trials; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once/twice daily: odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.91) and weight gain (13 randomized controlled trials; detemir once daily versus NPH once/twice daily: mean difference 4.04 kg, 3.06 to 5.02 kg; detemir once/twice daily versus NPH once daily: -5.51 kg, -6.56 to -4.46 kg; glargine once daily versus NPH once daily: -5.14 kg, -6.07 to -4.21). Compared with NPH, detemir was less costly and more effective in 3/14 cost effectiveness analyses and glargine was less costly and more effective in 2/8 cost effectiveness analyses. The remaining cost effectiveness analyses found that detemir and glargine were more costly but more effective than NPH. Glargine was not cost effective compared with detemir in 2/2 cost effectiveness analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Long acting insulin analogs are probably superior to intermediate acting insulin analogs, although the difference is small for hemoglobin A1c. Patients and their physicians should tailor their choice of insulin according to preference, cost, and accessibility.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42013003610.

HTA agencies facing model biases: the case of type 2 diabetes

When evaluating new drugs or treatments eligible for reimbursement, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are repeatedly faced with cost-effectiveness analyses that evidence lack of adequate data and modeling biases. The case of type 2 diabetes illustrates this difficulty. In spite of its high disease burden, type 2 diabetes is poorly documented through existing cost-effectiveness analyses. We support this statement by an exhaustive literature review that enables us to precisely pinpoint the limitations of models used for the assessment of newly marketed (and expensive) drugs. We find that models are mostly restricted to surrogate endpoints and based on non-inferiority clinical trial data; they also show biases in the choice of comparators and inclusion criteria. Such limitations undermine the scope and applicability of HTA practice guidelines based on cost-effectiveness evidence. Nevertheless, cost-effectiveness models remain an opportunity to better inform decision makers and to reduce the uncertainty surrounding their decisions. HTA agencies are best placed to provide incentives for companies to improve the quality of the cost-effectiveness studies submitted for pricing and reimbursement decisions. One such incentive is to include stages of discussion between the company and the health authority during the evaluation process.

Identifying and meeting the challenges of insulin therapy in type 2 diabetes

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a chronic illness that requires clinical recognition and treatment of the dual pathophysiologic entities of altered glycemic control and insulin resistance to reduce the risk of long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. Although insulin is one of the most effective and widely used therapeutic options in the management of diabetes, it is used by less than one-half of patients for whom it is recommended. Clinician-, patient-, and health care system-related challenges present numerous obstacles to insulin use in T2DM. Clinicians must remain informed about new insulin products, emerging technologies, and treatment options that have the potential to improve adherence to insulin therapy while optimizing glycemic control and mitigating the risks of therapy. Patient-related challenges may be overcome by actively listening to the patient’s fears and concerns regarding insulin therapy and by educating patients about the importance, rationale, and evolving role of insulin in individualized self-treatment regimens. Enlisting the services of Certified Diabetes Educators and office personnel can help in addressing patient-related challenges. Self-management of diabetes requires improved patient awareness regarding the importance of lifestyle modifications, self-monitoring, and/or continuous glucose monitoring, improved methods of insulin delivery (eg, insulin pens), and the enhanced convenience and safety provided by insulin analogs. Health care system-related challenges may be improved through control of the rising cost of insulin therapy while making it available to patients. To increase the success rate of treatment of T2DM, the 2012 position statement from the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes focused on individualized patient care and provided clinicians with general treatment goals, implementation strategies, and tools to evaluate the quality of care.

Insulin detemir: a review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus

Insulin detemir (Levemir®) is a long-acting insulin analogue indicated for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. The protracted action of insulin detemir is explained by increased self-association and reversible binding to albumin, which slows its systemic absorption from the injection site. In glucose-clamp studies, less within-patient variability in glucose-lowering effect was seen with insulin detemir than with neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin or insulin glargine in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. The beneficial effect of insulin detemir on glycaemic control was shown in numerous randomized, open-label, multicentre trials, including when used as basal-bolus therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes and as basal therapy in addition to oral antidiabetic drugs in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. In terms of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)).[primary endpoint in most trials], insulin detemir was generally at least as effective as NPH insulin, insulin glargine or insulin lispro protamine suspension in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, and at least as effective as biphasic insulin aspart in patients with type 2 diabetes. Less within-patient variability in blood glucose was also generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes. Significantly less weight gain was generally seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes or with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin, insulin glargine, insulin lispro protamine suspension or biphasic insulin aspart (in one study) in patients with type 2 diabetes (i.e. insulin detemir generally had a weight-sparing effect). The addition of insulin detemir to liraglutide plus metformin improved glycaemic control in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycaemic control, although a significantly greater reduction in bodyweight was seen in patients receiving liraglutide plus metformin than in those receiving add-on therapy with insulin detemir. Results of two trials in patients aged 2-16 or 6-17 years (and a subgroup analysis in children aged 2-5 years) indicate that a basal-bolus insulin regimen incorporating insulin detemir appears to be a suitable option for use in paediatric patients with type 1 diabetes. Less within-patient variation in self-measured fasting plasma glucose was seen with insulin detemir than with NPH insulin in one of the studies. Insulin detemir was noninferior to NPH insulin in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes in terms of the HbA(1c) value achieved at 36 gestational weeks. In addition, maternal and neonatal outcomes with insulin detemir were similar to those seen with NPH insulin. Subcutaneous insulin detemir was generally well tolerated in the treatment of patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, including in paediatric patients and pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. The majority of adverse events, including serious adverse events, reported in insulin detemir recipients were not considered to be related to the study drug. Insulin detemir was generally associated with a significantly lower risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia than NPH insulin in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, particularly nocturnal minor hypoglycaemia. In conclusion, insulin detemir is a useful option for use as basal insulin therapy in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes.

Health economic evaluation of the Lund Integrated Medicines Management Model (LIMM) in elderly patients admitted to hospital

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team including a pharmacist for systematic medication review and reconciliation from admission to discharge at hospital among elderly patients (the Lund Integrated Medicines Management (LIMM)) in order to reduce drug-related readmissions and outpatient visits.

METHOD

Published data from the LIMM project group were used to design a probabilistic decision tree model for evaluating tools for (1) a systematic medication reconciliation and review process at initial hospital admission and during stay (admission part) and (2) a medication report for patients discharged from hospital to primary care (discharge part). The comparator was standard care. Inpatient, outpatient and staff time costs (Euros, 2009) were calculated during a 3-month period. Dis-utilities for hospital readmissions and outpatient visits due to medication errors were taken from the literature.

RESULTS

The total cost for the LIMM model was €290 compared to €630 for standard care, in spite of a €39 intervention cost. The main cost offset arose from avoided drug-related readmissions in the Admission part (€262) whereas only €66 was offset in the Discharge part as a result of fewer outpatient visits and correction time. The reduced disutility was estimated to 0.005 quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), indicating that LIMM was a dominant alternative. The probability that the intervention would be cost-effective at a zero willingness to pay for a gained QALY compared to standard care was estimated to 98%.

CONCLUSIONS

The LIMM medication reconciliation (at admission and discharge) and medication review was both cost-saving and generated greater utility compared to standard care, foremost owing to avoided drug-related hospital readmissions. When implementing such a review process with a multidisciplinary team, it may be important to consider a learning curve in order to capture the full advantage.

Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of reduced mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes treated with insulin detemir or NPH insulin in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands

AIMS

To estimate short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin based on the incidence of mild hypoglycaemia in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands.

METHODS

A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on mild (self-treated) hypoglycaemia and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of mild hypoglycaemia were used for NPH insulin and insulin detemir. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy. Pharmacy costs were accounted using published prices and defined daily doses for both insulins. Costs were expressed in 2010 euros (€).

RESULTS

Treatment with insulin detemir was associated with fewer mild hypoglycaemic events than NPH insulin (mean rates of 26.3 vs. 35.5 events per person-year), leading to an improvement in mean quality-adjusted life expectancy of approximately 0.019 (0.030) quality-adjusted life years (standard deviation). Annual costs were € 573.55 (110.42) vs. € 332.76 (62.18) in Denmark for insulin detemir and NPH insulin, respectively. These values were € 545.79 (106.54) vs. € 306.12 (57.78) in Sweden, € 720.10 (140.74) vs. € 408.73 (78.61) in Finland and € 584.01 (109.47) vs. € 359.60 (64.84) in the Netherlands. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were approximately € 12,644 (Denmark), € 12,612 (Sweden), € 16,568 (Finland) and € 12,216 (the Netherlands) per quality-adjusted life year gained for insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin.

CONCLUSIONS

Insulin detemir is likely to be cost-effective vs. NPH insulin in subjects with Type 1 diabetes in Denmark, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. Increased pharmacy costs with insulin detemir should not be a barrier to therapy based on these findings.

A long-term analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 and mix 50/50 versus long-acting basal insulin analogs in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of biphasic insulin lispro mix 75/25 (LM75/25) and mix 50/50 (LM50/50) compared with a long-acting analog insulin (LAAI) regimen from the perspective of a US healthcare payer.

METHODS

A published computer simulation model of diabetes was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of LM75/25 and LM50/50 vs a LAAI (insulin glargine) from the perspective of a US healthcare payer. Treatment effects in terms of HbA1c benefits were taken from a recent meta-analysis. Direct medical costs including pharmacy, complication, and patient management costs were obtained from published sources. All costs were expressed in 2010 US dollars and future costs and clinical benefits were discounted at 3% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

LM75/25 and LM50/50 were associated with improvements in life expectancy of 0.08 and 0.09 years, improvements in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.07 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and 0.08 QALYs and increases in cost of US$ 1724 and US$ 1720, respectively, when compared with LAAI.

LIMITATIONS

The base case analysis did not capture mild or serious hypoglycemia on the grounds that the hypoglycemia rate odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance in the meta-analysis. In addition, the baseline cohort characteristics were based on an insulin-naïve population, as opposed to the cohorts in the meta-analysis, which were heterogeneous with regard to insulin treatment history.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a recently published meta-analysis, biphasic analog insulins are likely to improve clinical outcomes and reduce costs vs LAAIs in the long-term treatment of type 2 diabetes patients in the US.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus NPH insulin in type 2 diabetes in Sweden

AIM

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25-40 kg/m(2). Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.

RESULTS

Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR=11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.

Cost-effectiveness of switching patients with type 2 diabetes from insulin glargine to insulin detemir in Chinese setting: a health economic model based on the PREDICTIVE study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of switching from insulin glargine (IGla) to insulin detemir (IDet) in patients with type 2 diabetes in the setting of Chinese secondary and tertiary hospitals.

METHODS

A published and validated computer simulation model of diabetes (the Center for Outcomes Research model) was used to make the long-term (30 years) projection of health economic outcomes. Patient demographic information and clinical end points were derived from a subgroup analysis of the Predictable Results and Experience in Diabetes through Intensification and Control to Target: an International Variability Evaluation (PREDICTIVE) study. Baseline risk factors and racial characteristic data were obtained from Chinese cohort studies. The diabetes management and complications costs were obtained from Chinese published data and adjusted to 2010 values by using the Chinese consumer price index. An annual discounting rate of 3% was used for both health and cost outcomes, and one-way sensitivities analysis was performed, which illustrated that the results were robust.

RESULTS

Conversion to IDet from IGla was projected to improve patient life expectancy by 0.06 year and 0.48 quality-adjusted life-years. Drug costs and management costs of diabetes mellitus were increased by US$368 (US$17,466 vs. US$17,097) and US$31 (US$5464 vs. US$5433), respectively. However, the costs of complications, including cerebrovascular disease, renal complications, ulcer/amputation/neuropathy, eye complications, and hypoglycemia events, were reduced by US$819 (US$21,294 vs. US$22,114), resulting in a total direct medical cost saving of US$420 when converting to IDet.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to IDet from an IGla regimen improved life expectancy and was a cost-saving treatment approach in a Chinese setting.

Management of diabetes across the course of disease: minimizing obesity-associated complications

Obesity increases the risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and this in turn correlates with an elevated probability of long-term diabetes complications once diabetes is established. Interventions aimed at lowering weight via changes in diet and lifestyle have repeatedly been shown to improve glycemic control in patients with T2DM and even to reverse early disease. Weight gain, a potential side effect of treatment for patients with T2DM, is also an important concern, and it has been noted that weight increases associated with antidiabetes therapy may blunt cardiovascular risk reductions achieved by decreasing blood glucose. Among older agents, metformin and acarbose have the lowest risk for weight gain, while sulfonylureas, meglitinides, and thiazolidinediones are all associated with weight increases. Clinical trial results have also consistently demonstrated that treatment with glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and amylin lowers weight, and that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are weight neutral in patients with T2DM. Conventional human insulin formulations are known to increase weight in patients with T2DM. However, some insulin analogs, particularly insulin detemir, have lower liability for this adverse event. The use of both pharmacologic and surgical therapies aimed at treating obesity rather than lowering blood glucose have the potential to improve glycemic control and even resolve T2DM in some patients.

Modeling the lifetime costs of insulin glargine and insulin detemir in type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients in Canada: a meta-analysis and a cost-minimization analysis

BACKGROUND

Two basal insulin analogues, insulin glargine once daily and insulin detemir once or twice daily, are marketed in Canada.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the long-term costs of insulin glargine once daily (QD) versus insulin detemir once or twice daily (QD or BID) for type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 (T2DM) diabetes mellitus from a Canadian provincial government's perspective.

METHODS

A cost-minimization analysis comparing insulin glargine (IGlarg) to insulin detemir (IDet) was conducted using a validated computer simulation model, the CORE Diabetes Model. Lifetime direct medical costs including costs of insulin treatment and diabetes complications were projected. T1DM and T2DM patients' daily insulin dose (T1DM: IGlarg QD 26.2 IU; IDet BID 33.6 IU; T2DM: IGlarg QD 47.2 IU; IDet QD 65.7 IU or IDet BID 80.4 IU) was derived from a meta-analysis of randomized trials. All patients were assumed to stay on the same treatment for life. Costs were discounted at 5% per annum and reported in 2010 Canadian Dollars.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis showed T1DM and T2DM patients had similar HbA(1c) change from baseline when receiving IGlarg compared to IDet (T1DM: 0.002%-points; p = 0.97; T2DM: -0.05%-points; p = 0.28). Treatment of T1DM patients with IGlarg versus IDet BID resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4231 per patient. Treatment of T2DM patients with IGlarg resulted in lifetime cost savings of $4659 per patient versus IDet QD and cost savings of $8709 per patient versus IDet BID.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar HbA(1c) change from baseline can be achieved with a lower IGlarg than IDet dose. From the perspective of a Canadian provincial government, treatment of T1DM and T2DM patients with IGlarg instead of IDet can generate long-term cost savings. Main limitations include trial data were derived from multi-country studies rather than the Canadian population and self-monitoring blood glucose costs were not included.

Treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus with insulin detemir, a long-acting insulin analog

Insulin detemir is a long-acting basal insulin approved for use in patients with type 1 (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Insulin detemir has demonstrated equivalent glycemic control and hypoglycemic risk when compared to insulin glargine, and insulin detemir has generally but not consistently demonstrated less weight gain than insulin glargine in T2DM. The benefits of basal insulin analogs relative to NPH insulin are well recognized, including less FBG variability, lower risk of hypoglycemia, and less weight gain specifically with insulin detemir. However, NPH insulin continues to be widely prescribed, which may be due in part to economic considerations. While NPH insulin generally costs less per prescription, insulin detemir has been shown to be cost effective compared to NPH insulin as well as insulin glargine. Therefore, insulin detemir is an effective option from both clinical and economic perspectives for patients with T1DM or T2DM who require basal insulin to achieve glycemic control.

Critical appraisal of the safety and efficacy of insulin detemir in glycemic control and cardiovascular risk management in diabetics

Insulin detemir is an analog of human insulin designed to provide a long duration of basal insulin action. This is achieved by protracted absorption from the injection depot, which results in part from increased self-association of insulin detemir molecules and in part from reversible albumin binding. Subsequent albumin binding in the circulation is thought to buffer changes in the effects at target tissues that could otherwise arise from variability in absorption rate. In consequence, insulin detemir has shown a less variable pharmacodynamic profile than alternative basal insulins; this manifests as more consistent temporal glucose reduction profiles in repeat-clamp studies. In clinical trials, insulin detemir has been characterized by consistent risk reductions in hypoglycemia, as well as reduced weight gain in comparison with other basal insulins. Given some recent associations that have been made in prospective and epidemiologic studies between glucose variability and/or hypoglycemia and increased cardiovascular risk, and the long-known association between excess weight and cardiovascular risk, it is possible that the clinical profile of insulin detemir may carry prognostic value with regard to cardiovascular safety, although this is yet to be substantiated. There have also been some concerns raised recently over the use of insulin analogs and cancer risk, but available clinical data and the receptor interaction profile of insulin detemir suggest no excess in risk in comparison with human insulin therapy. Optimal approaches for the clinical use of insulin detemir have been emerging through an increasing clinical study base, and the analog is becoming established as a potentially valuable therapy option.