OBJECTIVE: To describe costs, healthcare resource utilization, and adherence of US patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), compared to patients receiving high-dose (>200 units/day) U-100 insulins (U-100) by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases (7/1/2008 to 12/31/2010). Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted on cost (medical, pharmacy, and overall costs) and on healthcare resource utilization variables (overall, diabetes-related, and non-diabetes-related medical visits). Adherence rates to the index insulins were assessed by proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Seven hundred and eleven (19%) patients in the U-500R cohort and 1508 (6%) patients in the U-100 cohort met selection criteria. Propensity score matching resulted in 684 matched pairs. Mean change in annualized pharmacy costs was in favor of the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (-$1258 vs $3345, a difference of -$4603, p < 0.0001). Mean overall cost increase in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort was also lower ($1999 vs $9104, a difference of -$7105, p = 0.005). The proportion of patients with at least one coded hypoglycemic event during the 12-month post-index period was higher in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (17.1% vs 11.7%, p < 0.005), but neither hypoglycemia rate (2.73 vs 2.90 events per person) nor hypoglycemia-specific costs (mean $1669 vs $1543) were significantly different. No significant differences were noted between cohorts for change (post-pre) in any resource utilization category. PDC was greater in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (65.2% vs 39.5%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Claims data are not as accurate as empirical evaluation by a clinician. Glycemic control data were not available for this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring high-dose insulin, treatment with U-500R vs high-dose U-100 insulins is associated with significant decreases in pharmacy and overall costs, slightly higher hypoglycemia incidence, no difference in hypoglycemia-specific costs or in resource utilization, and better adherence.
OBJECTIVE: To describe costs, healthcare resource utilization, and adherence of US patients receiving human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R), compared to patients receiving high-dose (>200 units/day) U-100 insulins (U-100) by subcutaneous injection for the treatment of diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from Thomson Reuters MarketScan Research Databases (7/1/2008 to 12/31/2010). Difference-in-differences analyses were conducted on cost (medical, pharmacy, and overall costs) and on healthcare resource utilization variables (overall, diabetes-related, and non-diabetes-related medical visits). Adherence rates to the index insulins were assessed by proportion of days covered (PDC). RESULTS: Seven hundred and eleven (19%) patients in the U-500R cohort and 1508 (6%) patients in the U-100 cohort met selection criteria. Propensity score matching resulted in 684 matched pairs. Mean change in annualized pharmacy costs was in favor of the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (-$1258 vs $3345, a difference of -$4603, p < 0.0001). Mean overall cost increase in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort was also lower ($1999 vs $9104, a difference of -$7105, p = 0.005). The proportion of patients with at least one coded hypoglycemic event during the 12-month post-index period was higher in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (17.1% vs 11.7%, p < 0.005), but neither hypoglycemia rate (2.73 vs 2.90 events per person) nor hypoglycemia-specific costs (mean $1669 vs $1543) were significantly different. No significant differences were noted between cohorts for change (post-pre) in any resource utilization category. PDC was greater in the U-500R vs the U-100 cohort (65.2% vs 39.5%, p < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS: Claims data are not as accurate as empirical evaluation by a clinician. Glycemic control data were not available for this analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring high-dose insulin, treatment with U-500R vs high-dose U-100 insulins is associated with significant decreases in pharmacy and overall costs, slightly higher hypoglycemia incidence, no difference in hypoglycemia-specific costs or in resource utilization, and better adherence.
Authors: Xiaosu Ma; Charles T Benson; Randy Prescilla; Shuyu Zhang; Helle Linnebjerg; Elizabeth S LaBell; Linda A Morrow; Jeffrey A Jackson; Alex Nguyen; Liza L Ilag; Jennal L Johnson; Derek Leishman Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2020-11-26
Authors: Leslie C Robinson; Richard C E Anderson; Douglas L Brockmeyer; Michelle R Torok; Todd C Hankinson Journal: Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown) Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 2.703
Authors: Elizabeth L Eby; Kate Van Brunt; Cynthia Brusko; Bradley Curtis; Maureen J Lage Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2015-06-17 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Elizabeth L Eby; Bradley H Curtis; Steven C Gelwicks; Robert C Hood; Iskandar Idris; Anne L Peters; Richard M Bergenstal; Jeffrey A Jackson Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2015-04-30
Authors: Paula M Bergen; Davida F Kruger; April D Taylor; Wael E Eid; Arti Bhan; Jeffrey A Jackson Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: Samaneh Kabul; Robert C Hood; Ran Duan; Amy M DeLozier; Julie Settles Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.186