The cost-effectiveness of dulaglutide versus insulin glargine for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Japan

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 488-496 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hitoshi Ishii ◽  
Matthew Madin-Warburton ◽  
Alena Strizek ◽  
Lucy Thornton-Jones ◽  
Shuichi Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
The Cost

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria. Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was the main outcome measure. Results In Bulgaria, degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM. The ICERs were estimated to be 4493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 7365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DMB/B), which are below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Degludec was associated with higher insulin costs in all three patient groups; however, savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 partially offset these costs. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DMBOT and 91.3% in T2DMB/B. Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Bulgaria

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monika Russel-Szymczyk ◽  
Vasil Valov ◽  
Alexandra Savova ◽  
Manoela Manova
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Insulin Glargine ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Insulin Degludec ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus biosimilar insulin glargine U100 (glargine U100) in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Bulgaria.Methods A simple, short-term model was used to compare the treatment costs and outcomes associated with hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with T1DM and T2DM from the perspective of the Bulgarian National Health Insurance Fund. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon using data from clinical trials. The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results Degludec was highly cost-effective versus glargine U100 in people with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. The ICERs were estimated to be 4,493.68 BGN/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in T1DM, 399.11 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DM BOT ) and 7,365.22 BGN/QALY in T2DM on basal bolus therapy (T2DM B/B ), which all fall below the cost-effectiveness threshold of 39,619 BGN in Bulgaria. Insulin costs were higher with degludec in all three patient groups, however these were partially offset by savings from a reduction in hypoglycaemic events with degludec versus glargine U100. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the results were robust and largely insensitive to variations in input parameters. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 39,619 BGN/QALY, the probability of degludec being cost-effective versus glargine U100 was 60.0% in T1DM, 99.4% in T2DM BOT and 91.3% in T2DM B/B .Conclusion Degludec is a cost-effective alternative to biosimilar glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Bulgaria. Degludec could be of particular benefit to those patients suffering recurrent hypoglycaemia and those who require additional flexibility in the dosing of insulin.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness study of antidiabetic drugs in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from Mumbai, India

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (9) ◽  
pp. 3180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dnyanesh Limaye ◽  
Krishna Todi ◽  
Jay Shroff ◽  
Ashutosh Ramaswamy ◽  
Priyanka Kulkarni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Antidiabetic Drugs ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
The Cost

Background: Diabetes is fast gaining the status of a potential epidemic in India, with >62 million individuals currently diagnosed with the disease. India currently faces an uncertain future in relation to the potential burden that diabetes may impose on the country. An estimated US$ 2.2 billion would be needed to sufficiently treat all cases of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in India. Many interventions can reduce the burden of this disease. However, health care resources are limited; thus, interventions for diabetes treatment should be prioritized. The present study assesses the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM from Mumbai, India.Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of antidiabetic drugs in patients with T2DM. Face-to-face interviews were conducted by using a validated questionnaire in a total of 152 (76 males, 76 females) patients with T2DM from F-North Ward, Mumbai, India. Cost-effectiveness was determined on the basis of cost of antidiabetic drug/s, efficacy, adverse drug reactions, safety of administration, frequency of administration, and bioavailability. Results: For treatment of T2DM in non-obese participants, Glimepiride+Pioglitazone costed least (`3.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride (`6.6), Gliclazide (`8.1), Repaglinide (`24.5), and Vildagliptin (`45.2). For treatment of T2DM in obese participants, Metformin cost least (` 6.7) per unit of effectiveness followed by Glimepiride + Metformin (`5.9) and Repaglinide (`24.5). Conclusions: In case of non-obese participants, cost effectiveness and prescribed treatments did not show a match, while for obese participants prescribed treatments were in line with cost effectiveness. 

scholarly journals The Cost-Effectiveness of Dulaglutide Versus Liraglutide in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Taiwan

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. A898
Author(s):  
H Lin ◽  
S Babineaux ◽  
T Lew ◽  
J Lowin ◽  
E Lovato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
The Cost
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document