Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

摘要

IntroductionTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market. MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses. ResultsIDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DM_BOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DM_B/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DM_BOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DM_BOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar? and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo?). In T2DM_B/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold. ConclusionIDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.