Barrie Chubb

Flexible insulin dosing improves health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL): a time trade-off survey

Abstract Purpose: People with insulin-treated diabetes often face strict regimens with inflexible dose timing, frequent injections, and frequent self-measured blood glucose (SMBG) testing. The objective of this study was to estimate the health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) impact of these aspects using time trade-off (TTO) methods. Methods: HRQoL was examined via a TTO survey in the UK, Canada, and Sweden with separate analyses of 2465 respondents from the general population, 274 people with type 1 diabetes, and 417 people with type 2 diabetes. Respondents evaluated health states with diabetes, SMBG testing, and basal injections that were once-daily time flexible, once-daily at a fixed time, and twice-daily at a fixed time in a basal or basal–bolus regimen. Results: Time-flexible basal injections were associated with 0.016 and 0.013 higher utility vs a fixed time of injection for basal-only and basal–bolus regimens, respectively, as evaluated by the general population. The diabetes respondents confirmed the basal-only results with 0.015 higher utility, but the difference in utility was non-significant for basal–bolus. Once-daily injections had higher utility compared with twice-daily injections for basal (0.039 and 0.042) and basal–bolus (0.022 and 0.021) regimens, as evaluated by the general population and people with diabetes, respectively. Increased frequency of SMBG negatively affected health utility. Limitations: This study has the limitation that it measures hypothetical health states rather than the HRQoL of people with these health states; furthermore, it could be suggested that the web-based nature of this survey is biased towards literate respondents with internet access and IT competence. Conclusions: Flexible dosing and fewer injections have a positive HRQoL impact, which potentially may enhance therapy adherence and could contribute to improved long-term outcomes. The impact of flexibility is greater in people treated with basal-only insulin regimens, and diminishes if bolus injections are part of the treatment regimen.

Cost‐effectiveness of insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes treated with basal insulin – from the UK health care cost perspective

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine (IGlar) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who are considered appropriate for treatment with a basal insulin analogue, using a short‐term economic model.

Descriptions of health states associated with increasing severity and frequency of hypoglycemia: a patient-level perspective.

Aims We sought to develop descriptions of health states associated with daytime and nocturnal hypoglycemia in a structured fashion from the patient’s perspective under different combinations of severity and frequency of hypoglycemic events. Methods An expert meeting followed by two patient focus groups was used to develop comprehensive descriptions of acute consequences of severe and non-severe, daytime and nocturnal hypoglycemia. Patients with diabetes (type 1 = 85, type 2 = 162) from a survey panel then validated these descriptions and assessed how often they worried and took different actions to prevent hypoglycemia. Severity and frequency of hypoglycemia were compared with respect to how often people worried and took actions to prevent an event. The effect of hypoglycemia on 35 different life activities was quantitatively compared for patients who had and had not experienced a severe hypoglycemic event. Results At least 95% of respondents agreed that the detailed patient-level descriptions of health states accurately reflected their experience of severe and non-severe, daytime and nocturnal hypoglycemia, thereby validating these descriptions. Respondents who had experienced a severe hypoglycemic event were generally more adversely affected in their worries and actions and life events than those who experienced only non-severe events; those who experienced nocturnal events were more affected than those who experienced only daytime events. Conclusion The negative psychosocial consequences and undesirable compensatory behaviors arising from hypoglycemia underscore the importance of preventing severe episodes, particularly severe nocturnal episodes. These validated descriptions for hypoglycemia from the patient’s perspective may also help inform future qualitative and quantitative research.

Approach to assessing the economic impact of insulin‐related hypoglycaemia using the novel Local Impact of Hypoglycaemia Tool

To provide estimates of the costs of severe and non‐severe insulin‐related hypoglycaemia in the UK using the Local Impact of Hypoglycaemia Tool.

Hypoglycaemia in adults with insulin‐treated diabetes in the UK: self‐reported frequency and effects

Few real‐life studies of non‐severe (self‐treated) hypoglycaemic events are available. This survey quantified the self‐reported frequency of non‐severe hypoglycaemia and its effects in adults with insulin‐treated diabetes in the UK.

Cost-effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine in Adults with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

IntroductionTo estimate the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec (IDeg) versus insulin glargine U100 (IGlar U100) and new-to-market basal insulin analogues in patients with diabetes in order to aid decision-making in a complex basal insulin market.MethodsA simple, short-term model was used to evaluate the costs and effects of treatment with IDeg versus IGlar U100 over a 12-month period in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM) from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. New-to-market basal insulin analogues were evaluated in scenario analyses.ResultsIDeg is dominant (more effective and less costly) versus IGlar U100 in patients with T1DM and patients with T2DM on a basal-only therapy regimen (T2DMBOT), and is cost-effective versus IGlar U100 in patients with T2DM on a basal-bolus regimen (T2DMB/B). In T1DM, lower costs are primarily driven by lower insulin costs, as a result of a lower daily dose of IDeg. In T2DMBOT, lower overall costs with IDeg are driven by lower costs of severe hypoglycaemic events due to the significant reduction in number of events with IDeg versus IGlar U100. Improvements in clinical outcomes in all three patient groups are a result of the reduced incidence of hypoglycaemic events. Sensitivity analyses demonstrate that the results are robust. Scenario analyses versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues indicate that in patients with T1DM and T2DMBOT, IDeg is likely to be highly cost-effective versus IGlar biosimilar Abasaglar® and dominant versus IGlar U300 (Toujeo®). In T2DMB/B, IDeg is likely to be cost-effective versus both comparators, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) below the accepted threshold.ConclusionIDeg is a cost-effective alternative to IGlar U100 for patients with diabetes in the UK, and it also likely to be cost-effective versus two new-to-market basal insulin analogues.

Frequency of blood glucose testing among insulin-treated diabetes mellitus patients in the United Kingdom.

Abstract Background: Through a retrospective database analysis, this study seeks to provide an understanding of the utilization of SMBG by insulin therapy and diabetes type and to estimate healthcare costs of blood glucose monitoring in the UK diabetes population. Methods: Data were obtained from the IMS LifeLink Electronic Medical Record-Europe (EMR-EU) Database, a longitudinal database containing anonymized patient records from physician–practice data systems of office-based physicians in the UK. Depending on the insulin types used for type 1 and type 2 diabetes, patients were sub-categorized into one of four insulin regimen groups (basal, bolus, pre-mixed, or basal-bolus). Frequency of blood glucose testing was assessed descriptively throughout the 12-month post-index period, and generalized linear models were used to evaluate the effect of baseline characteristics, including insulin type, on the likelihood of blood glucose test utilization. Healthcare resource utilization and costs for all-cause services were assessed by insulin type. Results: This study identified 8322 type 1 and type 2 diabetes patients with two insulin pharmacy records between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010. After applying study inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 2676 (32.2%) insulin-treated diabetes mellitus patients in the UK were identified, with the number of pharmacy blood glucose test strips averaging 771.1 (median 600). The glucose testing frequency was lowest among basal-only insulin patients and pre-mixed insulin patients (mean = 576.2 [median = 450] and mean = 599.5 [median = 500], respectively; non-significantly different) compared to other insulin types. Conclusion: Although the data did not capture the glucose frequency comprehensively, it varied significantly by insulin types, and was higher than what is recommended in the guidelines for patients with type 2 diabetes.

Development and validation of a cost–utility model for Type 1 diabetes mellitus†

To develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost‐effectiveness of new interventions for Type 1 diabetes mellitus by their effects on long‐term complications (measured through mean HbA1c) while capturing the impact of treatment on hypoglycaemic events.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec Versus Insulin Glargine U100 in Patients with Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Serbia

IntroductionThis study investigates the cost-effectiveness of insulin degludec versus insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Serbia.MethodsA cost-utility analysis, implementing a simple short-term model, was used to compare treatment costs and outcomes with degludec versus glargine U100 in patients with type 1 (T1DM) and type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Cost-effectiveness was analysed in a 1-year setting, based on data from clinical trials. Costs were estimated from the healthcare payer perspective, the Serbian Health Insurance Fund (RFZO). The outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) or cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsDegludec is highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100 for people with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. The ICERs are estimated at 417,586 RSD/QALY gained in T1DM, 558,811 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal oral therapy (T2DMBOT) and 1,200,141 RSD/QALY gained in T2DM on basal-bolus therapy (T2DMB/B). All ICERs fall below the commonly accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness in Serbia (1,785,642 RSD/QALY gained). In all three patient groups, insulin costs are higher with degludec than with glargine U100, but these costs are partially offset by savings from a lower daily insulin dose in T1DM and T2DMBOT, a reduction in hypoglycaemic events in all three patient groups and reduced costs of SMBG testing in the T2DM groups with degludec versus glargine U100.ConclusionDegludec is a cost-effective alternative to glargine U100 for patients with T1DM and T2DM in Serbia. Degludec may particularly benefit those suffering from hypoglycaemia or where the patient would benefit from the option of flexible dosing.FundingNovo Nordisk.

Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Degludec vs. Insulin Glargine U100 in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in a UK Setting

BackgroundUnderstanding which therapeutic innovations in diabetes represent the best value requires rigorous economic evaluation. Data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies indicate that insulin degludec has a hypoglycemia advantage versus insulin glargine 100 units/mL (glargine U100), the most widely prescribed basal insulin analogue in the UK. This analysis was done to more rigorously assess cost-effectiveness in a UK setting.MethodsData from two double-blinded, randomised, two-period crossover trials in type 1 (SWITCH 1) and type 2 (SWITCH 2) diabetes mellitus were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of degludec vs. glargine U100 with an economic model. Cost-effectiveness was analysed over a 1-year time horizon based on the different rates of hypoglycaemia and actual doses of insulin used, rather than glycaemic control due to the treat-to-target trial design.ResultsIn type 1 diabetes mellitus, degludec was highly cost-effective compared with glargine U100, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £984 (increased costs of only £23/year and improvement in participant health of 0.0232 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)). In type 2 diabetes mellitus, it was estimated that quality of life was improved (0.0065 QALYs gain) with degludec compared with glargine U100 at an increased annual cost of £117 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £17,939). One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust to changes in parameters in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsThe rigorous design of the SWITCH trials, coupled with a representative patient population and a definition of hypoglycaemia that is relevant for real-world patients, makes the results of these trials highly generalisable. The within-trial analysis has the added value of being able to include doses and event rates directly from the trials. This short-term economic analysis estimated that IDeg would be cost-effective relative to IGlar U100 in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.Trial RegistrationSWITCH 1 (NCT02034513); SWITCH 2 (NCT02030600).FundingNovo Nordisk, Søborg, Denmark.