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 .ConclusionDegludec 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.

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.