Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes from a Danish Health-Care Perspective

Evans, Marc; Gundgaard, Jens; Hansen, Birgit Sehested

doi:10.1007/s13300-016-0195-6

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Participants in the IDegAsp group also required lower pre‐breakfast and pre‐main evening meal insulin doses than those in the BIAsp 30 group by the end of the trial, probably as a result of these differences in pharmacodynamic profiles and in line with results of previous global trials . This, and the lower incidence of hypoglycaemia observed, may imply economic benefits to IDegAsp twice‐daily treatment compared with BIAsp 30 twice‐daily treatment . Higher mean SMBG levels before bedtime in the IDegAsp group may be attributed to the lower mean pre‐main evening meal insulin dose taken compared with the BIAsp 30 group, although SMBG levels remained within the target range in both groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…This, and the lower incidence of hypoglycaemia observed, may imply economic benefits to IDegAsp twice-daily treatment compared with BIAsp 30 twice-daily treatment 32. Higher mean SMBG levels before bedtime in the IDegAsp group may be attributed to the lower mean pre-main evening meal insulin dose taken compared with the BIAsp 30 group, although SMBG levels remained within the target range in both groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open‐label, 2:1 randomized, treat‐to‐target trial

Yang

Ma²,

Hong

et al. 2019

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To assess the efficacy and safety of twice‐daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) twice daily, both ± metformin, in Chinese adults ( N = 543) with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on premixed/self‐mixed or basal insulin ± metformin. Materials and methods We conducted a 26‐week, phase III, open‐label, treat‐to‐target, 2:1 randomized trial. Hierarchical testing was used with non‐inferiority of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline to week 26 as the primary endpoint and superiority for the confirmatory secondary endpoints which were as follows: change from baseline in fasting plasma glucose (FPG); nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (12:01–5:59 am , inclusive); total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (severe or plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/L with/without symptoms); body weight; and percentage of responders (HbA1c <53 mmol/mol [<7.0%]) without confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes. Results Non‐inferiority for change from baseline to week 26 in HbA1c and superiority of IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily for change in FPG, nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes, was demonstrated. Estimated rates of nocturnal confirmed and total confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes were 47% and 43% lower, respectively, with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily. Superiority for change in body weight was not confirmed. Participants were more likely to reach the HbA1c goal of <53 mmol/mol (<7.0%) without confirmed hypoglycaemia with IDegAsp twice daily versus BIAsp 30 twice daily by trial end. No new safety signals were identified. Conclusions The efficacy and safety of IDegAsp in Chinese patients with T2D was demonstrated, confirming results from international trials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open‐label, 2:1 randomized, treat‐to‐target trial

Yang

Ma²,

Hong

et al. 2019

Diabetes Obesity Metabolism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A cost-effectiveness comparison of IDegAsp with BIAsp 30 has been performed. Earlier, Marc Evans conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of IDegAsp compared with BIAsp 30 by using a simple and transparent short-term model in Denmark ( 33 ). Similar to our study, this short-term cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrates that IDegAsp is a cost-effective option compared with BIAsp 30 for T2DM patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Luo

Li²,

Zhou³

et al. 2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo evaluate the long-term cost effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) vs. biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) inadequately managed on basal insulin in China.MethodsThe CORE (the Center for Outcomes Research) Diabetes Model, which has been published and verified, was used to simulate disease progression and calculate the total direct medical costs, life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 30 years, from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The patient demographic information and clinical data needed for the model were gathered from a phase III treat-to-target clinical trial (NCT02762578) and other Chinese cohort studies. Medical costs on treating diabetes were calculated based on clinical trial and local sources. The diabetes management and complications costs were derived from published literature. A discounting rate of 5% was applied to both health and cost outcomes. And one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the reliability of the results.ResultsCompared with BIAsp 30, treatment with IDegAsp was associated with an incremental benefit of 0.001 LYs (12.439 vs. 12.438) and 0.280 QALYs (9.522 vs. 9.242) over a 30-year time horizon, and increased CNY (Chinese Yuan) 3,888 (390,152 vs. 386,264) for total costs. IDegAsp was cost-effective vs. BIAsp 30 therapy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CNY 13,886 per QALY gained. Results were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionCompared with BIAsp 30, IDegAsp was a cost-effective treatment option for people with T2DM with inadequate glycemic management on basal insulin in China.

show abstract

“…A short-term cost-effectiveness model showed that IDegAsp is a cost-effective treatment compared with BIAsp30 for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This result was driven by significant reductions in severe hypoglycaemia and lower insulin doses observed with IDegAsp versus BIAsp30 [65]. The cost-effectiveness of IDegLira (against basal bolus regimen, the addition of liraglutide, and up-titration of basal insulin) and IGlarLixi (against premixed insulin) was also shown in populations uncontrolled on basal insulin [66-68].…”

Section: Clinical Considerations With the Use Of Co-formulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Formulations as the First Injectable in Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Implications in Clinical Practice

John¹,

Gopinath²,

Oommen³

2020

Dubai Diabetes Endocrinol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Progression of type 2 diabetes will necessitate the use of injectable therapies in a significant number of people. Co-formulations of degludec with liraglutide (IDegLira) and glargine with lixisenatide (IGlarLixi) are currently recommended for intensification in people with type 2 diabetes on basal insulin or glucagon-like peptide receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) alone or in people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin with very high glycated haemoglobin. Co-formulation of aspart with degludec (IDegAsp) is recommended as a substitute for premixed insulin. The aim of this article is to review the evidence in the use of co-formulations as the first injectable in type 2 diabetes and its clinical implications. Summary: In people with type 2 diabetes who are naïve to insulin or GLP-1RA, IDegLira and IGlarLixi achieved stable and durable glycaemic control over a wide range of baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels. People on IDegLira and IGlarLixi had lesser risk of hypoglycaemia and weight gain in studies compared to basal insulin and lesser gastrointestinal adverse effects in comparison to GLP-1RA. IDegAsp achieved similar glycaemic control to basal and premixed insulin with lesser risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Key Messages: IDegLira, IGlarLixi, and IDegAsp can be used as the first injectable in people with type 2 diabetes with very high glycated haemoglobin on oral antidiabetic drugs. These co-formulations combine efficacy and durability with lesser injection burden. The components of these agents have proven cardiovascular and renal safety. Their limitations in flexibility of dosing, renal and cardiovascular considerations, and adverse effects are discussed.

show abstract

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart Versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes from a Danish Health-Care Perspective

Cited by 5 publications

References 36 publications

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open‐label, 2:1 randomized, treat‐to‐target trial

Efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 in Chinese adults with type 2 diabetes: A phase III, open‐label, 2:1 randomized, treat‐to‐target trial

Cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec/insulin aspart versus biphasic insulin aspart in Chinese population with type 2 diabetes

Co-Formulations as the First Injectable in Type 2 Diabetes: A Review of Efficacy, Safety, and Implications in Clinical Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About