Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study

Farshchi, Amir; Aghili, Rokhsareh; Oskuee, Maryam; Rashed, Marjan; Noshad, Sina; Kebriaeezadeh, Abbas; Kia, Maryam; Esteghamati, Alireza

doi:10.1186/s12902-016-0116-8

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“… 30–60 In North America, 12 additional studies were carried out (25.5%) 61–72 and only 4 studies took place in Asian countries (n=4; 8.5%). 73–76 A pharmaceutical intervention was the diabetes-related intervention being assessed in the largest number of studies (n=18; 38.3%), 30 , 33 , 35–38 , 41 , 42 , 48–53 , 56 , 57 , 59–61 , 71–73 followed by healthcare educational or behavioural programmes (including physical advisory and nutritional programmes). 31 , 32 , 34 , 39 , 43 , 45–47 , 54 , 63 , 65 , 67 , 76 Only one study assessed a surgical intervention aimed at treating painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy using Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Rodríguez-Sánchez¹,

Aranda-Reneo²,

Oliva‐Moreno³

et al. 2021

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The economic burden of diabetes from a societal perspective is well documented in the cost-of-illness literature. However, the effect of considering social costs in the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions remains unknown. Objective To investigate whether the inclusion of social costs (productivity losses and/or informal care) might change the results and conclusions of economic evaluations of diabetes-related interventions. Methods A systematic review was designed and launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from the University of Tufts, from the year 2000 until 2018. Included studies had to fulfil the following criteria: i) being an original study published in a scientific journal, ii) being an economic evaluation of an intervention on diabetes, iii) including social costs, iv) being written in English, v) using quality-adjusted life years as outcome, and vi) separating the results according to the perspective applied. Results From the 691 records identified, 47 studies (6.8%) were selected. Productivity losses were included in 45 of the selected articles (73% used the human capital approach) whereas informal care costs in only 13 (when stated, the opportunity cost method was used in seven studies and the replacement cost in one). The 47 studies resulted in 110 economic evaluation estimations. The inclusion of social costs changed the conclusions in 8 estimations (17%), 6 of them switching from not cost-effective from the healthcare perspective to cost-effective or dominant from the societal perspective. Considering social costs altered the results from cost-effective to dominant in 9 estimations (19%). Conclusion When social costs are considered, the results and conclusions of economic evaluations performed in diabetes-related interventions can alter. Wide methodological variations have been observed, which limit the comparability of studies and advocate for the inclusion of a wider perspective via the consideration of social costs in economic evaluations and methodological guidelines relating to their estimation and valuation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 30 , 31 , 37 , 40–42 , 44 , 48–53 , 56 , 57 , 59 , 66–68 , 71 , 75 Shorter time horizons (of one year or less) were found in 10 of the 47 studies included in the review. 32–34 , 36 , 39 , 46 , 47 , 55 , 58 , 73 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Rodríguez-Sánchez¹,

Aranda-Reneo²,

Oliva‐Moreno³

et al. 2021

CEOR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ao identificar os principais esquemas terapêuticos de insulina prescritos na alta, identificou-se que os principais esquemas prescritos foram insulina NPH e associação entre NPH e Regular, representados, cada esquema, por 47.22% das prescrições. Isso condiz com o preconizado em documentos internacionais [1][2] Apesar da evidência de efetividade do uso de insulina em pacientes adultos diabéticos, esse esquemas são considerados complexos para entendimento em indivíduos idosos [35][36] . Ao analisar os dados comparativos entre os grupos que apresentaram ou não reinternação, identifica-se que em relação ao tempo de internação, o grupo 2 apresentou maior tempo médio quando comparado ao grupo 1.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Characterization of patients using insulin in a pharmacotherapeutic service and identification of hospital readmissions

Malta¹,

Costa²,

Machado³

et al. 2020

Rev Bras Farm Hosp Serv Saude

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To characterize patients with insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus (DM) accompanied by a PF service in a teaching hospital, as well as to identify the occurrence of hospital readmissions and associated factors. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study carried out in a general teaching hospital, being included patients above 18 years old, of both genders, with type 1 or 2 DM diagnosis were admitted from April 2015 to April 2016, accompanied by the Pharmaceutical Follow-up Service of the hospital, who used insulin during hospitalization and received indication for using this drug in the hospital discharge prescription. Data were collected through consultation in electronic medical records and telephone contact after the hospital discharge. Data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, with the patients subdivided into groups with and without readmission, followed by univariate analysis of associated factors by means of proportion comparison and logistic model with penalized likelihood. Results: Patients who were re-admitted had higher blood sugar values, fewer pharmaceutical interventions regarding insulin use, and longer average hospitalization time. The analysis of the association between variables and readmission did not present statistical significance. Conclusions: The study points out to weaknesses related to the offer of care to the patients under study, such as weaknesses in the coverage for offering actions related to health education in the periods before and after hospital discharge, difficulty in accessing the specialist physician and non-achievement of blood sugar measurement by some patients. There was no association between any of the analyzed variables and hospital readmission.

show abstract

“…The cost effectiveness of BIAsp 30 versus NPH insulin + regular human insulin for insulin-naïve patients with poorly controlled T2DM was estimated in a single-center RCT in Iran [ 44 ]. Direct and indirect costs were estimated over 48 weeks of treatment.…”

Section: Cost Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since clinical experience with biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) was reviewed in 2012 after 10 years of use worldwide, additional studies have been published that highlight new aspects, including use in real-world populations. Evidence from 35 new studies confirms and builds upon previous work indicating that BIAsp 30 continues to have pharmacodynamic and clinical advantages over biphasic human insulin (BHI 30), including in real-world practice with unselected populations of patients. BIAsp 30 has also been shown to be safe and efficacious as an add-on to dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors. Intensification with BIAsp 30 is a safe and effective way to improve glycemic control, and titration performed by patients can achieve results that are at least comparable to those when being guided by healthcare providers. Stepwise intensification using BIAsp 30 is comparable to intensification using a basal–bolus regimen, and twice-daily BIAsp 30 provides similar glycemic control to a basal-plus regimen. Data from large observational studies, in particular, have identified patient-related characteristics that are associated with improved clinical responses, suggesting that earlier initiation and intensification of therapy is warranted. Finally, new health-economic analyses continue to confirm that BIAsp 30 is cost effective versus other therapies such as BHI 30, neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH), or insulin glargine in both insulin-naïve and insulin-experienced patients. After 15 years of clinical use worldwide, analysis of more recent 5-year data indicates that BIAsp 30 remains a safe, effective, and simple-to-use insulin for initiation and intensification by diabetes specialists and primary care physicians in a variety of patients with T2DM.

show abstract

Biphasic insulin Aspart 30 vs. NPH plus regular human insulin in type 2 diabetes patients; a cost-effectiveness study

Cited by 8 publications

References 52 publications

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Assessing the Effect of Including Social Costs in Economic Evaluations of Diabetes-Related Interventions: A Systematic Review

Characterization of patients using insulin in a pharmacotherapeutic service and identification of hospital readmissions

15 Years of Experience with Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Type 2 Diabetes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About