Cost-effectiveness of detemir-based basal/bolus therapy versus NPH-based basal/bolus therapy for type 1 diabetes in a UK setting: an economic analysis based on meta-analysis results of four clinical trials

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Background: A meta-analysis of results from four clinical trials in type 1 diabetes patients showed that insulin detemir (IDet)-based basal/bolus treatment of type 1 diabetes led to improved HbA1c (0.15%-points lower), reduced risk of major hypoglycaemic events (by 2%) and reduction in body mass index (BMI) (0.26kg/m2) compared to protamine Hagedorn human (NPH) insulin-based basal/bolus therapy in type 1 patients. Methods: A published, validated, peer-reviewed Markov simulation model (the CORE Diabetes Model) projected short-term results obtained from the fixed-effects (weighted average) meta-analysis to long-term incidence of complications, improvements in quality-adjusted life years (QALY), long-term costs and the cost-effectiveness for IDet combinations versus NPH combinations in type 1 diabetes patients. Probabilities of complications and HbA1c-dependent adjustments were derived from the DCCT and other studies. Costs of treating complications in the UK were retrieved from published sources. Total direct costs (complications + treatment costs) for each arm were projected over patient lifetimes from a UK National Heath Service perspective. Both costs and clinical outcomes were discounted at 3.5% annually. Results: Improved glycaemic control, decreased hypoglycaemic events and BMI with IDet-based basal/bolus therapy led to fewer diabetes-related complications, an increase in quality-adjusted life expectancy of 0.09 years, increased total lifetime costs/patient of £1707 and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £19,285 per QALY gained. Results were stable under a wide range of reasonable assumptions. Conclusions: Short-term improvements seen with IDet combinations versus NPH combinations led to decreased complications, improvements in QALYs and reductions in complication costs, which partially offset the additional costs of detemir, leading to a cost-effectiveness ratio which fell within a range considered to represent excellent value for money (< £35,000/QALY gained).