Ossian Health Economics and Communications, Basel, Switzerland.
J Med Econ. 2012;15(5):977-86. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2012.692340. Epub 2012 May 23.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir vs. NPH insulin once daily, in patients with type 2 diabetes in the Swedish setting based on clinical data from a published randomized controlled trial.
Projections of long-term outcomes were made using the IMS CORE Diabetes Model (CDM), based on clinical data from a 26-week randomized controlled trial that compared once daily insulin detemir and NPH insulin, when used to intensify insulin treatment in 271 patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index (BMI) 25-40 kg/m(2). Trial results showed that insulin detemir was associated with a significantly lower incidence of hypoglycemic events and significantly less weight gain in comparison with NPH insulin. The analysis was conducted from a third party payer perspective and the base case analysis was performed over a time horizon of 40 years and future costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at a rate of 3% per year.
Insulin detemir was associated with higher mean (SD) quality-adjusted life expectancy (5.42 [0.10] vs. 5.31 [0.10] quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) and lower overall costs (SEK 378,539 [10,372] vs. SEK 384,216 [11,230]; EUR 33,794 and EUR 34,300, respectively, where 1 EUR=11.2015 SEK) compared with NPH insulin. Sensitivity analysis showed that the principal driver of the benefits associated with insulin detemir was the lower rate of hypoglycemic events (major and minor events) vs. NPH insulin, suggesting that detemir might also be cost-saving over a shorter time horizon. Limitations of the analysis include the use of data from a trial outside Sweden in the Swedish setting.
Based on clinical input data derived from a previously published randomized controlled trial, it is likely that in the Swedish setting insulin detemir would be cost-saving in comparison with NPH insulin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes.
根据一项已发表的随机对照试验的临床数据,评估在瑞典环境下,每日一次给予地特胰岛素相较于 NPH 胰岛素的成本效果。
使用 IMS CORE 糖尿病模型(CDM)进行长期结果预测,该模型基于一项为期 26 周的随机对照试验的临床数据,该试验比较了每日一次地特胰岛素和 NPH 胰岛素在 271 名体重指数(BMI)为 25-40kg/m²的 2 型糖尿病患者强化胰岛素治疗中的应用。试验结果显示,与 NPH 胰岛素相比,地特胰岛素低血糖事件发生率显著降低,体重增加显著减少。分析采用第三方付款人的视角,基础情况分析的时间范围为 40 年,未来成本和临床结果以每年 3%的贴现率进行贴现。
地特胰岛素与更高的平均(标准差)质量调整生命预期(5.42[0.10] vs. 5.31[0.10]质量调整生命年[QALYs])和更低的总费用(瑞典克朗 378539[10372] vs. 瑞典克朗 384216[11230];欧元 33794 和欧元 34300,1 欧元=11.2015 瑞典克朗)相关。敏感性分析显示,地特胰岛素与 NPH 胰岛素相比,低血糖事件(主要和次要事件)发生率较低是其获益的主要驱动因素,表明地特胰岛素在较短的时间范围内也可能具有成本效益。分析的局限性包括在瑞典环境下使用源自瑞典以外试验的数据。
根据一项已发表的随机对照试验的临床输入数据,地特胰岛素在瑞典环境下治疗 2 型糖尿病患者可能比 NPH 胰岛素更具成本效益。