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

Luo, Qijun; Li, Zhou; Zhou, Nina; Hu, Ming

doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.1016937

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The fluctuation of blood glucose, especially the occurrence of postprandial hyperglycemia, can promote the occurrence of oxidative stress injury and increase the risk of atherosclerosis ( 25 , 26 ). Hypoglycemia is a common adverse reaction during insulin therapy, which can increase the risk of various adverse outcomes such as vascular events and cognitive dysfunction ( 27 , 28 ). The occurrence of nocturnal hypoglycemia can often lead to neurological and cardiovascular damage due to untimely intervention, and in severe cases, it can lead to death ( 29 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Niu,

Zhang,

Song

et al. 2024

ijph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We systematically reviewed and analyzed the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) versus biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: We used computers to search the Embase, PubMed, Clinical Trials, and the Cochrane Library database, and collected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the treatment of IDegAsp versus BIAsp 30 in T2D patients. The research period was from the establishment of the database to May 19, 2023. We used Review Manager 5.20 statistical software for systematic meta-analysis. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 2281 participants. IDegAsp was better to BIAsp30 in improving fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (P<0.001) and reducing the endpoint daily average insulin dose (P<0.01). Furthermore, compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp significantly reduced the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events (P<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the improvement of body weight change (P=0.99), glycosylated hemoglobin (P=0.50), the overall risk of hypoglycemic events (P=0.57) and adverse events (P=0.89) between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared with BIAsp30, IDegAsp could significantly reduce FPG levels, insulin dosage, and the risk of nocturnal hypoglycemic events in T2D patients, without increasing the overall risk of adverse events.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Niu,

Zhang,

Song

et al. 2024

ijph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Luo et al compared biphasic insulin aspart (BIAsp) 30 and IDegAsp strategy and found an incremental benefit of 0.0001 LYs (12.439 for BIAsp 30 versus 12.438 for IDegAsp), a 0.280 QALYs gain (9.522 versus 9.242) over a 30-year period, and an ICER of Chinese Yuan (CNY) 13.886/QALY for the IDegAsp strategy [40].…”

Section: Quality Appraisalmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Insulin for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Gkrinia,

Faour,

Belančić

et al. 2023

Diabetology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diabetes is a chronic, metabolic disease characterized by hyperglycemia, which occurs as a result of inadequate production or utilization of insulin. Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is the most common type of diabetes with estimates projecting a prevalence of more than 1 billion people living with T2DM by 2050. Hence, it was decided to conduct a systematic literature review of health economic evaluations of insulin, the most common medication used for the treatment of the disease, to inform policy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, written in English and published after 2016, were considered for inclusion. PubMed/Medline, Global Health, Embase and Health Management Consortium were searched separately between 5 July 2023 and 17 July 2023. Grey literature articles were searched on ISPOR and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry during the same period. After the exclusion criteria were applied, 21 studies were included. Using the BMJ checklist, a quality appraisal was performed on all included studies. Data extraction was performed manually. Regarding evidence synthesis, data were heterogenous and are presented based on study type. The results showed a variety of treatment combinations being available for the treatment of diabetes, with insulin degludec/DegLira and semaglutide being cost-effective despite their high cost, due to the effectiveness of managing the disease. Research around the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of insulin has potential to progress further, to ensure informed policy-making in the future.

show abstract

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

Pesonen,

Jylhä,

Kankaanpää

2024

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this review was to examine the role of adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by pharmacological interventions in cost-effectiveness models for diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema. Introduction: Guidelines for economic evaluation recognize the importance of including ADEs in the analysis, but in practice, consideration of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models seem to be vague. Inadequate inclusion of these harmful outcomes affects the reliability of the results, and the information provided by economic evaluation could be misleading. Reviewing whether and how ADEs are incorporated in cost-effectiveness models is necessary to understand the current practices of economic evaluation. Inclusion criteria: Studies included were published between 2011–2022 in English, representing cost-effectiveness analyses using modeling framework for pharmacological interventions in the treatment of diabetes mellitus, diabetic retinopathy, or diabetic macular edema. Other types of analyses and other types of conditions were excluded. Methods: The databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database. Gray literature was searched via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment. The search was conducted on January 1, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Full-text review was conducted by 3 independent reviewers. A data extraction form was used to extract and analyze the data. Results were presented in tabular format with a narrative summary, and discussed in the context of existing literature and guidelines. Results: A total of 242 reports were extracted and analyzed in this scoping review. For the included analyses, type 2 diabetes was the most common disease (86%) followed by type 1 diabetes (10%), diabetic macular edema (9%), and diabetic retinopathy (0.4%). The majority of the included analyses used a health care payer perspective (88%) and had a time horizon of 30 years or more (75%). The most common model type was a simulation model (57%), followed by a Markov simulation model (18%). Of the included cost-effectiveness analyses, 26% included ADEs in the modeling, and 13% of the analyses excluded them. Most of the analyses (61%) partly considered ADEs; that is, only 1 or 2 ADEs were included. No difference in overall inclusion of ADEs between the different conditions existed, but the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema more often omitted the ADE-related impact on quality of life compared with the models for diabetes mellitus. Most analyses included ADEs in the models as probabilities (55%) or as a submodel (40%), and the most common source for ADE incidences were clinical trials (65%). Conclusions: The inclusion of ADEs in cost-effectiveness models is suboptimal. The ADE-related costs were better captured than the ADE-related impact on quality of life, which was most pronounced in the models for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema. Future research should investigate the potential impact of ADEs on the results, and identify the criteria and policies for practical inclusion of ADEs in economic evaluation.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 29 publications

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Efficacy and Safety of Insulin Degludec/Insulin Aspart versus Biphasic Insulin Aspart 30 in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations of Insulin for the Management of Type 2 Diabetes

Adverse drug events in cost-effectiveness models of pharmacological interventions for diabetes, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic macular edema: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About