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

Cost-Effectiveness of Technology-Assisted Case Management in Low-Income, Rural Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine whether delivering technology-assisted case management (TACM) with medication titration by nurses under physician supervision is cost effective compared with usual care (standard office procedures) in low-income rural adults with type 2 diabetes.

Methods: One hundred and thirteen low-income, rural adults with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) ≥8%, were randomized to a TACM intervention or usual care. Effectiveness was measured as differences in HbA1c between the TACM and usual care groups at 6 months. Total cost per patient included intervention or usual care cost, medical care cost, and income loss associated with lost workdays. The total cost per patient and HbA1c were used to estimate a joint distribution of incremental cost and incremental effect of TACM compared with usual care. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated to summarize the cost-effectiveness of the TACM intervention relative to usual care to decrease HbA1c by 1%.

Results: Costs due to intervention, primary care, other health care, emergency room visits, and workdays missed showed statistically significant differences between the groups (usual care $1,360.49 vs. TACM $5,379.60, p=0.004), with an absolute cost difference of $4,019.11. Based on the intervention cost per patient and the change in HbA1c, the median bootstrapped ICERs was estimated to be $6,299.04 (standard error=731.71) per 1% decrease in HbA1c.

Conclusion: Based on these results, a 1% decrease in HbA1c can be obtained with the TACM intervention at an approximate cost of $6,300; therefore, it is a cost-effective option for treating vulnerable populations of adults with type 2 diabetes.

Hospitalization costs with degludec versus glargine U100 for patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk: Canadian costs applied to SAEs from a randomized outcomes trial

OBJECTIVES

The present cost-consequence analysis compared estimated hospitalization costs in a Canadian setting with insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk.

METHODS

Medical terms were mapped across the different vocabularies, in order to assign unit costs from eligible hospital abstracts in Canadian Institute for Health Information data (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10^th Revision, Canada) to serious adverse events (SAEs; Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities) from the randomized DEVOTE trial comparing the two insulins degludec and glargine. Mean annual costs of SAE-related hospitalizations were estimated by treatment, the cost difference (degludec - glargine U100) was bootstrapped to compute confidence intervals (CIs) and p-values, and the cost ratio (degludec/glargine U100) was estimated using a Tweedie distribution.

RESULTS

The mean annual cost per patient for SAE-related hospitalizations was 4,074 CAD with degludec and 4,569 CAD with glargine U100 (cost difference: -495, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -966; -24, p = .039), for a cost ratio of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.81; 0.98, p = .016). Overall, cost ratios from sensitivity analyses varying individual methodological assumptions were consistent with the main analysis. Of the system organ classes from DEVOTE SAEs, cardiac disorders were the largest contributor to the costs savings with degludec versus glargine U100.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with T2D at high CV risk, our findings suggest that there are likely to be lower hospitalization costs with degludec versus glargine U100 based on the SAEs observed in DEVOTE and in a Canadian setting.

Costs and where to find them: identifying unit costs for health economic evaluations of diabetes in France, Germany and Italy

BACKGROUND

Health economic evaluations require cost data as key inputs. Many countries do not have standardized reference costs so costs used often vary between studies, thereby reducing transparency and transferability. The present review provided a comprehensive overview of cost sources and suggested unit costs for France, Germany and Italy, to support health economic evaluations in these countries, particularly in the field of diabetes.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted across multiple databases to identify published unit costs and cost data sources for resource items commonly used in health economic evaluations of antidiabetic therapies. The quality of unit cost reporting was assessed with regard to comprehensiveness of cost reporting and referencing as well as accessibility of cost sources from published cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) of antidiabetic medications.

RESULTS

An overview of cost sources, including tariff and fee schedules as well as published estimates, was developed for France, Germany and Italy, covering primary and specialist outpatient care, emergency care, hospital treatment, pharmacy costs and lost productivity. Based on these sources, unit cost datasets were suggested for each country. The assessment of unit cost reporting showed that only 60% and 40% of CEAs reported unit costs and referenced them for all pharmacy items, respectively. Less than 20% of CEAs obtained all pharmacy costs from publicly available sources.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive account of available costs and cost sources in France, Germany and Italy to support health economists and increase transparency in health economic evaluations in diabetes.

Understanding the Clinical Profile of Insulin Degludec, the Latest Basal Insulin Approved for Use in Canada: a Narrative Review

In recent years, the development of basal insulin therapies has focused on insulin analogues that have longer durations of action and more predictable pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles than their human insulin-based predecessors, such as neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. Dosed once-daily, such analogues can provide a more stable glucose-lowering action, which translates clinically into a reduced risk of hypoglycemia. Insulin degludec (degludec) became available in Canada in 2017 and is the first basal insulin analogue to have a half-life exceeding the dosing interval. As well as offering the promise of an exceptionally flat PK/PD profile when at steady state, this characteristic means that insulin degludec can be dosed with some flexibility with regard to time of day and that it need not be taken at the same time each day. However, the approximately 25-h half-life also has some implications concerning dose titration. This article provides an up-to-date review of the study data describing the clinical profile of degludec, and aims to give helpful and practical advice to prescribers about its use. While the clinical benefits of degludec are described, it is also acknowledged that further study is required to better understand how its clinical performance compares with that of insulin glargine 300 units/mL.

Using 2nd generation basal insulins in type 2 diabetes: Costs and savings in a comparative economic analysis in Italy, based on the BRIGHT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To evaluate the economic impact of using 2nd generation basal insulin analogs, Glargine 300 Units/ml (Gla-300) vs Degludec 100 Units/ml (IDeg-100), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS AND RESULTS

An economic analysis was conducted using findings from the BRIGHT study (the first controlled, head-to-head study comparing Gla-300 vs IDeg-100), and costs for the Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS). A cost-minimization analysis (CMA) and a budget impact analysis (BIA) were conducted. Only pharmacological costs were included in the analysis. The CMA estimated patient treatment costs at 24 weeks and 1 year; the BIA assessed the economic impact of treating the overall Italian population of T2D insulin-naïve patients, who initiated insulin treatment during the period September 2017-August 2018 (N = 55 318). In the BIA, four different scenarios were compared: i) all patients receive IDeg-100 (Scenario A); ii) 61% of patients receive Gla-300, 39% IDeg-100 (Scenario B); iii) 80% of patients receive Gla-300, 20% IDeg-100 (Scenario C); iv) all patients treated with Gla-300 (Scenario D). The average treatment costs per patient were lower with Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 (at 24 weeks: €129 vs €161; at 1 year: €324 vs €409, respectively). Results of the BIA showed that comparing Scenario D vs Scenario A, total savings would amount to €1.76 million at 24 weeks, €4.73 million at 1 year, €5.53 million at 2 years.

CONCLUSION

A larger use of Gla-300 vs IDeg-100 for the treatment of T2D patients would lead to a relevant reduction of therapy costs in Italy.

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal-bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial.

METHODS

A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies.

Short-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Switching to Insulin Degludec in Japanese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Receiving Basal-Bolus Therapy

INTRODUCTION

With one of the fastest aging populations in the world, demographic changes in Japan are a major public health concern due to the substantial burden that aging-associated diseases, such as type 2 diabetes (T2D), place on public healthcare systems. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of switching Japanese patients with T2D receiving basal-bolus insulin therapy from their previous basal insulin to insulin degludec (degludec) under conditions of routine clinical practice.

METHODS

A previously published, open-source model developed in Microsoft Excel was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of switching basal-bolus insulin therapy from patients' previous basal insulin to degludec versus continuing the previous basal insulin therapeutic regimen in terms of costs (2018 Japanese Yen [JPY]) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. The model captured hypoglycemia rates and insulin dosing over a 1-year time horizon, and was informed by Japanese real-world evidence from the T2D cohort (N = 135) of the Kumamoto Insulin Degludec Observational study.

RESULTS

Treatment with degludec was associated with improved effectiveness (+ 0.0354 QALYs), driven by lower daytime non-severe hypoglycemia rates with degludec, at slightly higher annual treatment costs (JPY 9510) versus continuing the previous basal insulin. Switching basal insulin to degludec was found to be a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (JPY 268,811 per QALY gained) substantially below the willingness-to-pay threshold of 5 million JPY per QALY used in the Japanese Health Technology Assessment framework. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of this finding and indicated that the daytime non-severe hypoglycemia benefit with degludec was a key driver of outcomes in the base case.

CONCLUSION

Based on Japanese real-world evidence, our analysis suggests that switching Japanese patients with T2D receiving a basal-bolus regimen from their previous basal insulin to degludec would be highly cost-effective. These data may help decision-makers in Japan allocate healthcare resources efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The KIDUNA study is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR): UMIN000021569.

FUNDING

Novo Nordisk Pharma Ltd. Japan.

Achieving Glycaemic Control with Concentrated Insulin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

The recent introduction of the second-generation long-acting analogue insulins degludec and insulin glargine U300 have increased the choice of basal insulin therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these insulins result in a flatter profile that lasts over 24 h and provides an increased window of administration of 6 h once daily. Large-scale multicentre randomised clinical trial programmes (BEGIN for degludec U100 and U200 and EDITION for glargine U300) evaluating these insulin therapies against glargine U100 have demonstrated that they are either non-inferior or superior for glycaemic efficacy and safety, but less likely to result in severe or nocturnal hypoglycaemia than glargine U100. The disposable pen devices for these insulins have been designed with patient satisfaction and convenience in mind. No concerns have arisen with adverse events with insulin analogues or cardiovascular safety from the ORIGIN and DEVOTE trials. As they demonstrate equivalent glycaemic efficacy to other basal insulins, they should be considered more in selected patient groups including those with recurrent or increased risk of hypoglycaemia, especially severe or nocturnal episodes, in the elderly or those living alone, and in patients with multiple co-morbidities such as cardiovascular or renal disease.

Short-term cost-utility of degludec versus glargine U100 for patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycaemia and cardiovascular events: A Canadian setting (DEVOTE 9)

AIMS

To evaluate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) vs insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) from a Canadian public healthcare payer perspective in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who are at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A decision analytic model was developed to estimate costs (2017 Canadian dollars [CAD]) and clinical outcomes (quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) with degludec vs glargine U100 over a 2-year time horizon. The model captured first major adverse cardiovascular event, death, severe hypoglycaemia and insulin dosing. Clinical outcomes were informed by a post hoc subgroup analysis of the DEVOTE trial (NCT01959529), which compared the cardiovascular safety of degludec and glargine U100 in patients with T2D who are at high cardiovascular risk. High hypoglycaemia risk was defined as the top quartile of patients (n = 1887) based on an index of baseline hypoglycaemia risk factors.

RESULTS

In patients at high hypoglycaemia risk, degludec was associated with mean cost savings (CAD 129 per patient) relative to glargine U100, driven by a lower incidence of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and severe hypoglycaemia, which offset the slightly higher cost of treatment with degludec. A reduced risk of cardiovascular death and severe hypoglycaemia resulted in improved effectiveness (+0.0132 QALYs) with degludec relative to glargine U100. In sensitivity analyses, changes to the vast majority of model parameters did not materially affect model outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Over a 2-year period, degludec improved clinical outcomes at a lower cost as compared to glargine U100 in patients with T2D at high risk of cardiovascular events and hypoglycaemia.