Annie Nikolajsen

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve people with type 2 diabetes.

Abstract Aims: There is limited evidence with respect to the cost-effectiveness of starting insulin in people with diabetes outside the ‘western’ world. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of starting basal insulin treatment with insulin detemir in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on oral glucose-lowering drugs (OGLDs) in Mexico, South Korea, India, Indonesia, and Algeria. Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to project clinical and cost outcomes over a 30-year time horizon. Clinical outcomes, baseline characteristics and health state utility data were taken from the A1chieve study. A 1-year analysis was also conducted based on treatment costs and quality-of-life data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of GDP per capita, and WHO-CHOICE recommendations (ICER < 3.0) used to define cost-effectiveness. Results: Starting insulin detemir was associated with a projected increase in life expectancy (≥1 year) and was considered cost-effective in all of the studied populations with ICERs of −0.02 (Mexico), 0.00 (South Korea), 0.48 (India), 0.12 (Indonesia), and 0.88 (Algeria) GDP/quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was maintained after conducting sensitivity analyses in the 30-year and 1-year analyses. A projected increase in treatment costs was partially offset by a reduction in complications. The difference in overall costs between insulin detemir and OGLDs alone was USD518, 1431, 3510, 15, and 5219, respectively. Conclusion: Changes in clinical outcomes associated with starting insulin detemir in insulin-naïve individuals with T2D resulted in health gains that made the intervention cost-effective in five countries with distinct healthcare resources.

An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30, insulin glargine, or neutral protamine Hagedorn to biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with type 2 diabetes

Abstract Aims: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of switching from biphasic human insulin 30 (BHI), insulin glargine (IGlar), or neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin (all ± oral glucose-lowering drugs [OGLDs]) to biphasic insulin aspart 30 (BIAsp 30) in people with type 2 diabetes in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. Methods: The IMS CORE Diabetes Model was used to determine the clinical outcome, costs, and cost-effectiveness of switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 over a 30-year time horizon. A 1-year analysis was also performed based on quality-of-life data and treatment costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were expressed as a fraction of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, and cost-effectiveness was defined as ICER <3-times GDP per capita. Results: Switching treatment from BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 was associated with an increase in life expectancy of >0.7 years, reduction in all diabetes-related complications, and was considered as cost-effective or highly cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia (BHI to BIAsp 30, 0.26 in India, 1.25 in Indonesia, 0.01 in Saudi Arabia; IGlar to BIAsp 30, −0.68 in India, −0.21 in Saudi Arabia; NPH to BIAsp 30, 0.15 in India, −0.07 in Saudi Arabia; GDP per head per annum/quality-adjusted life-year). Cost-effectiveness was maintained in the 1-year analyses. Conclusions: Switching from treatment with BHI, IGlar, or NPH to BIAsp 30 (all ± OGLDs) was found to be cost-effective in India, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia, both in the long and short term.

Understanding Post-Prandial Hyperglycemia in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes: A Web-based Survey in Germany, the UK, and USA

IntroductionTo explore how patients with diabetes experience post-prandial hyperglycemia (PPH) or elevated blood glucose (BG) following a meal.MethodsA web-based survey of patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes using bolus insulin in Germany, the USA, and the UK was conducted.ResultsA total of 906 respondents completed the survey. PPH was a frequent occurrence among patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes; 61.9% of respondents had experienced PPH in the past week, and differences by diabetes type were not significant. More than half of the respondents reported that they knew they were experiencing PPH because they had measured their BG (64.8%) and/or because they “just didn’t feel right” (51.9%). The most frequently reported reasons given for PPH were eating more fat/sugar than estimated (31.2%) and over-eating in terms of their calculated bolus insulin dose (30.4%). The most common situations/factors contributing to PPH were stress (27.4%), eating at a restaurant (24.9%), being busy (21.1%), and/or feeling tired (19.2%). The most frequent corrective actions respondents took following PPH were testing BG and taking bolus insulin based on the reading (62.0%), and/or eating less/more carefully at their next meal or snack (18.8%). Additionally, significant differences in the reasons and contributing factors given for PPH and corrective actions following PPH, as well as emotions experienced when taking bolus insulin, were found by diabetes type.ConclusionThese findings shed light on how patients with diabetes experience and manage PPH on a day-to-day basis and have implications for improving diabetes self-management. Clinicians and diabetes educators should help patients address eating habits and lifestyle issues that may contribute to PPH.FundingThis study was sponsored by Novo Nordisk.

Understanding bolus insulin dose timing: the characteristics and experiences of people with diabetes who take bolus insulin

Abstract Objective: Despite the increased popularity of newer, fast-acting bolus insulin treatment options that allow for more flexibility in the timing of bolus insulin dosing in recent years, relatively little is known about people with diabetes who administer bolus insulin at differing times in relation to their meals. The purpose of this study was to investigate bolus insulin dose timing in relation to meals among people with type 1 (T1D) and type 2 (T2D) diabetes, as well as to better understand the characteristics and experiences of people who bolus dose at differing times. Methods: A web-based survey of adults with T1D and T2D treated with bolus insulin therapy in Germany, the UK, and USA was conducted. Results: A total of 906 respondents completed the survey (39% T1D; 61% T2D). A majority of respondents reported bolus dosing before meals in the previous week (57.0%), followed by after meals (18.9%), with meals (12.7%), and at varying times (11.5%). Compared to respondents who dosed with or after meals, those who dosed before meals were significantly less likely to experience hypoglycemia (before, 55.7%; with, 72.8%; after, 68.7%; p < .001) in the previous week. Respondents who bolus dosed before meals were significantly more likely to perceive bolus dose timing as flexible (45.5%) compared to those who dosed with (27.8%) or after (35.7%) meals (p < .001). Conclusion: Results show that many people with T1D and T2D dose their bolus insulin with or after meals. Key limitations of all self-report surveys include potential bias in responses and generalizability of findings. However, the study was designed to help mitigate these limitations. The findings have implications for clinicians and suggest opportunities for improving diabetes education and care.

Short-term cost-effectiveness of insulin detemir and insulin aspart in people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia

Abstract Objective: Based on the data of the HypoAna trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00346996), a short-term cost–effectiveness analysis was conducted comparing an all insulin analogue regimen with an all human insulin regimen in people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia. Methods: Clinical data from the HypoAna trial and Danish cost data related to the treatment of severe hypoglycemia were used to populate a 1-year cost–effectiveness analysis. Hypoglycemia quality-of-life data were based on previously published utility values, used to calculate the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the analysis. The main outcome measure was the incremental cost–effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The insulin analogue regimen was associated with greater total costs compared with the human insulin regimen (20,418 DKK [1972 GBP] vs. 18,558 DKK [1793 GBP], respectively), primarily driven by the difference in insulin costs. Total costs for corrective actions for hypoglycemic events, however, were lower in the insulin analogue group (927 DKK [89 GBP]) compared with the human insulin group (1311 DKK [127 GBP]), primarily due to a lower event rate. QALYs were higher with insulin analogues vs. human insulin (difference 0.0672). The resulting ICER was 27,685 DKK (2674 GBP) per QALY gained, which is well below the generally accepted cost–effectiveness threshold. Conclusions: The analysis shows that treating people with type 1 diabetes who are prone to recurrent severe hypoglycemia with an insulin analogue regimen is cost-effective compared with a human insulin regimen.

Patients' with type 2 diabetes willingness to pay for insulin therapy and clinical outcomes

Objectives This study assessed patient preferences, using willingness to pay as a method to measure different treatment characteristics or attributes associated with injectable insulin therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Research design and methods Adults with type 2 diabetes in 12 countries, diagnosed >6 months prior and receiving insulin for >3 months, were recruited through a representative online panel. Data were collected via online questionnaire and analyzed using a standard choice model for discrete choice experiment. Results A total of 3758 patients from North America (n=646), South America (n=1537), and Europe (n=1575) completed the study. Mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels in North America, South America, and Europe were 63 mmol/mol (7.9%), 75 mmol/mol (9.0%), and 64 mmol/mol (8.0%), respectively. In the three regions, monthly willingness to pay was US

Postprandial glucose and healthcare resource use: a cross-sectional survey of adults with diabetes treated with basal-bolus insulin

116, US

Towards a better understanding of postprandial hyperglycemic episodes in people with diabetes: impact on daily functioning

74, and US

Investigating the Evidence of the Real-Life Impact of Acute Hyperglycaemia

92, respectively, for a 1%-point decrease in HbA1c; US

The Economic Burden of Post-prandial Hyperglycemia (PPH) Among People with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in Three Countries

99, US