Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir versus neutral protamine Hagedorn insulin in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in the UK using a short-term modeling approach
Received 10 November 2017
Accepted for publication 10 March 2018
Published 16 May 2018 Volume 2018:11 Pages 217—226
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Ms Justinn Cochran
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Ming-Hui Zou
Richard F Pollock,1 Barrie Chubb,2 William J Valentine,1 Simon Heller3
1Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Ossian Health Economics and Communications GmbH, Basel, Switzerland; 2EU-HEOR, Novo Nordisk Limited, Gatwick, UK; 3Department of Oncology & Metabolism, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
Background: To estimate the short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir (IDet) versus neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin based on the incidence of non-severe hypoglycemia and changes in body weight in subjects with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the UK.
Methods: A model was developed to evaluate cost-effectiveness based on non-severe hypoglycemia, body mass index, and pharmacy costs over 1 year. Published rates of non-severe hypoglycemia were employed in the T1D and T2D analyses, while reduced weight gain with IDet was modeled in the T2D analysis only. Effectiveness was calculated in terms of quality-adjusted life expectancy using published utility scores. Pharmacy costs were captured using published prices and defined daily doses. Costs were expressed in 2016 pounds sterling (GBP). Sensitivity analyses were performed (including probabilistic sensitivity analysis).
Results: In T1D, IDet was associated with fewer non-severe hypoglycemic events than NPH insulin (126.7 versus 150.8 events per person-year), leading to an improvement of 0.099 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs with IDet were GBP 60 higher, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 610 per QALY gained. In T2D, mean non-severe hypoglycemic event rates and body weight were lower with IDet than NPH insulin, leading to a total incremental utility of 0.120, accompanied by an annual cost increase of GBP 171, yielding an ICER of GBP 1,422 per QALY gained for IDet versus NPH insulin.
Conclusion: Short-term health economic evaluation showed IDet to be a cost-effective alternative to NPH insulin in the UK due to lower rates of non-severe hypoglycemia (T1D and T2D) and reduced weight gain (T2D only).
Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, insulin, diabetes mellitus type 1, diabetes mellitus type 2, hypoglycemia
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]