Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Long-term Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in the UK: Evidence from the Basal-bolus Subgroup of the DEVOTE Trial (DEVOTE 16)

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

  1. Biomarkers of cardiovascular disease in patients with Type 2 diabetes

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Future Perspectives on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and GLP-1/glucagon Receptor Co-agonists in the Treatment of NAFLD

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  3. Four days of bed rest increases intrinsic mitochondrial respiratory capacity in young healthy males

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Cardiovascular biomarkers in clinical studies of type 2 diabetes

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  5. Glucagon-like peptide 1 in health and disease

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewForskningpeer review

  • DEVOTE study group
Vis graf over relationer

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (degludec) versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100) in basal-bolus regimens for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at high cardiovascular (CV) risk based on the DEVOTE CV outcomes trial.

METHODS: A microsimulation model, informed by clinical outcomes from the subgroup of patients using basal-bolus insulin therapy in DEVOTE (NCT01959529) and by the UKPDS Outcomes Model 2 risk equations, was used to model direct costs (2018 GBP) and effectiveness outcomes [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] with degludec versus glargine U100 over a 40-year time horizon. The model captured the development of eight diabetes-related complications, death, severe hypoglycemia and insulin dosing. This analysis was conducted from the perspective of National Health Service (NHS) England.

RESULTS: Treatment with degludec versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens was associated with improved clinical outcomes at a higher cost per patient [incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER): £14,956 GBP/QALY]. Degludec remained cost effective versus glargine U100 in all exploratory sensitivity analyses, with ICERs below the widely accepted willingness-to-pay threshold, although the result was most sensitive to assumptions regarding the persistence of treatment effects.

CONCLUSIONS: Our long-term modeling analysis suggested that degludec was cost effective (from the perspective of NHS England) versus glargine U100 in basal-bolus regimens for patients with T2D at high CV risk. Our findings raise important questions regarding how to model the health economics of diabetes therapies.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftApplied health economics and health policy
Vol/bind17
Udgave nummer5
Sider (fra-til)615-627
Antal sider13
ISSN1175-5652
DOI
StatusUdgivet - okt. 2019

ID: 58959924