Tsung-Ying Lee1, Shihchen Kuo2, Chen-Yi Yang1, Huang-Tz Ou1. 1. School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 2. Division of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Diabetes, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Sruthi Adimadhyam; Glen T Schumock; Gregory S Calip; Daphne E Smith Marsh; Brian T Layden; Todd A Lee Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Kathleen A Fairman; Lindsay E Davis; Courtney R Kruse; David A Sclar Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Marjan Massoudi; Mark Balk; Hongbo Yang; Cat N Bui; Bhavik J Pandya; Jenny Guo; Yan Song; Eric Q Wu; Bruce Brown; Arie Barlev; Scott Flanders Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Charles E Leonard; James H Flory; Robert Likić; Olayinka O Ogunleye; Li Wei; Ian Wong Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Ileana Mardare; Stephen M Campbell; Johanna C Meyer; Israel Abebrese Sefah; Amos Massele; Brian Godman Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Brian Godman; Magdalene Wladysiuk; Stuart McTaggart; Amanj Kurdi; Eleonora Allocati; Mihajlo Jakovljevic; Francis Kalemeera; Iris Hoxha; Anna Nachtnebel; Robert Sauermann; Manfred Hinteregger; Vanda Marković-Peković; Biljana Tubic; Guenka Petrova; Konstantin Tachkov; Juraj Slabý; Radka Nejezchlebova; Iva Selke Krulichová; Ott Laius; Gisbert Selke; Irene Langner; András Harsanyi; András Inotai; Arianit Jakupi; Svens Henkuzens; Kristina Garuolienė; Jolanta Gulbinovič; Patricia Vella Bonanno; Jakub Rutkowski; Skule Ingeberg; Øyvind Melien; Ileana Mardare; Jurij Fürst; Sean MacBride-Stewart; Carol Holmes; Caridad Pontes; Corinne Zara; Marta Turu Pedrola; Mikael Hoffmann; Vasileios Kourafalos; Alice Pisana; Rita Banzi; Stephen Campbell; Bjorn Wettermark Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2021-10-11 Impact factor: 3.411