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.
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 insulinglargine- or conventional basal insulin (neutral protamine Hagedorn [NPH])-based therapies from the German statutory health insurance (SHI) perspective. METHODS: The Long Acting InsulinGlargine 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 insulinglargine-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 insulinglargine-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 insulinglargine- (euro 1,241.13) and NPH-based therapies (euro 1,607.86) were statistically significantly different (p=0.0004). The economic advantage for insulinglargine-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 insulinglargine-based therapies may offer an economic advantage over NPH-based therapies.