“…(16) The results of our economic analysis are in line with the findings from some of these previously published cost-utility analyses, which found that iDet was cost effective compared to iNPH (ICERs: £2,500, £3,443, £9,526, £12,989 and £19,285 per QALY gained), (18;20;42-44) iGlarg was cost effective compared to iNPH (ICERs: £3,496 -£4,978, £3,189 -£9-767 and £10,903 per QALY gained), (45)(46)(47) and one study finding that iDet was dominant (less costly and more effective) over iGlarg. (44) However, this last analysis and ours conflict with that of Cameron and colleagues, (16) which concluded that iGlarg dominated iDet. This is likely to be due to two main reasons.…”