Resource use and costs of exenatide bid or insulin in clinical practice: the European CHOICE study
Authors Kiiskinen U, Matthaei S, Reaney M, Mathieu C, Östenson C, Krarup T, Theodorakis M, Kiljański J, Salaun-Martin C, Sapin H, Guerci B
Received 15 February 2013
Accepted for publication 9 April 2013
Published 11 July 2013 Volume 2013:5 Pages 355—367
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 2
Urpo Kiiskinen,1 Stephan Matthaei,2 Matthew Reaney,3 Chantal Mathieu,4 Claes-Göran Östenson,5 Thure Krarup,6 Michael Theodorakis,7,* Jacek Kiljanski,8 Carole Salaun-Martin,9 Hélène Sapin,9 Bruno Guerci10
1Eli Lilly, Helsinki, Finland; 2Quakenbrück Diabetes Center, Quakenbrück, Germany; 3Eli Lilly, Windlesham, Surrey, UK; 4Department of Endocrinology, UZ Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium; 5Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 6Department of Endocrinology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; 7Department of Clinical Therapeutics, University of Athens School of Medicine, Athens, Greece; 8Eli Lilly, Warsaw, Poland; 9Eli Lilly, Neuilly Cedex, France; 10Department of Diabetes, Metabolic Diseases, and Nutrition, Hôpital Brabois, Vandoeuvre-Lès-Nancy, France
*Michael Theodorakis was affiliated with the institution shown above at the time of the study, but has since left this institution
Purpose: CHOICE (CHanges to treatment and Outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes initiating InjeCtablE therapy) assessed patterns of exenatide bid and initial insulin therapy usage in clinical practice in six European countries and evaluated outcomes during the study.
Methods: CHOICE was a 24-month, prospective, noninterventional observational study. Clinical and resource use data were collected at initiation of first injectable therapy (exenatide bid or insulin) and at regular intervals for 24 months. Costs were evaluated from the national health care system perspective at 2009 prices.
Results: A total of 2515 patients were recruited. At the 24-month analysis, significant treatment change had occurred during the study in 42.2% of 1114 eligible patients in the exenatide bid cohort and 36.0% of 1274 eligible patients in the insulin cohort. Improvements in glycemic control were observed over the course of the study in both cohorts (P < 0.001 for both), but mean weight was reduced in the exenatide bid cohort (P < 0.001) and increased in the insulin cohort (P < 0.001) by 24 months. Across all countries, total per patient health care costs for the 24 months post baseline were €3997.9 in the exenatide bid cohort and €3265.5 in the insulin cohort (€1791.9 versus €2465.5 due to costs other than those of injectable therapy). When baseline direct cost and patients' and disease characteristics were controlled for, mean direct costs differed by country (P < 0.0001), irrespective of treatment initiated, and the mean cost difference between treatments varied by country (P < 0.0001).
Conclusion: Much of the higher mean cost of exenatide bid, compared with insulin, therapy was compensated for by lower mean costs of other health service utilization. Costs associated with exenatide bid or insulin initiation varied across countries, highlighting the need to avoid generalization of resource use and cost implications of a particular therapy when estimated in specific country settings.
Keywords: exenatide, health care costs, injectable therapy, insulin, resource use, type 2 diabetes mellitus
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]