Liebl, A and Seitz, L and Palmer, AJ, Health economics analysis of insulin aspart vs. regular human insulin in Type 2 Diabetes patients, based on observational real life evidence from general practices in Germany, Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology & Diabetes, 122, (9) pp. 517-522. ISSN 0947-7349 (2014) [Refereed Article]
Methods: A decision analysis model was developed utilizing 3-year initial MVE rates for each comparator, combined with published German-specific insulin and MVE costs and health utilities to calculate number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid any MVE, incremental costs and QALYs gained/ person for IA vs. RHI. A 3-year time horizon and German 3rd-party payer perspective were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed, sampling from distributions of key parameters. Additional sensitivity analyses were performed.
Results: NNT over a 3 year period to avoid any MVE was 8 patients for IA vs. RHI. Due to lower MVE rates, IA dominated RHI with 0.020 QALYs gained (95% confidence interval: 0.014-0.025) and cost savings of EUR 1 556 (1 062-2 076)/person for IA vs. RHI over the 3-year time horizon. Sensitivity analysis revealed that IA would still be overall cost saving even if the cost of IA was double the cost/unit of RHI.
Conclusions: From a health economics perspective, IA was the superior alternative for the insulin treatment of type 2 diabetes, with lower incidence of MVE events translating to improved QALYs and lower costs vs. RHI within a 3-year time horizon.
|Item Type:||Refereed Article|
|Keywords:||health economics, costs, insulin, Germany, diabetes, cardiovascular disease|
|Research Group:||Applied economics|
|Research Field:||Health economics|
|Objective Group:||Evaluation of health and support services|
|Objective Field:||Evaluation of health outcomes|
|UTAS Author:||Palmer, AJ (Professor Andrew Palmer)|
|Web of Science® Times Cited:||3|
|Deposited By:||Menzies Institute for Medical Research|
Repository Staff Only: item control page